Jump to content


Ex JBW and Philips bailiff makes an FOI request to Westminster about bailiff fees and ANPR operations!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3991 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Username JBW hasnt been on since December 2007.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/search.php?searchid=3584322

 

Are you the Mr Khan he refers to?

 

I cant see it but no.This thread usually comes up when jbw is put into the search box and also it comes up in Google as well.

Edited by letsmakeamark

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just a quick note for this thread as I know the lawyers like to watch! I`m not on here for a witch hunt on JBW, Philips or any other Bailiff firm. I made them both money and they paid me. Simple. My comments are based on operational & legal matters and this is how it must stay as other wise I open myself up to litigation and I will not allow this.

 

I hope all members and guests understand my stance and whilst you are all able to pass comments on Bailiff firms and their staff, I am not! For safety, I can mention Council`s and Bailiff law etc and I am happy to continue posting but I ask you please to understand my position.

 

Thanks again all.

 

Jbw solicitors are usually Oury Clark. Jbw are always having lovers tiffs with them when they are taken to court and also always seem to instruct them and then defend themselves at hearings when they know their dirty laundry is going to be aired in public. Hence i wouldn't worry about them to much. Philips on the other hand i do not know. I wouldn't want to make a guess at saying they are probably the same. Dont worry they cant do anything to you if they could do anything they would have taken several of the posters on this forum out by now. Also all the people that advise on the same companies tricks would have been taken out by now.

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see a reasonable voice from the other side, rather than the misleading twaddle the pretendy paramilitaries like to dish out.

 

Look forward to the outcome of your FOI

Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see a reasonable voice from the other side, rather than the misleading twaddle the pretendy paramilitaries like to dish out.

 

Look forward to the outcome of your FOI

 

Thanks but the clock is ticking now and I don`t hold too much hope that it will come in on time, if at all. That will be a new matter to deal with and will raise new questions as I really can`t see the delays in answering, unless there are problems that is???

 

We will all see eh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply to FOI from CC London just in. If it wasn`t so serious it would be funny! I will let you all pass comment before I do as I`m without words as to what I have just read!

 

"Thank you for your email dated 19 June 2010. You asked for information about signage on ANPR vehicles used by bailiffs and data protection.

 

Firstly, I would like to clarify that the lack of signage on ANPR vehicles is not a RIPA issue. There is no interception of communications and it does not amount to covert surveillance.

 

Furthermore, the bailiffs have indicated that the vehicles and cameras are vandalised if there are signs drawing attention to the cameras, their purpose and operator. This demonstrates a clear prejudice to the purposes for which the cameras are being deployed if CCTV signs are used. It therefore seems reasonable to consider that it is not unfair or unlawful to use the cameras without signs.

 

Regarding the data security, the requirements for security and data policy are covered in our contract with the bailiffs. The bailiff companies are responsible for maintaining the security policy and ensuring they meet the requirements set out in the contract. They are responsible for protecting all confidential information and personal data in accordance with the provision of the contract.

 

The Data Protection Act requires bailiffs to ensure appropriate security controls are in place to prevent unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data, and accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, such personal data.

 

The data security measures taken for ANPR data varies between the four bailiff companies used by TfL. However TfL remains satisfied the measures taken are in line with both our contractual requirements and the Data Protection Act.

 

Thank you once again for your email. I trust the information above has addressed your concerns. If you have any further questions or comments, do not hesitate to contact me."

Yours sincerely

 

Eva Rozmahelova

 

Correspondence Investigations Officer

Congestion Charging and Traffic Enforcement

Transport for London

I guess the other LA`s will use this as a template for their answers. My advise to them is run it through legal first as this looks like a Bailiff firm answer and not a legal one.

 

Just because a Bailiff says his cameras may be "Vandalised" it doesn`t make it legal for him to not indicate CCTV is being used! If the cameras are covertly installed, how can this lady say "It does not amount to covert surveillance"? Also, she is not in the position to deem that the use in "unfair or unlawful".

 

Also, she is happy with the Bailiff firms DPA conduct. So no problems with Bailiffs taking ANPR vans home with them then eh?

