Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

[Rob0000]

Hi everyone,

I don't know if some of you know, I found out on BBC News website, about new regulation on the use of CCTV including ANPR.

I've seen on a thread here about a bailiff using ANPR and having a copper pull someone over for a civil matter and was wondering if these new regulations can have an effect on that.

BAsically there is a twelve point checklist, like the seven principles of data protection:

1. always be for a specified purpose which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing need
2. take into account its effect on individuals and their privacy
3. have as much transparency as possible, including a published contact point for access to information and complaints
4. have clear responsibility and accountability for all surveillance activities including images and information collected, held and used
5. have clear rules, policies and procedures in place and these must be communicated to all who need to comply with them
6. have no more images and information stored than that which is strictly required
7. restrict access to retained images and information with clear rules on who can gain access
8. consider any approved operational, technical and competency standards relevant to a system and its purpose and work to meet and maintain those standards
9. be subject to appropriate security measures to safeguard against unauthorised access and use
10. have effective review and audit mechanisms to ensure legal requirements, policies and standards are complied with
11. be used in the most effective way to support public safety and law enforcement with the aim of processing images and information of evidential value, when used in pursuit of a legitimate aim
12. be accurate and kept up to date when any information is used to support a surveillance camera system which compares against a reference database for matching purposes

What i'm questioning is; would be that these guidelines state CCTV and ANPR should be used for 'public safety and law enforcement'. Do bailiffs deal with public safety or enforce British Law, or deal with civil law, thus cannot be using ANPR?

...just curious

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

The use of ANPR is covered, mainly, by the Data Protection Act 1998. However, it is those who use ANPR which appears to be a bone of contention. It is known that police forces, other law enforcement agencies and DVLA use ANPR for legitimate law enforcement and, as an ex-copper, I have no problem with that, so long as ANPR is used responsibly and the databases it is working from are kept fully- up-to-date and the accuracy of information on those databases is correct.

The bone of contention comes in where private-sector organisations, not involved in legitimate law enforcement, use ANPR, i.e. PPCs and private-sector bailiff companies. The question that needs to be asked is, "Are they using ANPR for legitimate law enforcement purposes?" The answer to that clearly has to be "No." Why? Law Enforcement involves the upholding of laws for which Parliament has prescribed custodial or financial penalties. Decriminalised PCNs are a purely civil debt. It therefore follows that private-sector bailiff companies using ANPR and organising "smash and grab" operations, using the police to pull in vehicles for the bailiffs to seize, may well be acting in contravention of data protection legislation, as well as such use and operations being potentially illegal. PPCs cannot claim to be using ANPR for legitimate law enforcement purposes. There is a case to stop PPCs using ANPR.

[des8]

Re: Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

I think you will find this new "code" (not enforceable regulations) only applies to state surveillance, i.e. local authorities and police (para 1.8).
Other operators are "encouraged...to adopt this code" (para 1.17)

Does anyone think PPCs, DCA/bailiffs will abide by it.

Just more meaningless window dressing .

[charitynjw]

Re: Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

The way I see it.

Bailiff (A) uses Anpr to identify punter.
Transmits this info to police.(B)
Police pull punter.

I don't think, in these circumstances, that it is lawful for A to give personal details to B; it breaches the DPA.
(A vehicle numberplate can obviously indirectly identify the vehicle keeper)

[labman]

Re: Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

Chapter 4 concerns me. It seems to be the crux of the code in that it deals with, "the use or processing of images or other information obtained by virtue of such systems."

I guess this is what concerns most of us, and this is where I believe the code is found sadly lacking.

With the exception of Principle 5, the rest (principles 6 - 12) use the word "should" in their terminology. What if the operators decide they shouldn't? What will happen? In this code there is no indication whatsoever that anything will happen. They may break some of the legislation listed at the very start, so what? In reality, will the legislation be used? Sorry, call me cynical, but I think the code will be viewed as guidance. The Lending Code sets out what banks should do in certain circumstances - they don't! I fear this will be the same. I'd love to be proven wrong. :tinysmile_grin_t:

[charitynjw]

Re: Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

A classic scene in self-governance - what seems at first blush to be a robust policy reveals, when examined, a gaping back door to slide out of any come-uppance!

