Bailiff ANPR vehicles

[Dougal16T]

Morning,

 

Even if the tactics of these rogues bears fruit - how can it ever be legal? Answer : it never is.

I have had personal experience of the Bailiff, and they are rude, arrogant, and rough in all ways in relation to their 'business' (I use the term loosely!)

 

They think they are above the law and do not need to abide by the rules. They are NOT an 'Officer of the Court'. They must be certificated by the Court - this does NOT make them officers of the Court, because the Certificate, I understand, states that they are engaged in the collection of debts), and they must be certificated at the time of levying distress, or any other matter in relation to debt collection.

 

The problem is basically this: There are some Bailiffs who are professionals, and carry out their work properly and diligently (usually these are Court Bailiffs - who are based at County Courts), but for some strange reason we never hear about them, and curiously enough they are greatly outnumbered by the Cowboys who don't give a **** for the law!

 

The sooner we stop arguing amongst ourselves and get something done to regulate this walking rubbish which fills our streets in the name of 'enforcement' the better! (rant over....feel better now!)

 

As ever

 

 

Dougal

[buzby]

So we're agreed there are some professionals out there who are worse than others?

 

How is this any different from the bouncer at the club door, policeman with attitude... they're all human. Someone can be a really nice guy, but following a run in with is partner, takes it out on those he meets that day.

 

So for this you are going to promote 'regulation'....?

 

 

I must have missed something.

[Fair-Parking]

Going back to Buzby 64 and I don't have time to read trhe others before I'm out for the weekend

 

Briefly

1) Bailiff or not ( nd sometimes it is not) they need a warrant of execution when enforcing. They don't have - ever!

 

2) Err No - You need to have either the owners permission otherwise it is theft. It might help if these two dimensional creatures thought about the grief they will cause if they knock somebody down. It also might help if they had a motor traders policy, but then these are baliffs and not motor traders with registered motor trade premises.

 

3) Bailiff companies can use who they like but they cannot share personal

details under the Data Protectioin Act 1998 with any third party which a self employed bailiff is to them.

 

4) Anybody with a database that is being used for commercial reasons must register with the ICO under section 17 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998. It is an offence not to do so.

 

5) Err no. He must carry one when enforcing, difficult to do so when one has not been issued.

 

No I haven't forgotten anything. I told what was happening and you made excuses for the bad guys by using your imagination rather than the law. I don't hold it against you but please learn from this. What I said has happened. It is fact not fiction

[buzby]

(1) So you say. But can you prove it? In ALL cases? A warrant can still be an itemised list, not one per vehicle. Since this is probably his 'hit list' anyway, it kills 2 birds with one stone.

(2) An unfortunate irrelevance. Who the owner is is taken to be the RK, if it isn;t they can sort it out later. It isn;t a reason not to enforce. Just like the police arresting everyone in a melee, releasing those who are of no consequence. It's hardly cutting edge stiff!

(3) This hinges on your meaning of 'sharing'. I'll guarantee you this isn;t not sharing as defined, and perfectly legitimate to any agent of the enforcing authority.

(4) It isn't a commercial database in the way yu mean. It will be simply be a subset of the primatu enforcement list, and provided this is covered elsewhere, it'll be permitted.

(5) He may have it somewhere in case asked for, he doesd NOT have to carry it physically or have it prominently displayed whilst levying distraint.

 

There's nothing to 'learn' from this. I want you to succedd in your endeavours, but not based on spurious understandings of what can be done, or is not being done. Enforcement is the game, if folk paid, then there would be no need for it. To read your postings anyone would believe all such enforcement is illegal and actionable. I don't doubt some will be - that's the nature of the beast, but ALL?

 

I don't think so.

[tomtubby]

Thsnk you for the needless (and unneccesary) simplification of bailiffs duties.

 

You appear to be advocating there should be no vehicle enforcement if the RK address does not bear fruit?

 

 

 

.

 

Firstly, the information was not "needless" and is not in relation to "bailiff duties".

 

What I was trying to demonstrate centres on the information that appear on a Warrant.

 

In addition, I am NOT advocating that vehicle enforcement should not be used. Where there is the problem is that in MOST cases the information provided to the ANPR operatives are from RETURNED cases from the bailiff. These are where the person has either moved address, or the wrong address details are on the warrant. In other words, the information is a breach of the Data Protection Act as it is neither "up to date or accurate" !!!

 

 

In so many of these cases, the first time that a vehicle owner would know of the existance of a parking ticket was when his car had been found to be missing from where he parked it.

 

If so, by not receiving the Notice to Owner he has been denied the opportunity to pay at a lower price or to appeal.

[buzby]

Oh agreed, in these cases you highlight, this is 'the system' and everything else will stem from this.

 

That said, it has to be taken and assessed on the basis of all such pursuit, correct and incorrect. I wouldn't hazard a figure, but let's say 3% are a result on an error. This may be deemed an acceptable by TPTB - as the alternative, due dilligence, would add prohibitive costs which (again) would have to be met by the affected party.

