Bailiff ANPR

Dear Camden Borough Council,

Please forward details on your knowledge of your Bailiff
contractors use of covert ANPR vehicles to collect PCN revenue on
your behalf.

I am of the belief that certain Bailiff contractors use unmarked
(and in some cases covert CCTV) to adopt surveillance on vehicles
that owe the London Borough of Camden revenue for unpaid PCNs.

What provisions are in place to ensure such private companies do
not breach RIPA and Data Protection laws whilst operating?

Also, why don`t these private firms clearly display vehicle signage
to warn members of the public that CCTV operates?

Yours faithfully,

B

Dear Camden Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Camden Borough
Council's handling of my FOI request 'Bailiff ANPR'.

As an ex employee of Philips Collection Services Ltd (One of your
Bailiff contractors), I dispute several claims Camden make in their
FOI reply. I am of the belief that conduct applied by "Some" of
your contractors has been used for a template answer to my FOI
request.My claim is that Philips Bailiffs do not secure their ANPR
vehicles at a pound. Instead, Bailiffs take their ANPR vans to
their home addresses each day as the cost of a central pound is too
expensive for Philips and not viable to their day to day
operations.

The vehicles are not trackered and if stolen/ broken into whilst at
the Bailiffs address, delicate data is liable to be
stolen/intercepted. Philips ANPR vans DO NOT carry on board fax
machines to print off Warrants of Execution ( Thus not complying
with TMA regulations that state that the Bailiff must supply a copy
of the Warrant to debtors).Even if they were to be fitted with the
equipment, if the ANPR Bailiff were to work outside of office hours
he would be unable to request a faxed WoE. As ANPR computers only
contains CSV data and not Corel Draw software to enable the
printing of a WoE, this claim that ANPR staff supplying copies of
WoE is spurios in most cases.

Your comments regarding ANPR vehicles not being liveried is "Common
practise" does not make the matter legal, accountable or
transparent.

Also,ANPR consists of video cameras connected to an on board PC.
The facility to record moving and still images IS available to the
Bailiffs albeit it may not be utilised by the operator. I believe
this constitutes the term "CCTV" and the laws of use DO apply.

In your reply, you also state that vehicle imagery is "Not
retained". You also continue, stating that "VRNs not associtated
with a Warrant are also not retained and are automaticly deleted".
I suggest that in most cases, this is incorrect as the majority of
your Bailiff contracors do not have the correct on line back office
software (BOSS) to facilitate this proceedure.

Moving on to your claim of full compliance of ISO 27001 Data
Security, I also challenge this as I am aware that in certain
cases, ANPR is simply updated via a non encrypted USB stick or via
email to self employed private ANPR staff using CSV files.

Please confirm exactly what audit provisions have been applied to
the Bailiff contract by LB Camden and what monitoring methods have
been instigated as at this point, RIPA and DPA laws are being
broken daily. In addition, TMA County Court regulations are also
being broken due to no Warrant of Execution being supplied to
debtors by some contractors.

To confirm, I write this complaint with the knowledge of
operational/technical methods of ONLY the named Bailiff contractor
and private ANPR suppliers that collect debt on behalf of LBC.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ba...

Yours faithfully,

Jason Hillier

Dear Camden,

Thank you for your reply dated 2.09.2010.

To confirm, in your earlier response dated 16th July 2010, you
stated the following. "In addition, each vehicle has mobile fax
machines on board so that a warrant can be faxed to the Bailiffs
whenever a vehicle with an outstanding debt is identified. This is
in accordance with the Traffic Management Act which states you must
be in possession of the warrant to be able to enforce" In today`s
reply, you state the following."Philips Collection Services Ltd
does not provide employees with FAX machines or printing equipment
for warrants. This is in order to control the circulation of
customer's data. "

I translate the above two comments to mean that Philips do NOT then
comply with the Traffic Management Act?

