I too am in the same situation and they have ALSO claimed there was a CCJ made against me in 2001. This is quite frankly nonsense, I have never knowingly had a CCJ and I have checked with Equifax annually since 1999. SLC have no record of this either. There appears to be a large number of people who have exactly the same letters, but are unaware of the CCJ claim being made against them. IF, there is a deliberate tactic to misrepresent the legal position, would such behaviour not be fraudulent?

I think we're going around in circles here. Whether we are talking about Police ANPR or not, the technology is still ANPR and it the collection and processing of data that could lead to a vehicle being unlawfully removed or destrained on the Highway.

Back on topic, Jason, it's good to have someone who has been in the industry on the forum, It is very sad that you have had to go to such levels to protect your home and yourself but I take my hat off to you for what you're doing and have done. Look forward to chatting with you.

Actually, edited, I think Fair-parking has summed it up nicely.

1) TEC is not a Court, it's a deemed Court. 2) Where a Warrant of Execution has expired, is incorrect etc then the authority of a Court is no longer in effect. 3) As I read it G&M, "the order of the Court" as opposed to "an order of the Court" would need to be specific, in other words, it would need to specifically be by the order of the Court to exempt disclosure. An order of the Court in the generic sense would not exempt disclosure otherwise Bailiff Companies would not need to register as datacontrollers in the first place. 4) What has been lost on this thread is that we have third party contractors, certificated in their own right, utilising an ANPR system. Either way (and this has been confirmed by the ICO), those operators would need to be registered as datacontrollers not just for processing data but for the commercial procurement of images. Where an exemption applies such as non-disclosure, that does not exempt the requirement to provide data under section 7(1), a subject access request for example. 5) It's the Councils that provide the data to the Bailiffs, the Bailiffs then provide the data to their third parties etc etc. 6) It is still unlawful to destrain on the Highway unless directly outside the 'debtors' home. 7)The Police are aiding and abetting unlawful destraint on the Highway utilising s44 of the terrorism act.

Notwithstanding the fact that if the person is capured using the ANPR system and that record stored again, that constitutes a record and personal information.

persistent evader detection or how about Philips Bailiffs:

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;

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.

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.

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.

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

Correct

They would need to protect the value of it, if the levy is 800 quid and they sieze a 3 grand motor then the debtor is entitled to the balance for a start, if the vehicle is being towed, then that vehicle will need to be covered as part of a motortraders policy, you are in effect insuring multiple vehicles.