Bailiff ANPR vehicles

[buzby]

Just a thought...

 

Is a VRM 'personal information? They do not 'belong' to anyone, in much the same way as telephone numbers 'belong' to OFCOM. Add to the mix, that someone can decide their phone number is ex-directory (more properly NQR) and this number disappears. However, this cannot be done for VRM's so there is no 'exD' option here.

 

Now, I have a useful iphone App called MyCarReg and I can sit by the side of the road, entering VRM's as they pass, and read off the type of car it is, make colour, registration year etc. Now, if a cloned car passes, and I spot this and phone the police, how is this any different?

Edited June 9, 2010 by buzby

[buzby]

Is there evidence to support that what these bailiffs are using IS what we accept as ANPR? A camera capable of reading VRMs is one thing, being able to interrogate the DVLAs live database quite another.

 

If a bailiff only loads a list of hot VRMs to look for, this is just a CCTV alerting service, not ANPR!

[buzby]

We seem to be going round in circles. This is NOT ANPR in the accepted sense, simply a hit list of vehicles that have 'come to notice' due to their connection with supposedly errant RK's. This is hardly new, and I recall Bailiffs levying on vehicles of a debtor because the VRM was personalised to such a degree that it didn't take much of a leap of faith to realise the car belonged to the subject of interest.

 

Additionally, have we all forgotten that (historically) it was the Councils that issues licences, log books and tax discs. Sure things moved on, but I doubt whether any of that legislation was ever repealed to the degree that the processing of this informtion was none of their business.

 

'ANPR bailiffs' is a gross misdescription and for my money, provides a form of 'legitimacy' that you are all trying to discount.

[buzby]

When introduced, ANPR queried the COMPLETE database of numbers hewld by DVLA to reveal every RK of every vehicle, and flagging up those who had issues with the authorities.

 

What YOU describe is a DIY-botch up, that uses CCTV to interrogate NOT the national database, but stores only numbers of target vehicles. I even take issue with the use of 'automatic'. What is automatic about it? The bailiffs may use NPR technology for the number they are looking for, but I can do this too.... in a public street my CCTV can interrogate my own database of vehicles to see how often they pass and when. That isn't illegal, but it isn't ANPR as used by the 'authorities'.

 

Automatic - in the sense it consults THE vehicle database in the UK, I'd agree, anything else is simply a NPR system.

[buzby]

Look at a McDonald's Drive in - Signage there actually promote their use of 'ANPR' which of course is a complete misnormer. The plate may be recognised and captured, but it doesn;t return the RK or address, this has to be a seperate function with a DVLA enquiry they pay for - so hardly 'automatic'.

 

The bailiffs are simply using available technology as a modern day bounty hunter. The fact it has been casualised like this is because the number of civil servants capable of doing this have been long dispensed with. I'm in agreement with your sentiments, but I despair at the 'ANPR bailiffs' tag as it gives them a warped kudos they do not deserve.

[buzby]

Do you mean store the picture, or the derived VRM?

 

If the former, I am unaware of any system in Scotland that does this for ANPR. As to the 'database' the DVLA supply the 'core' and constantly updates the PNC in near real time. Also it isn't clear whether you are suggesting that each equipped police vehicle carries its own database. Of the demos I've had, no information is held locally, their system relying on a live data connection to query and respond. (I believe the DVLA vans hold a daily updated database, and do not use data links to query the DVLAs onle DB (not the PNC).

[buzby]

(1) Surely the term 'bailiffs' is quite enough?

(2) Motor Insurance? Provided they have a driving licence, they most likely have 3rd party cover for a vehicle that is 'not owned or hired' by them, my policy covers this. Of course if they have an accident, they become liable to the owner.

(3) Most outsourced facilities use self-employed labout, due to their untillingness to bear the burden of having staff.

(4) I'm unaware of any bailiffs require 'registration' with the ICO. A court is all that is required.

(5) Warrants are used to instriuct the bailiff, and shown (not given) to those that require evidence of their lawful authority. It is not a requirement to be produces unless explicitly asked for.

 

What you seem to forget - and I'm no fan of their deviant tactics, is that in many cases their tactics are required to make the court's will happen. How they achieve this is up to the individual person or company, and as will all things, there will be good and bad.

[buzby]

'Reasonable cause' is enough. Even if the information is flawed, providing it was correct at one time, they'll be fine. It is you who say the law is being broken. I don't see this, only a sequence of unfortunate events that will ultimately be excused by the courts as a necessary evil to ensure compliance.

 

The best one I heard was a guy arriving at Sydney airport, he doesn't use drugs, but his mate, who loaned him a case for the trip was. He was detained for 48 hours. This was 'one of those things', in the same way as the events you outline.

 

Finally, as for everyone and their uncle needing ICO registration to be a data controller, I believe you are labouring under a misapprehension. The Comptroller would certainly need registration, but not the subordinates as they would operate under his auspices. Similarly, to access data there needs to be a senior person desognated, not every member of the organisation - so I don't believe your assertion is correct. The fact bailiffs are self-employed would be an irrelevance.

 

However, even if it was not, can you explain why there has been no mass applications or prosecutions for non-compliance, if what you state is indeed true?

