Bailiff ANPR vehicles

[johno1066]

I was incensed to learn that Bailiff Companies are still using their own ANPR databases in order to identify vehicles that have unpaid penalty charge notices against them. Often these vehicles are then removed from the Highway (unlawfully) as a result of that database. I'm intrigued as to how Bailiff Companies obtain the vehicle registration numbers (indexes) of these vehicles.

[lamma]

From the council.

[green_and_mean]

I'm intrigued as to how Bailiff Companies obtain the vehicle registration numbers (indexes) of these vehicles.

 

Its not exactly rocket science to work it out is it, since they are collecting on behalf of the Council who have the vehicle VRM.

[johno1066]

Its not exactly rocket science to work it out is it, since they are collecting on behalf of the Council who have the vehicle VRM.

 

 

Isn't it Kent Council you're with?

[green_and_mean]

Isn't it Kent Council you're with?

 

It would be a very long commute, lol!!

[Michael Browne]

In total, there are 433 local authorities in the UK.... only 432 to go:)

[tomtubby]

I was incensed to learn that Bailiff Companies are still using their own ANPR databases in order to identify vehicles that have unpaid penalty charge notices against them. Often these vehicles are then removed from the Highway (unlawfully) as a result of that database. I'm intrigued as to how Bailiff Companies obtain the vehicle registration numbers (indexes) of these vehicles.

 

Using Green & Means saying "it's not rocket science". In fact bailiffs know the vehicle registration number because it is on the warrant of execution !!

 

Quite why or under what authority the VRN is allowed to be on a Warrant is simply beyond me.

 

Some local authorities report that they receive payment on approx 30% of warrants with some others like TfL stating that it is only about 15%.

 

The bailiffs "on the street"will return the warrants that they cant enforce back to their office. These will be warrants where the vehicle keeper had moved address or the address is incomplete or wrong address or postcode etc. The bailiff company will consider these warrants to be no longer recoverable and these are of interest to SELF EMPLOYED ANPR bailiffs.

 

With the recession, many bailiff companies prefer to use self employed ANPR owners/drivers as that way, they merely have to pay a commission.

 

Some bailiff companies RENT the ANPR vehicle to the bailiff on a weekly rental with some bailiffs jointly owning an ANPR vehicle. A self employer bailiff will simply contact the bailiff company OR the local authority and offer to take on their returned warrants for a commission.

 

As there is no fee to pay, the local authority or bailiff company are happy to pass the work over and all that this entails is for the bailiff to be provided with a MEMORY STICK with details of all outstanding warrants.

 

The memory stick (with out of date and inaccurate information) is then loaded onto his onboard computer and the ANPR operative will then drive around London streets, Bluewater and other super store car parks and they will be looking for the VEHICLE REGISTRATION NUMBER and NOT the vehicle keeper.

 

Just today I received complaints that 2 vehicles had been taken by such self employed ANPR bailiffs where the vehicles are owned by new owners who were unaware that PCN's were outstanding by the previous owner.

 

Oh...and on the matter of the Data Protection Act and the local authority passing on personal data that is out of date and inaccurate to a bailiff who is not registered as a Data Controller all I would say is.....watch this space!!!

[johno1066]

Thankyou TomTubby, clearly it's not as simplistic as 'some' would have us believe, thus the question.

 

Firstly, If the Bailiff Companies are using a third party, it would be interesting to learn whether those third parties are registered as data controllers in their own right, to not be so registered is a criminal offence and to process data while not being registered, is also a criminal offence.

 

Secondly, If they are removing vehicles from the Highway, then unless that vehicle is directly outside of the owners house, any levy on the public Highway would not only be unlawful, it would be criminal. Notwithstanding that, how many of these warrants are time expired?

 

Thirdly and lastly, Since when have Warrants of Execution been executable against a motorvehicle per se and how can that be so? What if the vehicle's been sold? Has the industry really sunk to such a level that Bailiffs are levying soley against a motor vehicle rather than the person??

 

If that is so, then it is scandalous.

Edited June 8, 2010 by johno1066

[green_and_mean]

Thankyou TomTubby, clearly it's not as simplistic as 'some' would have us believe, thus the question.

 

 

The answer to your question where do they get the registration numbers is very simple, what they then do with the numbers was not the question you asked.