 

I will let you all have a bite now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply to FOI from CC London just in. If it wasn`t so serious it would be funny! I will let you all pass comment before I do as I`m without words as to what I have just read!

 

"Thank you for your email dated 19 June 2010. You asked for information about signage on ANPR vehicles used by bailiffs and data protection.

 

Firstly, I would like to clarify that the lack of signage on ANPR vehicles is not a RIPA issue. There is no interception of communications and it does not amount to covert surveillance.

 

Furthermore, the bailiffs have indicated that the vehicles and cameras are vandalised if there are signs drawing attention to the cameras, their purpose and operator. This demonstrates a clear prejudice to the purposes for which the cameras are being deployed if CCTV signs are used. It therefore seems reasonable to consider that it is not unfair or unlawful to use the cameras without signs.

 

Regarding the data security, the requirements for security and data policy are covered in our contract with the bailiffs. The bailiff companies are responsible for maintaining the security policy and ensuring they meet the requirements set out in the contract. They are responsible for protecting all confidential information and personal data in accordance with the provision of the contract.

 

The Data Protection Act requires bailiffs to ensure appropriate security controls are in place to prevent unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data, and accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, such personal data.

 

The data security measures taken for ANPR data varies between the four bailiff companies used by TfL. However TfL remains satisfied the measures taken are in line with both our contractual requirements and the Data Protection Act.

 

Thank you once again for your email. I trust the information above has addressed your concerns. If you have any further questions or comments, do not hesitate to contact me."

Yours sincerely

 

Eva Rozmahelova

 

Correspondence Investigations Officer

Congestion Charging and Traffic Enforcement

Transport for London

I guess the other LA`s will use this as a template for their answers. My advise to them is run it through legal first as this looks like a Bailiff firm answer and not a legal one.

 

Just because a Bailiff says his cameras may be "Vandalised" it doesn`t make it legal for him to not indicate CCTV is being used! If the cameras are covertly installed, how can this lady say "It does not amount to covert surveillance"? Also, she is not in the position to deem that the use in "unfair or unlawful".

 

Also, she is happy with the Bailiff firms DPA conduct. So no problems with Bailiffs taking ANPR vans home with them then eh?

 

I will let you all have a bite now!

 

 

 

Thank you for sharing this "template" response to your recent FOI Request. It will be VERY interesting indeed to read the responses from the 3 other local authorities to see whether they will be responding in "similar" terms.

 

The following two statements in this response are worthy of further enquiry:

 

Furthermore, the bailiffs have indicated that the vehicles and cameras are vandalised if there are signs drawing attention to the cameras, their purpose and operator. This demonstrates a clear prejudice to the purposes for which the cameras are being deployed if CCTV signs are used. It therefore seems reasonable to consider that it is not unfair or unlawful to use the cameras without signs.

 

This is dreadful.I am sure that the TV Licensing Authority vehicles would say that their vehicles are also vandalised...but they would not dream of removing signs on their vehicles. Nor would they use such a "flimsy" excuse in an attempt to justify their actions.

 

Regarding the data security, the requirements for security and data policy are covered in our contract with the bailiffs. The bailiff companies are responsible for maintaining the security policy and ensuring they meet the requirements set out in the contract. They are responsible for protecting all confidential information and personal data in accordance with the provision of the contract.

 

WRONG......The "buck stops" with the local authority. The bailiff company are merely acting as just their AGENT !!

The data security measures taken for ANPR data varies between the four bailiff companies used by TfL. However TfL remains satisfied the measures taken are in line with both our contractual requirements and the Data Protection Act.

 

Why would the data security measures be DIFFERENT for each company !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Data Protection Act 1998

Introduction

Below are the standards that must be met if the requirements of the 1998 act are to be complied with. These are based on the Data protection principles, which say that data must be:

 

  • Fairly and lawfully processed;
  • Processed for limited purposes and not in any manner incompatible with those purposes;
  • Adequate, relevant and not excessive;
  • Accurate; not kept for longer than necessary;
  • Processed in accordance with individuals' rights;
  • Secure;
  • Not transferred to countries without adequate protection.