[loandodger]

Re: Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

JBW and the London Borough of Wandsworth have regular operations in Balham High Road SW12, York Road SW11 and Trinity Road SW18. There is a lot of controversy about the legality of this as it is the bailiffs ANPR which is performing the 'hit'. The Police ANPR is generally used for road tax, MOT, insurance, known wanted marker, known drugs conveyance, petrol bilking and any othercriminal offence which may be on the PNC or other linked agency database. The problem with these bailiffs is that the vehicle is 'clean' in respect of Police ANPR but the bailiffs are using the Police to do the stop. This just isnt legal. Whilst the police are questioning the driver, the bailiffs are clamping the vehcile and holding that person to ransom whilst the police are doing their phoney bit, i.e. checking driving licence and status of driver etc. Bailiffs can clamp legitimate work vehicles, i.e. plumbers etc, but cannot remove them, so what is the point in clamping other than using it for ransom and inconvenience at side of road until someone reluctantly coughs up. The bailiffs are also now claiming that they can sieze any other vehicle registered to the same person or company. How do they get this info from the DVLA, as this can only be a breach of data protection. This means that if someone owns 3 vehicles they are obtaining all these details and listing them on their ANPR, so any one of these vehicles is liable to be stopped regardless of the fact that it may not be the alleged offending vehicle which has the PCN registered against it. Remember also that warrants are only valid for 12 months from date of issue, so if you dodge the bailiifs for this amount of time there is jack that they can do after this. Warrants cannot be extended.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

JBW and the London Borough of Wandsworth have regular operations in Balham High Road SW12, York Road SW11 and Trinity Road SW18. There is a lot of controversy about the legality of this as it is the bailiffs ANPR which is performing the 'hit'. The Police ANPR is generally used for road tax, MOT, insurance, known wanted marker, known drugs conveyance, petrol bilking and any othercriminal offence which may be on the PNC or other linked agency database. The problem with these bailiffs is that the vehicle is 'clean' in respect of Police ANPR but the bailiffs are using the Police to do the stop. This just isnt legal. Whilst the police are questioning the driver, the bailiffs are clamping the vehcile and holding that person to ransom whilst the police are doing their phoney bit, i.e. checking driving licence and status of driver etc. Bailiffs can clamp legitimate work vehicles, i.e. plumbers etc, but cannot remove them, so what is the point in clamping other than using it for ransom and inconvenience at side of road until someone reluctantly coughs up. The bailiffs are also now claiming that they can sieze any other vehicle registered to the same person or company. How do they get this info from the DVLA, as this can only be a breach of data protection. This means that if someone owns 3 vehicles they are obtaining all these details and listing them on their ANPR, so any one of these vehicles is liable to be stopped regardless of the fact that it may not be the alleged offending vehicle which has the PCN registered against it. Remember also that warrants are only valid for 12 months from date of issue, so if you dodge the bailiifs for this amount of time there is jack that they can do after this. Warrants cannot be extended.

What you have described is blatant law-breaking by JBW, LB of Waltham Forest and the Metropolitan Police. Vehicles used in connection with a person's employment, business or vocation cannot be seized, unless the warrant is in the name of a body corporate and the vehicle is owned by the body corporate. A vehicle owned by a third party, including a finance or leasing company, is also exempt from seizure. JBW bailiffs have been reported to have and have been witnessed reaching into vehicles, whilst the driver is still in the vehicle, and attempting to seize the keys by use of force, sometimes, injuring the driver in the process.

The practice you refer to regarding the loading of vehicle registration marks, other than that on the warrant, onto an ANPR database may well amount to a breach of data protection legislation and, possibly, other legislation, also.