[Dougal16T]

Morning all,

 

I just have this funny feeling..(it must be my age!..) that the use of ANPR vehicles by Civilian organisations (..in other words not the police/customs/Income tax/Army - Authorised and uniformed by Act of Parliament for Law enforcement) is unlawful.

 

I must read up on this...if nothing else I see a breach of the Human Rights Act...any thoughts anyone...or am I still crazy..(answers on a postcard).

 

Finally, if you take from someone something which is rightfully theirs without their express or implied consent then the offence of theft is committed.....

 

Best wishes as always

 

 

Dougal

[johno1066]

Morning all,

 

I just have this funny feeling..(it must be my age!..) that the use of ANPR vehicles by Civilian organisations (..in other words not the police/customs/Income tax/Army - Authorised and uniformed by Act of Parliament for Law enforcement) is unlawful.

 

I must read up on this...if nothing else I see a breach of the Human Rights Act...any thoughts anyone...or am I still crazy..(answers on a postcard).

 

Finally, if you take from someone something which is rightfully theirs without their express or implied consent then the offence of theft is committed.....

 

Best wishes as always

 

 

Dougal

 

 

Thanks for that Dougal, any further information would be very useful, especially in relation to ANPR, try the Information Commission too.

 

Interestingly enough (and it has been mentioned before), one of the oldest statutes (albeit much has been repealed), the Statute of Marlborough 1267, that what is left, is most interesting:

 

 

 

"I Of wrongful Distresses, or Defiances of the King’s Courts. Punishment for unlawful Distresses

Whereas at the time of a Commotion late stirred up within this Realm, and also sithence, many great Men, and divers other, [X1refusing to be justified] by the King and his Court, like as they ought and were wont in Time of the King’s noble Progenitors, and also in his Time; but took great Revenges and Distresses of their Neighbours, and of other, until they had Amends and Fines at their own Pleasure; and further, some of them [X2would not be justified] by the King’s Officers, nor [X3would] suffer them to make Delivery of such Distresses as they had taken of their own Authority (X4); It is Provided, agreed, and granted, that all Persons, as well of high as of low Estate, shall (X5) receive Justice in the King’s Court; and none from henceforth shall take any such Revenge or Distress of his own Authority, without Award of [X6our] Court, though he have Damage or Injury, whereby he would have amends of his Neighbour either higher or lower.

And upon the foresaid Article It is Provided and granted, that if any from henceforth take such Revenges of his own Authority, without Award of the King’s Court as before is said, and be convict thereof, he shall be punished by Fine, and that according to the Trespass; and likewise if one Neighbour take a Distress of another without Award of the King’s Court, whereby he hath Damage, he shall be punished in the same wise, and that after the Quantity of the Trespass; and nevertheless sufficient and full Amends shall be made to them that have sustained Loss by such Distresses."

 

XV In what Places Distresses shall not be taken

It shall be lawful for no Man from henceforth, for any manner of cause, to take Distresses out of his Fee, nor in the King’s Highway, nor in the common Street, but only to the King or his Officers, [having special authority to do the same.]

[green_and_mean]

Morning all,

 

I just have this funny feeling..(it must be my age!..) that the use of ANPR vehicles by Civilian organisations (..in other words not the police/customs/Income tax/Army - Authorised and uniformed by Act of Parliament for Law enforcement) is unlawful.

 

Total rubbish

 

I must read up on this...if nothing else I see a breach of the Human Rights Act...any thoughts anyone...or am I still crazy..(answers on a postcard).

 

What human right is being breached by reading a number plate?

 

Finally, if you take from someone something which is rightfully theirs without their express or implied consent then the offence of theft is committed.....

 

No its not have you read the Theft Act?

 

Best wishes as always

 

 

Dougal

 

If you have any facts to back up your claims then please feel free to share them.

[johno1066]

Dougal,

 

Don't concern yourself with the rude and spiteful character above, just ignore him; anything you can contribute, please feel free to post it so that it can be debated, it will be welcomed. Just remember when you are faced with the self-styled experts, that we have Higher Courts because lower Courts can often be wrong, we have lawyers who argue law because those laws aren't always clear or are open to interpretation, so feel free to contribute your way, if we are wrong then we can be informed in a considered and measured way.