The information Commissioner has the power to issue Enforcement Notices where she considers that there has been a breach on one or more of the Data Protection Principles.

CCTV Initial Assessment

Before Installing and Using CCTV and similar surveillance equipment, users will need to establish the purpose or Purposes for which they intend to use the equipment. This equipment may be used for a number of different purposes – for example, prevention, investigation and detection or crime, apprehension and prosecution of offenders (including use of images as evidence in criminal proceedings), Public and employee safety, monitoring security of premises etc.

CCTV Signage

Once a CCTV system has been installed, signs should be placed so that the public is aware that they are entering a zone, which is covered by surveillance equipment (First data protection principle). These signs should be clearly visible and legible to members of the public (first data protection principle)

These signs should contain the following information-

a) Identity of the person or organization responsible for the scheme

b) The purpose of the scheme

c) Details of who to contact for information regarding the scheme (First data protection principle)

For example- Where the image of a camera is not used on a sign- the following wording is recommended:

"Images are being monitored for the purposes of crime prevention and public safety. This scheme is controlled by the Greentown safety partnership. For further information contact 01234-567-890"

For example- Where an image of a camera is used on a sign- the following wording is recommended:

"This scheme is controlled by the Greentown safety partnership. For further information contact 01234-567-890"

In exceptional and limited cases, the use of signs may not be appropriate, for example, covert monitoring for specific criminal activity. Further guidance can be found at www.dataprotection.gov.uk

Quality of CCTV images

It is important that the images produced by the equipment are as clear as possible in order that they are effective for the purpose(s) for which they are intended. This is why it is essential that the purpose of the scheme be clearly identified. For example if a system has been installed to prevent and detect crime, then it is essential that the images are adequate for that purpose.

The third fourth and fifth data protection principles are concerned with the quality of personal data. The standards to be met under this code are set out below.

Standards

1. Upon installation an initial check should be undertaken to ensure that the equipment performs properly

2. If tapes are used, it should be ensured that they are good quality tapes (Third and fourth data protection principles)

3. The medium on which the images are captured should be cleaned so that images are not recorded on top of images recorded previously (Third and fourth data protection principles).

4. The medium on which the images have been recorded should not be used when it has become apparent that the quality of images has deteriorated (Third data protection principle)

5. If the system records features such as the location of the camera and/or date and time reference, these should be accurate (Third and fourth data protection principles)

6. Camera should be situated so that they will capture images relevant to the purpose for which the scheme was established (Third and Fourth data protection principles)

7. Cameras should be properly maintained and serviced to ensure that clear images are recorded (Third and fourth data protection principles)

Processing of CCTV images

Images, which are not required for the purpose(s) for which the equipment is being used, should not be retained for longer than is necessary. While images are retained, it is essential that their integrity be maintained, whether it is to ensure their evidential value or to protect the rights of people whose images may have been recorded. It is therefore important that access to and security of the images is controlled in accordance with the requirements of the 1998 act. The seventh data protection principle sets out the security requirements of the 1998 data protection act. However, the standards required by this code of practice are set out below.

Standards

1. Images should not be retained longer than is necessary (Fifth data protection principle)

2. Once the retention period has expired, the images should be removed or erased (Fifth data protection principle)

Standards cont.

3.If the images are retained for evidential purposes, they should be retained in a secure place to which access is controlled (Fifth and seventh data protection principle)

3. On removing the medium on which the images have been recorded for the use in legal proceedings, the operator should ensure that they have been documented: -

a) The date on which the images were removed from the general system for the use in legal proceedings.

b) The reason why they were removed from the system.

c) Any crime incident number to which the images are relevant.

d) The location of the images. For example, if the images were handed to a police officer for retention, the name and station of that police officer.

e) The signature of the collecting officer, where appropriate (Third and seventh data protection principles)

Principles of the data protection act in relation to CCTV surveillance

The First data protection principle requires that:

"Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully…"

The first data protection principle requires that the data controller has a legitimate basis for processing. It is for the data controller to be clear about which grounds to rely on in this respect. The data controller must consider whether the information/images are processed lawfully and whether the information/images are processed fairly.