[tomtubby]

Oh agreed, in these cases you highlight, this is 'the system' and everything else will stem from this.

 

That said, it has to be taken and assessed on the basis of all such pursuit, correct and incorrect. I wouldn't hazard a figure, but let's say 3% are a result on an error. This may be deemed an acceptable by TPTB - as the alternative, due dilligence, would add prohibitive costs which (again) would have to be met by the affected party.

 

I would agree that if the figure were just 3% then that would very likely be deemed to be acceptable.

 

HOWEVER, this is not the case and the figure is more likely to be 10 times this figure.

 

One company that we know of that offers a service to local authorities whereby they will "data cleanse" all warrants of execution estimate that 20% of all warrants are incorrectly addressed and that these errors can be for a variety of reasons but the main fare from "DVLA input and variations in address fields by processing contractors"

 

The Institute of Rating Revenues and Valuers (IRRV) goes even further by stating that 30% of all warrants are incorrectly addressed.

[buzby]

Surely then, this needs to be quantified (not a difficult task), and if there are concerns something done to address those % levels? Going on what you think 'is likely' is not a benchmark that can be relied upon, so your efforts might be better placed (a) in discover what these figures are for Warrants issued in E&W (I recall a figure of 1.5% for Scotland, but this was in 2002). (b) Once known, take this up with the law makers (your MP) to ensure that changes are mante to protect those concerned.

 

Coming at it only from the angle of those at the sharp end are evil won't get you far.

[johno1066]

Surely then, this needs to be quantified (not a difficult task), and if there are concerns something done to address those % levels? Going on what you think 'is likely' is not a benchmark that can be relied upon, so your efforts might be better placed (a) in discover what these figures are for Warrants issued in E&W (I recall a figure of 1.5% for Scotland, but this was in 2002). (b) Once known, take this up with the law makers (your MP) to ensure that changes are mante to protect those concerned.

 

Coming at it only from the angle of those at the sharp end are evil won't get you far.[/quote]

 

Where has Tomtubby said this? besides, unless one gathers evidence of the behviour of those "at the sharp end", then how are you going to be able to 'quantify' the magnitude of the problem in the first place? Bailiffs obtain their authority from a Judge, they are therefore acting on behalf of a Judge, one expects them to behave accordingly. It is beggars belief that we have a system where those in the pursuit of revenue are committing criminal acts (often serious) in order to destrain against civil debts that have been brought about by misdemeanors.

 

I can assure you that this has gone further up the food chain that a local MP.

[buzby]

Delighted to hear that 'it has gone further'. But there is no evidence of wholesale criminality, simply rule bending by certain indivuduals, a typical SNAFU.

 

As for civil debts an misdemeanours - ever looked at TV licencing? This predates you complaint and is still an unsatisfactory situation. And nothing has changed.

[johno1066]

But there is no evidence of wholesale criminality, simply rule bending by certain indivuduals, a typical SNAFU.

 

Not sure that committing serious criminal acts in the pursuit of revenue is 'simply rule bending'.

 

As for civil debts an misdemeanours - ever looked at TV licencing? This predates you complaint and is still an unsatisfactory situation. And nothing has changed.

 

Although TV licensing is not within the scope of this thread, I disagree to a point; much has changed from the incredibly bad publicity that TV licensing was getting from their advertisements and 'enforcement'. Besides, are you suggesting that nobody does a thing? one can only suppose the end result were people to not challenge these people.

[buzby]

It is only in your opinion that they are 'crfiminal acts'. Until there is a prosecution that is successful, you only are proffering allegations.

 

As to TV licencing NOTHING has changed, the Communicatinos act is the bible of reference, and it has remain unchanged since 2002, so what has changed, in your opinion?

[tomtubby]

It is only in your opinion that they are 'crfiminal acts'. Until there is a prosecution that is successful, you only are proffering allegations.

 

As to TV licencing NOTHING has changed, the Communicatinos act is the bible of reference, and it has remain unchanged since 2002, so what has changed, in your opinion?

 

It is "rumoured" that changes will be made to the TV licensing to stop it being a CRIMINAL offence to use a TV without a valid licence....

[pin1onu]

Delighted to hear that 'it has gone further'. But there is no evidence of wholesale criminality, simply rule bending by certain indivuduals, a typical SNAFU.

Rule bending - Like MP's expenses. Except that had gone beyond SNAFU and reached FUBAR. Legal yes but clearly immoral or else why did so many pay back.

 

Surely this is about un-elected officials condoning illegal/unlawful behaviour or at least turning a blind eye. At the very least they are complicit. The ends justifying the means or at least filling the coffers.

 

That is amoral and an affront to justice; should we be putting up with this? Who guard the guards?

[buzby]

It is "rumoured" that changes will be made to the TV licensing to stop it being a CRIMINAL offence to use a TV without a valid licence....