[green_and_mean]

Dougal,

 

Don't concern yourself with the rude and spiteful character above; anything you can contribute, please feel free to post it so that it can be debated. Just remember when you are faced with the self-styled experts, that we have High Courts because lower Courts can often be wrong, we have lawyers who will argue law because those laws aren't always clear or are open to interpretation, so feel free to contribute your way.

 

I don't think it needs a High Court to decide that taking a car by a baliff is not theft.

 

Theft act 1968

 

Definition of “theft”

1. Basic definition of theft.

— (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

 

 

2. “Dishonestly”

— (1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest— (a)

if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or

 

(b)

if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

 

©

(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

[lamma]

Using Green & Means saying "it's not rocket science". In fact bailiffs know the vehicle registration number because it is on the warrant of execution !!

 

Quite why or under what authority the VRN is allowed to be on a Warrant is simply beyond me.

 

Some local authorities report that they receive payment on approx 30% of warrants with some others like TfL stating that it is only about 15%.

 

The bailiffs "on the street"will return the warrants that they cant enforce back to their office. These will be warrants where the vehicle keeper had moved address or the address is incomplete or wrong address or postcode etc. The bailiff company will consider these warrants to be no longer recoverable and these are of interest to SELF EMPLOYED ANPR bailiffs.

 

With the recession, many bailiff companies prefer to use self employed ANPR owners/drivers as that way, they merely have to pay a commission.

 

Some bailiff companies RENT the ANPR vehicle to the bailiff on a weekly rental with some bailiffs jointly owning an ANPR vehicle. A self employer bailiff will simply contact the bailiff company OR the local authority and offer to take on their returned warrants for a commission.

 

As there is no fee to pay, the local authority or bailiff company are happy to pass the work over and all that this entails is for the bailiff to be provided with a MEMORY STICK with details of all outstanding warrants.

 

The memory stick (with out of date and inaccurate information) is then loaded onto his onboard computer and the ANPR operative will then drive around London streets, Bluewater and other super store car parks and they will be looking for the VEHICLE REGISTRATION NUMBER and NOT the vehicle keeper.

 

Just today I received complaints that 2 vehicles had been taken by such self employed ANPR bailiffs where the vehicles are owned by new owners who were unaware that PCN's were outstanding by the previous owner.

 

Oh...and on the matter of the Data Protection Act and the local authority passing on personal data that is out of date and inaccurate to a bailiff who is not registered as a Data Controller all I would say is.....watch this space!!!

 

Holy Moley ! thats bad, very very bad.

[johno1066]

Holy Moley ! thats bad, very very bad.

 

Indeed it is, I wonder how many of the Bailiff Companies are operating like this? Tomtubby, have you spoken with the ICO about this? are there any examples of vehicles being taken after ownership has transferred from the previous owner who accrued the penalties/fines?

[Dougal16T]

If you have any facts to back up your claims then please feel free to share them.

 

And it's a good morning from me...

 

Simply these - as an ex-PC myself (now retired) I am almost certain that somewhere there are restrictions applying to the use of ANPR vehicles, my knowledge is not as great as others, so I could be wrong, although I don't think it is 'total rubbish' but thereagain my manners are better than that - it must have been my upbringing!

 

 

As for Human Rights, I am certainly no expert but my limited knowledge (unlike others), indicates to me that there is a right to privacy although how far reaching that right may be has yet to be fully tested in the Courts.

 

Finally as far as Theft goes it is no longer neccessary to prove intent - and that fact is available for all to read, however the actions of a suspect may be construed as being dishonest with regard to and consideration of the circumstances of the offence.

 

I always acknowledge those whose teaching and experience are invaluable - although in this case that does not appear to apply.

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

[tomtubby]

Indeed it is, I wonder how many of the Bailiff Companies are operating like this? Tomtubby, have you spoken with the ICO about this? are there any examples of vehicles being taken after ownership has transferred from the previous owner who accrued the penalties/fines?

 

Correspondence is ongoing as we speak with the Information Commissioners Office.

 

Yesterday I heard of two vehicles being removed from the streets after being located by an ANPR vehicle and in both cases the vehicles has been recently purchased and this morning received an enquiry from a member of the public who was forced to pay an ANPR bailiff £780 for a PCN that was issued to the previous owner.