The Second data protection principle requires that:

"Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes".

The Third data protection principle requires that:

"Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed".

This means that consideration must be given to the situation of the cameras so that they do not record more information than is necessary for the purpose of which they were installed.

Furthermore, if the recorded images on the tapes are blurred or indistinct, it may well be that this will constitute inadequate data. For example, if the purpose of the system is to collect evidence of criminal activity, blurred or indistinct images from degraded tapes or poorly maintained equipment will not provide legally sound evidence, and may therefore be inadequate for its purpose

The fourth data protection principle requires that:

"Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date…."

This principle requires that the personal information that is recorded and stored must be accurate. This is particularly important if the personal information taken from the system is to be used as evidence in cases of criminal conduct or in disciplinary disputes with employees. The data protection commissioner recommends that efforts are made to ensure the clarity of the images, such as using only good quality tapes in recording information, cleaning the tapes prior to reuse and not simply recording over existing images, and replacing tapes on a regular basis to avoid degradation from over-use.

The fifth data protection principle requires that:

"Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept any longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes"

This principle requires that the information shall not be held for longer than is necessary for the purpose it is being used, unless it is being used as evidence.

The sixth data protection principle requires that:

"Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects under this act".

The act provides individuals with a number of rights in relation to the processing of their personal data. Contravening these rights will amount to a contravention of the sixth data protection principle.

The seventh data protection principle requires that:

"Appropriate technical and organizational measures shall be taken against unauthorized or unlawful processing of personal data, and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data".

The eighth data protection principle requires that:

"Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European economic area, unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data".

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The CCTV operator must let people know they are using CCTV. Signs are the most usual way of doing this. The signs must be clearly visible and readable, and should include the details of the organisation operating the system if not obvious." Quote from ICO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is creating the argument?

 

The point of argument is simple. There is no breach of data protection rules because a VIN on a warrant is not disclosure personal data, and thus does not form part of the Data Protection Principles.

 

If the warrant of execution is for a criminal fine or offence, then the data protection rules dont apply at all. Any processing of personal data is exempt from the data protection rules if it is to do with crime and taxation.

 

I would disagree with your above comments that "There is no breach of the Data Protection rules because a VIN on a Warrant is not disclosure of personal data"

 

In November 2003 Lord Falconer sent a very detailed Circular to all local authorities concerning the implications of the Data Protection Act and in this document he said the following:

 

Personal data can be descibed as "any information" that identifies the data subject.

 

 

 

A Vehicle Registration number clearly does "identify the data subject !!

 

 

You have also made the point that the Data Protection Act is exempt if the debt relates to either crime or taxation. The recovery of a PCN (parking charge notice) does not relate to either crime or taxation. It is a "Penalty" which is a civil debt.

 

Finally, a Warrant of Execution would not be issued for a "criminal fine or offence". Instead, a Distress Warrant would be issued.

 

A Warrant of Execution relates to a civil debt that originates from the County Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to say hello mr waller why dont you just sign in and join everybody after all you will need this forum in a few months time ?

 

 

Mr Waller's colleagues will also need this forum in a few months time, so I hope he passes the website's details onto them as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there's nothing wrong with the Redcaps (1978-1983)

 

For the benefit of non-military readers of the thread, I will explain that Redcaps are what the Royal Military Police call themselves. Everyone else refers to them as Monkeys.

 

My recent sandy experience is that they are generally a fine body of men and women. Still Monkeys, though :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the benefit of non-military readers of the thread, I will explain that Redcaps are what the Royal Military Police call themselves. Everyone else refers to them as Monkeys.

 

My recent sandy experience is that they are generally a fine body of men and women. Still Monkeys, though :D

I was soo going to be rude there but had a change of heart ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

SP your far too polite :D

 

wont say what what the RAFP call em :rolleyes:

NEVER FORGET

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Help Our Hero's Website

 

http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/

 

HIGHWAY OF HEROES

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/181826-last-tribute-our-lads.html

 

Like Cooking ? check the Halogen Cooker thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/218990-cooking-halogen-cookers.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Motorbikers lose High Court challenge

 

Posted by Juliet Eysenck on Jul 16, 10 10:33 AM in News

 

Motorbikers today lost a High Court battle challenging the legality of a parking charge introduced in Westminster.