JBW's method of operation requires in-depth investigation and, where necessary, legal action against employees, directors and the company.

[bizzybob]

Re: Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

What you have described is blatant law-breaking by JBW, LB of Waltham Forest and the Metropolitan Police. Vehicles used in connection with a person's employment, business or vocation cannot be seized, unless the warrant is in the name of a body corporate and the vehicle is owned by the body corporate. A vehicle owned by a third party, including a finance or leasing company, is also exempt from seizure. JBW bailiffs have been reported to have and have been witnessed reaching into vehicles, whilst the driver is still in the vehicle, and attempting to seize the keys by use of force, sometimes, injuring the driver in the process.

The practice you refer to regarding the loading of vehicle registration marks, other than that on the warrant, onto an ANPR database may well amount to a breach of data protection legislation and, possibly, other legislation, also.

JBW's method of operation requires in-depth investigation and, where necessary, legal action against employees, directors and the company.

The Met could find themselves up in front of the beak with Jamie Waller if they persist in this one.

Now heres a thing, why would Linkedin keep inviting me to connect with Waller, when the only connection I would like is a copper on his ANPR sting giving his bailiffs a boot up the backside when they realise they are breaking the law at JBW's behest.

[Milo]

Re: Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

Can I just correct a few errors.

First....Loandoger. You state that warrants only have a life of 12 months and cannot be extended. This is actually NOT correct.

Warrants for unpaid PCN's can be extended for a further 12 months. However, there are strict criteria to follow:

Firstly, the local authority would need to pay a fee of £7.

The 2nd criteria is most important as this provides that applications to extend the 12 month period MUST be made BEFORE and NOT after the date of expiry of the warrant ( which from memory is calculated as being 1 year and 5 days from the date of the request to TEC for permission to issue the warrant)

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

why would Linkedin keep inviting me to connect with Waller,

Perhaps you have a mutual contact from LB?

Person X is connected to Gary Osner, Managing Director at Roxburghe (UK) LimitedPerson X is connected to Erica Ballmann, Head of the Leader's Office at London Borough of Lambeth
Person X is connected to Emma Boulter, Lawyer at Royds, James Jones, Experian Ltd.
Person X is connected to Sarah Marshall, Head of Recoveries at Santander
Person X is connected to Peter Morton, Head of Press at The Labour Party and Rachael Mills, Director at SE2 Ltd
Person X is connected to Kit Johnson, Field Enforcement Manager - Avon & Somerset (Criminal) at HMCTS
Person X is connected to Jane Clack, Money Advice Consultant at Payplan
Person X is connected to Simon McGovern, Director of Clearway Parking vehicle recovery, vehicle repossession and asset recovery
Person X is connected to Lisa Connolly, Senior Marketing Manager at Aviva UK.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

The Met could find themselves up in front of the beak with Jamie Waller if they persist in this one.

Now heres a thing, why would Linkedin keep inviting me to connect with Waller, when the only connection I would like is a copper on his ANPR sting giving his bailiffs a boot up the backside when they realise they are breaking the law at JBW's behest.

I can see some serious questions being asked about the legality of these operations between the Met, JBW and LB of Waltham Forest.

The Met are quite within their rights and powers to organise such operations for the purposes of detecting offences under motor vehicle excise, insurance and MOT legislation or to apprehend any persons involved in crime or unlawfully at large, including anyone wanted in connection with a crime. If they are assisting certificated bailiffs to seize property in connection with a civil debt, then, in my opinion, the police are, definitely, in breach of Home Office guidelines, as they must not assist a certificated bailiff in the seizure of goods or to gain entry to a debtor's home or premises. There has been a case on LB recently where a certificated bailiff reached into through the driver's window of an OP's car and attempted to forcibly take the ignition key. The OP prevented them from taking the key and drove off. A police officer who was nearby made no attempt to stop the bailiff behaving in a manner that would make a hardened football hooligan look well-behaved.