 

This problem is WIDESPREAD and OUT OF CONTROL.

[johno1066]

Correspondence is ongoing as we speak with the Information Commissioners Office.

 

Yesterday I heard of two vehicles being removed from the streets after being located by an ANPR vehicle and in both cases the vehicles has been recently purchased and this morning received an enquiry from a member of the public who was forced to pay an ANPR bailiff £780 for a PCN that was issued to the previous owner.

 

This problem is WIDESPREAD and OUT OF CONTROL.

 

 

If you have the names of the third party Bailiffs then you could search them on the ICO database . The question would be whether the Bailiff Company registration would entitle a third party or agent to procure information under their registration, I don't believe it would as they would need to be data controllers in their own right but I will check.

Edited June 8, 2010 by johno1066

[green_and_mean]

And it's a good morning from me...

 

Simply these - as an ex-PC myself (now retired) I am almost certain that somewhere there are restrictions applying to the use of ANPR vehicles, my knowledge is not as great as others, so I could be wrong, although I don't think it is 'total rubbish' but thereagain my manners are better than that - it must have been my upbringing!

 

Where are these restrictions

 

As for Human Rights, I am certainly no expert but my limited knowledge (unlike others), indicates to me that there is a right to privacy although how far reaching that right may be has yet to be fully tested in the Courts.

 

How is a computer reading number plates and comparing them to a list of 'wanted' vehicles any different to a baliff reading your number plate and checking it with a list written on a pad? I can walk down my street today and read all my neighbours number plates and if I am really bored photograph their cars is that a breach of their human rights? Maybe plane spotters are breaching the human rights of the pilots and should be thrown in jail.

 

Finally as far as Theft goes it is no longer neccessary to prove intent - and that fact is available for all to read, however the actions of a suspect may be construed as being dishonest with regard to and consideration of the circumstances of the offence.

 

Why do we still have TWOC as an offence if intent to keep the vehicle is not required? The Theft act has not been repealled and you would have to prove that the baliff did not beleive he had a legal right to impound the vehicle to prove 'dishonesty'. If taking any vehicle without consent was theft then the DVLA, Police and anyone else who takes part in vehicle removals would be guilty so your statement that taking a car without the consent of the owner is theft is ridiculous bearing in mind it is permitted by statute.

 

I always acknowledge those whose teaching and experience are invaluable - although in this case that does not appear to apply.

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

 

[johno1066]

And it's a good morning from me...

 

 

As for Human Rights, I am certainly no expert but my limited knowledge (unlike others), indicates to me that there is a right to privacy although how far reaching that right may be has yet to be fully tested in the Courts.

 

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

 

I would agree and goes back to an earlier point of how such data is processed and whether it is processed legally. Obviously, if persons who are not registered to be data-controllers are taking people's vehicles when using that data, then it is likely such action is not only a criminal offence but would be ultra-vires as a result. I would be inclined to pursue a notion that the Bailiff Company would be breaching a duty of care to the vehicle owner by providing data to an person who is not registered.

 

a few interesting links:

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/privacy_and_security_in_road_pricing.pdf

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/corporate/notices/release_of_vehicle_keeper_data_from_uk_vehicle_registers.pdf

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/pressreleases/2008/annual_report_2008_rt_speech.pdf

Edited June 8, 2010 by johno1066

[tomtubby]

If you have the names of the third party Bailiffs then you could search them on the ICO database . The question would be whether the Bailiff Company registration would entitle a third party or agent to procure information under their registration, I don't believe it would as they would need to be data controllers in their own right but I will check.

 

The Information Commissioners Office have CONFIRMED that from 7 names that I have provided that NONE of them are registered as Data Controllers.

[lamma]

Theft Act was filleted by the Fraud Act. Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) - Statute Law Database

[johno1066]

The Information Commissioners Office have CONFIRMED that from 7 names that I have provided that NONE of them are registered as Data Controllers.

 

 

OUCH!!!

[green_and_mean]

Theft Act was filleted by the Fraud Act. Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) - Statute Law Database

 

 

Only as regards obtaining goods/services by deception theft in itself is still covered by the act and taking goods without consent is not theft. If a colleague left a dvd on his desk at work and I took it without consent to view it and return the next day without intending to keep it it is NOT theft.