The court threw out a bid by parking campaigner Warren Djanogly, made on behalf of campaign group No to Bike Parking Tax, to stop Westminster Council levying a £1 per day on-street charge for motorcyclists.

 

Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting with Mr Justice Maddison, rejected the protesters' claims that the council introduced the charged simply to raise revenue, which would have been illegal if true.

At the court on July 16, he also dismissed accusations that the council had not carried out a full consultation before implementing the tariff.

Councillor Lee Rowley, the council's cabinet member for parking and transportation, said: "Our decision to charge motorcyclists £1 per day to park has been rigorously scrutinised, open to widespread public debate and has now been tested in the High Court.

"We have always maintained that with huge demand for on-street space in Westminster charging motorcyclists a small sum to park was reasonable and fair and I'm glad the judge has re-iterated this.

"This case has cost local taxpayers tens of thousand of pounds in legal fees and staff time and we hope this ruling will draw a line under the issue."

The council said it would seek to recover its legal costs of £50,000.

Members of No to Bike Parking Tax group donated their own money, hundreds of pounds in some cases, to help pay the legal fees.

Over the last year, the campaigners have held weekly demonstrations in the borough with a series of go-slows in and around Trafalagar Square during the morning and evening rush hour.

Police have also been called multiple times to remove protesters from the entrance of Westminster City Hall in Victoria when the group has blocked staff and members of the public from getting into the building.

Mr Rowley added: "I want to make clear that this is not about the council versus motorcyclists who we see as an important part of central London's transport mix.

"We were one of the first councils in the country to permit motorcycles to drive in bus lanes and as a council, we will always want to work with the motorcycling community - along with everyone who uses Westminster's roads - on how to improve transport and parking facilities in the city.

"We hope this judgement will now put an end to any doubt about the legitimacy of our motorbike parking policies."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the saying goes its either 3rd time lucky or in Westminster case unlucky. The next case due in court they should loose like nobody's business.

 

Funny you should say that, as both the parking companies that lost in the award of the parking contract for Westminster are still seeking compensation. I understand that Mouchel have even lodged papers at the court already.

 

Plus, the bikers will be back seeking a Judical Review, which will allow them to widen their complaint much more. Then the cat should be well and truly out of the bag.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny you should say that, as both the parking companies that lost in the award of the parking contract for Westminster are still seeking compensation. I understand that Mouchel have even lodged papers at the court already.

 

Plus, the bikers will be back seeking a Judical Review, which will allow them to widen their complaint much more. Then the cat should be well and truly out of the bag.

 

 

The local authorities want to protect public funds. Then of course you get these clever managers who do not make sense and bait several companies and take freebies off them and the works. Then deny them contracts. That is why i cant see them winning any more cases but loosing out big time to screw ups made in the past. xxx know how it felt when they screwed people over but hey they got screwed over twice when trying to screw Westminster. Lets see who now screws them over.

Edited by letsmakeamark

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon all! My post on WCC was for info only. As mentioned before, I fully support ANY legal right to protest and we will all wait to see what happens next eh?

 

If I am to continue posting, can I please ask that we do not post negative msgs on individual Bailiff firms as if so, I will leave now. I am sure there are loads of other threads that can host these comments but I cannot/will not be involved for clear reasons as warned before.

 

I trust everyone understands again please! Thanks all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon all! My post on WCC was for info only. As mentioned before, I fully support ANY legal right to protest and we will all wait to see what happens next eh?

 

If I am to continue posting, can I please ask that we do not post negative msgs on individual Bailiff firms as if so, I will leave now. I am sure there are loads of other threads that can host these comments but I cannot/will not be involved for clear reasons as warned before.

 

I trust everyone understands again please! Thanks all.

care to elaborate..

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...