 

Nevertheless, until the Act changes, enforcement can continue as before without difficulty by the prosecuting authorities. It's a bit like those who PAID for their ID Cards and are now pursuing Small Claims actions to get their money back because of the abandonment. They'll not succeed because at the time of purchase it was common knowledge if there was a government change there would be a scrapping of the scheme, and (b) for however long they had their purchase, it did what it was supposed to do (until the order to scrap it was enacted).

[johno1066]

Nevertheless, until the Act changes, enforcement can continue as before without difficulty by the prosecuting authorities. It's a bit like those who PAID for their ID Cards and are now pursuing Small Claims actions to get their money back because of the abandonment. They'll not succeed because at the time of purchase it was common knowledge if there was a government change there would be a scrapping of the scheme, and (b) for however long they had their purchase, it did what it was supposed to do (until the order to scrap it was enacted).

 

Besides their success being wholly dependent on the terms under which those that opted for the system signed up to,we have gone from TV licensing to ID cards, these have nothing to do with Bailiff ANPR, both are irrellevant.

Edited June 13, 2010 by johno1066

[buzby]

Besides their success being wholly dependent on the terms under which those that opted for the system signed up to,we have gone from TV licensing to ID cards, these have nothing to do with Bailiff ANPR, both are irrellevant.

 

Shame you can't keep up with the debate. Since 'Bailiff ANPR' is in itself a misnomer anyway, Bailiffs only have 'selective data' - but this is a wide ranging issue, with some believing that there are Data Protection issues and others, not.

 

As to the point with TV Licencing, this was providing an examplethat 'things are not changing' if they are mandated under an Act of Parliament, this takes precedence. For ID cards, it was accountability and takinig action to right a wrong.

 

All relevant for the thread, even if you cannot see it.

[lamma]

ANPR is still ANPR even if you only have one VRN in the database.

[buzby]

You know that, and I know that - however, 'We have Bailiff ANPR and Athena ANPR, all trading on the scare value of the acronym - and in BOTH cases it is flawed. As folk assume ANPR means what it says, along with a link to the live database, we need to prevent this joining the armoury of misconceptions that litter the parking insustry, with PCNs Penalty Charge Notice/Parking Charge Notice - CPS Criminal Prosecution Service/Controlled Parking Solutions to name just two.

 

Athena HAVE no ANPR in the accepted sense. Just a CCTV camera that countis in an out the numners it sees - so it is a capture mechanism only it does not provide details of the keeper, which REAL ANPR does!

[green_and_mean]

ANPR is still ANPR even if you only have one VRN in the database.

 

It would depend on the data though if it would be covered by the DPA.

[green_and_mean]

so it is a capture mechanism only it does not provide details of the keeper, which REAL ANPR does!

 

No ANPR provides details of the keeper, it reads the number plate nothing else the camera is connected to additional software and hardware that then uses the number plate data.

[johno1066]

Shame you can't keep up with the debate. Since 'Bailiff ANPR' is in itself a misnomer anyway, Bailiffs only have 'selective data' - but this is a wide ranging issue, with some believing that there are Data Protection issues and others, not.

 

On the contrary, I'm just not interested in items that have no relevance, as for keeping up, I started the thread so am fully up-to-date thanks. Regardless of whether Bailiffs have 'selective' data, they nevertheless obtain, use, act upon and process data. I don't believe there are data protection issues, I KNOW, there are data protection 'issues', keep up there's a good chap.

 

 

As to the point with TV Licencing, this was providing an examplethat 'things are not changing' if they are mandated under an Act of Parliament, this takes precedence. For ID cards, it was accountability and takinig action to right a wrong.

 

Not relevant to the thread.

[johno1066]

ANPR is a similiar system to what the Royal Mail sorting centres in order that postcodes and address details can be read, a photograph is taken and from that photograph the text is extracted using software, that text (usually the VRM) is then processed by the software and attributed to a database, the software and the camera are both components of ANPR, one cannot be used independently of another.

Edited June 13, 2010 by johno1066

[green_and_mean]

On the contrary, I'm just not interested in items that have no relevance, as for keeping up, I started the thread so am fully up-to-date thanks. Regardless of whether Bailiffs have 'selective' data, they nevertheless obtain, use, act upon and process data. I don't believe there are data protection issues, I KNOW, there are data protection 'issues', keep up there's a good chap.

 

 

 

 

Not relevant to the thread.

 

There are no data protection issues due to baliffs use of ANPR the numbers of vehicles that are not on the database are neither recorded or shared. The data they use is already held by the baliff company as Buzby pointed out the ANPR has nothing to do with it any more than driving round in a transit with a pair of binoculars would.

[johno1066]

Basic interpretative provisions

 

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—

• “data” means information which—
  (a)
  is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose,
   
  (b)
  is recorded with the intention that it should be processed by means of such equipment,
   
  ©
  is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system, or
   
  (d)
  does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or © but forms part of an accessible record as defined by section 68;