RE: Drivers escape scamera penalties
Monday 10th April 2006
PH says: police not camerasDrivers have allegedly been using empty office accommodation addresses to register their cars with the aim of escaping speed camera fines. According to a story in yesterday's Observer, one driver has been snapped 100 times by cameras and another has driven at 119mph in a built-up area. We don't know what time of day this occurred.
Drivers escape scamera penalties
Scam means speeding without capture
PH says: police not cameras
Neither has been apprehended because they registered the car with the DVLA at a mass mailing address, as routinely and legitimately used by businesses. When police went to find the alleged miscreants, they found only a shopfront and no-one there.
Around 1,000 speeding offences have been recorded by cameras that could not be enforced because the driver couldn't be found. Some of those result from the driver being registered abroad, according to the report, while others have used the mailing address ploy.
The result is that one MP has called for a change in the law to plug the loophole. Beds SW MP Andrew Selous said that it was unfair that the rest of us get points but while others escape.
While it's legal to register a car at an address that's not the driver's home -- company cars for instance -- it is illegal to provide false details.
The RAC Foundation's Edmond King said that the incentives for this sort of scam were higher because they were enforced only by cameras. He said though that automatic number plate recognition would help solve this problem. A Home Office spokesman weighed in with the chilling observation that the national identity register that's being set up for the introduction of ID cards would also help.
Whatever we do, legal or not, they'll have us on camera. The prospect of putting more police back on the streets wasn't mentioned as an option.
Discussion
News Item said:
A Home Office spokesman weighed in with the chilling observation that the national identity register that's being set up for the introduction of ID cards would also help.
curious how, if i'm gonna registered my car at a dodgy address sure ain't gonna use my real name !!
It still forgets that ultimately they have still broken the law, no matter where their car is registered, and proves that the camera's don't work to slow people down or stop them breaking the law.
Using more legislation won't do anything, as there is nothing to then stop people simply altering their plates with black tape. A 0 soon becomes an 8, and a 1 soon becomes a 4 for example...
If people are willing to break the law already, by speeding, then break it by registering their car at a false address, then surely they will just find another way to evade prosecution, no matter how much pointless legislation is piled onto the law-abiding motorist in an attempt to curb the criminals!
Typical Labour policy. More camera's and ID cards will solve the problems
Scum!
Dave
Using more legislation won't do anything, as there is nothing to then stop people simply altering their plates with black tape. A 0 soon becomes an 8, and a 1 soon becomes a 4 for example...
If people are willing to break the law already, by speeding, then break it by registering their car at a false address, then surely they will just find another way to evade prosecution, no matter how much pointless legislation is piled onto the law-abiding motorist in an attempt to curb the criminals!
Typical Labour policy. More camera's and ID cards will solve the problems
Scum!
Dave
I did hear that the best, and completely legal, way to do this is to register the car to a genuine limited company and to use another limited company as the Company Secretary, this being a management services company.
The registered address of the owning (or legally keeping) company is the registered offices of the management services company. Any NiP goes to the management services company who simply send it back noting that the driver cannot be identified. It would be difficult to prosecute a 3rd party limited company and it seems highly unlikely that a prosecution of the company secretary of the management services company would result in any points on any licence.
The registered address of the owning (or legally keeping) company is the registered offices of the management services company. Any NiP goes to the management services company who simply send it back noting that the driver cannot be identified. It would be difficult to prosecute a 3rd party limited company and it seems highly unlikely that a prosecution of the company secretary of the management services company would result in any points on any licence.
Mr Whippy said:
It still forgets that ultimately they have still broken the law, no matter where their car is registered, and proves that the camera's don't work to slow people down or stop them breaking the law.
Using more legislation won't do anything, as there is nothing to then stop people simply altering their plates with black tape. A 0 soon becomes an 8, and a 1 soon becomes a 4 for example...
If people are willing to break the law already, by speeding, then break it by registering their car at a false address, then surely they will just find another way to evade prosecution, no matter how much pointless legislation is piled onto the law-abiding motorist in an attempt to curb the criminals!
Typical Labour policy. More camera's and ID cards will solve the problems
And how do you propose to resolve the problem then??!
Scum!
Dave
The article said:
The RAC Foundation's Edmond King said that the incentives for this sort of scam were higher because they were enforced only by cameras. He said though that automatic number plate recognition would help solve this problem.
How exactly does ANPR improve the situation, it's still camera based?! All that happens with ANPR is that the camera talks to a computer, the computer talks to the database, and the database says where the car is registered. With Gatso, the photo is analysed by a person, who talks to a computer, that talks to the database.....
I think the RAC Foundation has lost the plot. It seems they are talking up the benefit of ANPR, where in reality it just intrudes on the privacy of innocent motorists with no real benefit to road safety or crime prevention.
I'm only suprised that the numbers quoted are so low, given the number of unregistered cars on the road. Is this figure just for cars that are legally registered to untraceable addresses as opposed to those that are just unregistered?
Goes to show just how irresponsible some drivers are, I am not moaning about the driver doing 95 on a motorway, but the mention of 119 in a built up area!