Edited June 10, 2010 by buzby

[buzby]

If they are not driving, but clamping - why would they need Motor Trader's insurance? They certainly don;t need insurance to protect the value of the property they are siezing, as they are taking it to be sold anyway. I see where you're coming from, but you;re putting forward requirements that might be nice to have, but for an officer of the court? I don't believe so.

[buzby]

I've always seen bailiffs call in a specialist contractor (for which adds to the charges). The act of lifting a vehicle would therefore be a requirement of the sub-contractor, NOT the bailiff. So I've yet to be convinced that a bailiff is noting anything remotely 'wrong'n a professional sense.

[buzby]

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

 

What you convietly forget is that enforcement warrants for the VRM FOLLOW attempted distrain on the RKs address, which for one reason or another, has failed.

 

You appear to be advocating there should be no vehicle enforcement if the RK address does not bear fruit? If so, lets all screw the system with false RK addresses ot keep on moving so that they can never catch up. For those that abuse the system in this way, chasing a VRM is the most logical step, as I'm unsure what other method or information that could be used to 'follow the money'. Divine providence?

 

I agree it isn't ideal, and there are times where innocent motorists will be inconvenienced - but then, we're all accustomed to this, where the criminal acts of others impact on our daily lives.

 

So your complaint is no doubt well meaning but misguided. Faced with an either/or, the status quo is better than letting these miscreants get away without challenge. For all you know, it is this very type of enforcement that lewads to a larger percentage to pay up. No bad thing, IMHO.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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).

[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.

[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!

[buzby]

Not relevant to the thread.

 

In your opinion? Fine.

 

Just ignore it.

[buzby]

Buzby - please learn far more about enforcement and data protection before you try to pull down postings of those that do know about these things. Otherwise there will be an answer to the contrary of everything you speculate on.

 

Sorry, you've provided no substantiation to your allegations that (it appears) Bailiffs have no warrants in these matters, which is why they are not 'produced'. This is both naive and a foolhardy conclusion. I believe I know far more that you do about 'enforcement and data protection' as your comments to date have been simple subjective generalisations

 

On to your conclusion that Bailiffs are (all?) driving illegally - where's the proof? I can drive any car on my insurance, so no need for any emotive ccar-crash scenarion involving my family members. You're clutching at straws. and spindly ones at that. I've already explained that most sub-contract this to a specialist recovery firm - no insurance (for them) required, or even a driving licence. Kinda drives a wedge into your argument, doesn't it?

 

I'm sure you've made your complaints to the relevant authorities, so can you point to what has been done and changes achieved? I think I know the answer.

[buzby]

No - it's NOT required. I would have thought someone in the industry would have been aware of the fact that cover is not required in ALL cases. These include when the vehicle movement is not under the direct control of the bailiff, already mentioned has been when the vehicle is lifted onto a loader, of the keys are available, by the Bailiff's own or commerecial insurance for this very purpose. You'll be suggesting next that they don;t have a licence to drive next...?

 

Certainly there may be occasions where someone, somewhere will do something not #by the book', That's a given, what isn't is our statement that bailiffs are committing offenced by doing what they do. I's suggest in the bulk of cases, they are not.

 

We're on the same side here, I want those that break the rules to be punished, but not promote misleading generalised statements. BtB is also correct, I'd forgotten about the derogation and this remains valid.

 

There are also situations where (say) after an accident, police or recovery crews must move vehicles. Are you saying they should be prosecuted because 'they have no insurance'? Or recovering stolen vehicles, or a myriad of situations where common sense takes over?

[buzby]

Shame he's brought in an irrelevance. GSM radio communications are fully encrypted over-the-air, so no DPA breach.

[buzby]

Jason, If you worked in security, you would have known that GSM is indeed an encrypted service. Nobody is saying it is 'totally secure' as depending on how much money you want to throw at a problem, you will either fail miserably or be successful.

 

At the time of its development (1989) encryption of the GSM voice channels was mandated, because the existing TACS system had none. A decent Tandy Scanner with the ability to reach 960MHz was all you needed to listen in, and very illuminating it was too. AND you heard both sides of the conversation.

 

Using data over GSM, and the systems I have seen in operation use VPNs within data tunnels, which is not only 'reasonable' measures, and remains in use by most of the corporate world, it does what it does and does it reasonably well - indeed, considerably better than with TACS where I was able to intercept faxes over cellular with little difficulty.

 

By attemptng to question GSM security. your claim comes across as ill-concieved, especially as - if you are trying to cast doubt on the security ALREADY in place, you do not refer to this, or indeed raise issues with what the problem (as you see it) is. Add to this there is freequency hopping on the data channels to make the besy use of available bandwidths, it is considerably more secure than using a fixed line broadband connection, yet you are not prepared to acknowledge it.

 

We all know Bank PIN codes are not 'secure' and any of us have opted for 'no PIN' or 'Chip & Sig' cards as a compromise. I believe you have valid issues, but attmepting to discredit GSM is botrh a blind alley, and an irrelevant distraction. Forget this, and don't be sidetracked from the main task at hand. To break GSM requires considerable funds and equipment, and the cheapest option by intercepting at the intermediate (non wireless) stage is far more effective.*

 

 

*But not when a VPN is used.