Jamie Waller has either got to live up to his claim that JBW is an ethical firm and get rid of the element amongst his bailiffs who believe they are above the law or face an investigation into his company's operations. I can see an investigation coming before steps are taken to boot out the dodgy element.

[Milo]

Re: Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

What you have described is blatant law-breaking by JBW, LB of Waltham Forest and the Metropolitan Police. Vehicles used in connection with a person's employment, business or vocation cannot be seized, unless the warrant is in the name of a body corporate and the vehicle is owned by the body corporate. A vehicle owned by a third party, including a finance or leasing company, is also exempt from seizure. JBW bailiffs have been reported to have and have been witnessed reaching into vehicles, whilst the driver is still in the vehicle, and attempting to seize the keys by use of force, sometimes, injuring the driver in the process.

The practice you refer to regarding the loading of vehicle registration marks, other than that on the warrant, onto an ANPR database may well amount to a breach of data protection legislation and, possibly, other legislation, also.

JBW's method of operation requires in-depth investigation and, where necessary, legal action against employees, directors and the company.

I would not for one moment want to criticise you suffice to say "wake up and smell the roses" !!!

These frankly appalling "roadside operations" have been a frequent occurance for as long as I can remember and almost certainly for the past 8 years or so.

I made a Formal Complaint to Westminster Council approx 6 years ago on behalf of a lovely man who owned a black Hackney cab. He was forced to stop by "Philips" (now called Collectica) at around 11pm. The police ordered him to stop and then "introduced" him to the bailiffs. They demanded about £1,000. He could not pay and the police ordered his passengers out and the taxi was removed to the pound. He collected the taxi later that morning and told me that when he spoke with the pound they stated that on average; about 40 cars are taken during these "roadside operations".

I still have all the correspondence from Westminster and used that as a Formal Complaint to the ICO. The taxi owner pursued a great claim using the Hackney Carriage lawyers.

FOI requests were made to various police forces and the responses have mainly been redacted but the bottom line (so to speak) is that the "pay off" to the police force from Westminster is the payment to the police force of handsome "overtime" agreements.

I have continued whenever time permits to write complaints to as many government departments about the use of ANPR to enforce unpaid PCN's and this includes the Ministry of Justice, the Secretary of State, and DCLG.

I am DELIGHTED that finally Eric Pickles and the Department for Transport are looking at the use of CCTV and from the "internal briefing" released on 27th September it is CONFIRMED that both Cabinet Members are seeking to release a Consultation on the use of CCTV (which they state has been used as a "cash cow") and that they are looking to introduce legislation to BAN the use of CCTV as a method to detect whether a motorist has committed a traffic contravention.

Most significant is that from the "Briefing" they are also looking at the way ANPR is used by bailiffs !!!

My letters may have played a small part only in getting this subject considered but it would seem that changes are being considered following responses in June to the Transport Select Committee on the use of CCTV.

I can assure you that I will NOT give up on this subject.

Finally, both the DCLG and DfT have been VERY surprised to hear that these dreadful "police roadside operations" are an everyday occurence !!!

There are some very interesting times ahead because; if bailiffs are forced to stop using ANPR vehicles to enforce parking tickets they will have to visit the debtors address instead. This MAY mean that they act in the correct manner.

[bizzybob]

Re: Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

Perhaps you have a mutual contact from LB?

Ouch 6 degrees of separation strikes again :tinysmile_hmm_t2:

[bizzybob]

Re: Bailiffs use of CCTV and new regulations

"There are some very interesting times ahead because; if bailiffs are forced to stop using ANPR vehicles to enforce parking tickets they will have to visit the debtors address instead. This MAY mean that they act in the correct manner."

And seize any motor that is parked on or adjacent to a debtor's property after April 2014, safe in the knowledge that an innocent would have to jump through hoops and effectively pay the fees and debt to reclaim their property, if they cannot afford it then the property is forfeit and the bailiff is a winner.