I happen to agree that speed limits should be enforced, cameras do little to achieve it, everyone (cept those who get caught) slow down for the camera, whether or not we all agree on the limits is a different matter.
It seems to me that if these guys go to the bother of doing what they did, then they have complete disregard for the safety of other road users.
Sooner they catch them, and trash their vehicles the better for the rest of us I think.
I happen to agree that speed limits should be enforced, cameras do little to achieve it, everyone (cept those who get caught) slow down for the camera, whether or not we all agree on the limits is a different matter.
It seems to me that if these guys go to the bother of doing what they did, then they have complete disregard for the safety of other road users.
Sooner they catch them, and trash their vehicles the better for the rest of us I think.
stenniso said:
How exactly does ANPR improve the situation, it's still camera based?! All that happens with ANPR is that the camera talks to a computer, the computer talks to the database, and the database says where the car is registered. With Gatso, the photo is analysed by a person, who talks to a computer, that talks to the database.....
I guess they mean ANPR in Police cars, and at Police checkpoints (I see a fair number of those now) so they detain the vehicle. I'm pretty sure my local Police would pursue any speeding ticket to the ends of the world.
stenniso said:
I'm only suprised that the numbers quoted are so low, given the number of unregistered cars on the road. Is this figure just for cars that are legally registered to untraceable addresses as opposed to those that are just unregistered?
Agree with that - there surely must be many many tickets issued where the vehicle registration details are not current. It also seems unlikely to me that one vehicle would be responsible for 10% of all untraceable's.
deva link said:
How exactly does ANPR improve the situation, it's still camera based?! All that happens with ANPR is that the camera talks to a computer, the computer talks to the database, and the database says where the car is registered. With Gatso, the photo is analysed by a person, who talks to a computer, that talks to the database.....
I guess they mean ANPR in Police cars, and at Police checkpoints (I see a fair number of those now) so they detain the vehicle. I'm pretty sure my local Police would pursue any speeding ticket to the ends of the world.
The point being that there is no conviction in the first place for the cops to chase up.
sgt^roc said:Agree with your general thrust (no pun intended) there sarge, but there's a thread on this over in the P&P and I mentioned there how this proportion of non-custodials has remained more constant as a fraction of reported cases than the purely headline numbers suggest. Also, and assuming reports from the Home Office are correct, these cautions were generally given to young boys (young girls) and old men (old women) - so in one case probably experimenting that went too far, and the other too far that went experimenting. The Home Office also rightly pointed out the individual nature of cases, within the above context. Probably very difficult to make statistics mean anything in harrowing crimes like this.
In their haste to catch speeders they have in effect made more crime, small wonder we are at the bottom of the EU stats, mean while the rapist get just a caution an told not to do it again ... fukin great eh...?
I don't really understand this scam.
You register your vehicle to, an empty office for example right?
Then the Nips go unanswered and apparently the cops do not go to investigate the address?
Why not just ignore the Nips you get sent to your home instead, and when (if ) the cops come round, "Officer, i have never recieved a NIP at any time in my life, I am a safe driver, why would I ?!"
How can you be charged with not receiving mail?
>> Edited by hedders on Monday 10th April 18:39
You register your vehicle to, an empty office for example right?
Then the Nips go unanswered and apparently the cops do not go to investigate the address?
Why not just ignore the Nips you get sent to your home instead, and when (if ) the cops come round, "Officer, i have never recieved a NIP at any time in my life, I am a safe driver, why would I ?!"
How can you be charged with not receiving mail?
>> Edited by hedders on Monday 10th April 18:39
Ahhhhhhhh! As those who have read my previous posts will know I have mentioned this scam many a time. In a previous job I spent many happy days going round in circles making enquries after people. (Before anyone even thinks it - no I have never worked for a SCP!).
It is an established scam, used quietly by criminals for many years to distance themselves from the authorities as far as their use of cars goes. The likes of Mailboxes Etc... you see in the High Street are of limited use as they will disclose all to the authorites. However there is no shortage of "respectable" companies who perform mail forwarding, call answering etc... services.
Personally, I wouldn't bother with a legit Ltd company. It creates an audit trail of sorts and could give rise to offences under the Companies Act. Far easier to just invent an entirely ficticious and meaningless "business name." XXPLOD Associates.... you get the picture. You register the car to business with an address of the mail handling office.
Things to note if you REALLY want to box clever:
1. Insurance: It's on PNC which includes all named drivers. Look at Tradex website. You'll find that a fully comp traders policy covering any vehicle can be bought for £1000 to £1500 for an average Joe. Stops BiB kicking off further enqs with a name: voters register, PNC, maybe credit ref checks etc...
2. MOT - Not on PNC yet but they are now computerised. When you visit a garage, don't provide your details to the garage. BiB can easily find out where the MOT was done and start making some enquiries.
3. VEL: This is quite extreme, but valid. One car I was interested in had a VEL about to expire. I noted the new VEL details - issuing post office. Check CCTV - not our man. And paid for in cash naturally - wouldn't want to give BiB a trail of credit cards/cheques! Equally - don't renew on-line!