Moving on, you also state on 16th July 2010 the following "All of
the ANPR vehicles are stored at car pounds overnight and each van
is allocated staff who are tracked by fleetstar GPS." Today
(2.09.2010), you claim the following "In terms of ANPR vehicles,
Philips Collection Services Ltd. does not secure these vehicles in
a pound. Instead they are kept at the property of its employees.
This is considered an equally secure method of storage as the vans
are properly alarmed and by virtue of the presence of an employee
are guarded for a significantly larger amount of time than if they
were secured in a pound."

Further more you also state in writing that "Philips Collection
Services Ltd. has determined that rather than displaying vehicle
signage the most effective method of providing warrants is for the
warrants of execution to be available via the employees hand held
device for the customer to view upon request and by following the
relevant data protection checks. This method is fully compliant
with the relevant acts and is the most secure method available."
Please be aware the following wording on a Warrant of Execution.
"If your possessions are seized you will be left a Notice of
Seizure of Goods and an Inventory (list of items seized) together
with a copy of this warrant." You state that the warrant is
supplied via the "Employees handheld" and this procedure clearly
does not comply with current legislation as a copy of the warrant
is understandably not available to the debtor(No fax/printer
machine available as stated) If a seizure takes place, what paper
work is provided? I would suggest that protocols currently used by
your contractor seriously contravene current legislation and as
such their enforcement actions are illegal.

On a final note, you state the following "Please note the
information is covered by copyright legislation. You are not
authorised to re-use this information for commercial or research
purposes as defined by the Re-Use of Public Sector Regulations
2005." Please explain further?

Many thanks for taking the time to reply to my requests and your
comments have been noted albeit you contradict yourself several
times. I will pass on this information to other parties that have
interest.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Hillier

Dear Camden Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Camden Borough
Council's handling of my FOI request 'Bailiff ANPR'.

I was promised answer's to my questions within 10 working days.
Today is the last day and no reply has been supplied.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ba...

Yours faithfully,

Jason Hillier

Dear PS FOI,

Thank you for your reply dated 29th September 2010. In it, you
state the following. "Philips have advised that they use the most
efficient and secured method to provide the Warrant of Execution to
customers and this is provided to customers via a hand held device.
This will only take place after the customer passes the required
data protection checks. If a printed copy of the Warrant is
required this will be provided to customers after Philips have
obtained the Warrant by fax (at a convenient location nearby) or by
email and then printing the Warrant." I further request the
following information:

1:When Philip`s staff attend a property and identify themselves to
a debtor, how is the Warrant of Execution presented? From your
reply, you appear to claim that the agent simply shows a digital
image of the WoE via a "Hand-held device" Is this correct?

2: What processes are involved in the "customer" passing DPA
checks?

3: A printed WoE is required to be supplied by law upon the seizure
of goods, regardless of any request by the debtor. To clarify, the
wording on a WoE clearly states the following "If your possessions
are seized you will be left a Notice of Seizure of Goods and an
inventory (list of items seized)together with a copy of this
warrant." As you will see, there is no mention of a "Request" for a
copy. It is a legal requirement that a copy be supplied. You claim
that Philips print off a copy of the WoE via fax at a "Convenient
location". Do you mean an Internet shop or similar service? You
also state that emailing/printing the WoE is also possible. Again,
is this at a Internet shop or similar service? If debtors are
expected to facilitate this service, what financial compensation is
provided to the debtor for ink, Internet access, paper etc?

4:Taking on board your comments on Philips operational protocols,
please explain how the printing/faxing of WoE can be adhered to
when ANPR vehicles are working in London 24 hours a day. To
elucidate, ANPR vehicles patrol central London and areas of Camden
during the night Monday-Friday. No Philips office staff are on duty
during these hours. If Philips ANPR staff seize a vehicle with an
outstanding Camden WoE at 2AM in Mayfair, London W1 for example,
the ANPR staff have no access to office staff for support and
cannot receive emailed/faxed copies of the WoE. As already
mentioned, supplying a copy of the WoE upon seizure IS a legal
requirement. Even if 24 hour office staff cover were to be
supplied, the Bailiffs would not have access to 24 hour
fax/internet/printing services. Please can you explain how this
enforcement system can operate within the law?

Many thanks in advance.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Hillier