As far as ANPR goes, yes it could potentially be a thorne in one's side. But in order for ANPR to ping someone has to either put a marker on PNC or on whatever local intel databases the ANPR is feeding off. Worst case is you get pulled. Well, you've just bought the car haven't you? Off that average looking bloke, down the pub. Hey! You've got the V5, sellers details are on that aren't they? Blimey, Mr Michael Mouse...... Most decent crims will change their vehicles fairly regularly to avoid this.
And if you are really, really paranoid (the people I was interested in were) you call a taxi (or if you really want to piss off the surveillance officers you think are following your every move - a motorcycle courier; much harder to follow through town) to collect your mail from your mail forwarding company and have him meet you somewhere the BiB will not follow due to showing out. Trust me, any darkened alley on a sink estate or suitably dodgy pub should suffice.
May seem extreme, but believe me there are 'undreds at it, right now.
It is an established scam, used quietly by criminals for many years to distance themselves from the authorities as far as their use of cars goes. The likes of Mailboxes Etc... you see in the High Street are of limited use as they will disclose all to the authorites. However there is no shortage of "respectable" companies who perform mail forwarding, call answering etc... services.
Personally, I wouldn't bother with a legit Ltd company. It creates an audit trail of sorts and could give rise to offences under the Companies Act. Far easier to just invent an entirely ficticious and meaningless "business name." XXPLOD Associates.... you get the picture. You register the car to business with an address of the mail handling office.
Things to note if you REALLY want to box clever:
1. Insurance: It's on PNC which includes all named drivers. Look at Tradex website. You'll find that a fully comp traders policy covering any vehicle can be bought for £1000 to £1500 for an average Joe. Stops BiB kicking off further enqs with a name: voters register, PNC, maybe credit ref checks etc...
2. MOT - Not on PNC yet but they are now computerised. When you visit a garage, don't provide your details to the garage. BiB can easily find out where the MOT was done and start making some enquiries.
3. VEL: This is quite extreme, but valid. One car I was interested in had a VEL about to expire. I noted the new VEL details - issuing post office. Check CCTV - not our man. And paid for in cash naturally - wouldn't want to give BiB a trail of credit cards/cheques! Equally - don't renew on-line!
As far as ANPR goes, yes it could potentially be a thorne in one's side. But in order for ANPR to ping someone has to either put a marker on PNC or on whatever local intel databases the ANPR is feeding off. Worst case is you get pulled. Well, you've just bought the car haven't you? Off that average looking bloke, down the pub. Hey! You've got the V5, sellers details are on that aren't they? Blimey, Mr Michael Mouse...... Most decent crims will change their vehicles fairly regularly to avoid this.
And if you are really, really paranoid (the people I was interested in were) you call a taxi (or if you really want to piss off the surveillance officers you think are following your every move - a motorcycle courier; much harder to follow through town) to collect your mail from your mail forwarding company and have him meet you somewhere the BiB will not follow due to showing out. Trust me, any darkened alley on a sink estate or suitably dodgy pub should suffice.
May seem extreme, but believe me there are 'undreds at it, right now.
planetdave said:
How exactly does ANPR improve the situation, it's still camera based?! All that happens with ANPR is that the camera talks to a computer, the computer talks to the database, and the database says where the car is registered. With Gatso, the photo is analysed by a person, who talks to a computer, that talks to the database.....
I guess they mean ANPR in Police cars, and at Police checkpoints (I see a fair number of those now) so they detain the vehicle. I'm pretty sure my local Police would pursue any speeding ticket to the ends of the world.
The point being that there is no conviction in the first place for the cops to chase up.
No, but they'll impound the car until it's cleared up.
deva link said:
How exactly does ANPR improve the situation, it's still camera based?! All that happens with ANPR is that the camera talks to a computer, the computer talks to the database, and the database says where the car is registered. With Gatso, the photo is analysed by a person, who talks to a computer, that talks to the database.....
I guess they mean ANPR in Police cars, and at Police checkpoints (I see a fair number of those now) so they detain the vehicle. I'm pretty sure my local Police would pursue any speeding ticket to the ends of the world.
The point being that there is no conviction in the first place for the cops to chase up.
No, but they'll impound the car until it's cleared up.
We seem to be at loggerheads on this one. If you get GATSOd then if you use an 'address' then there will be no prosecution therefore no record of offence and thus no data for the ANPR. They don't input raw data from the GATSO* to ANPR.
*other methods of taking the piss are available
planetdave said:
We seem to be at loggerheads on this one. If you get GATSOd then if you use an 'address' then there will be no prosecution therefore no record of offence and thus no data for the ANPR. They don't input raw data from the GATSO* to ANPR.
I understand what you're saying - no *person* can be identified as having committed an offence. However my understanding is that the car's registration will be be tagged so that ANPR will pick up that there are a number of unresolved 'issues' against that vehicle. The vehicle can then be impounded until those issues are resolved.
I've no idea if this happens in practice - perhaps a Bib could advise?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff