DVLA court summons issued

[danny_kiernan]

Hi all,

I know some of you don't agree with me about ANPR, but I have just now booked a claim on MCOL against the DVLA for breach of the data protection act (via sharing information with councils/police/parking contractors/supermarkets. I have not been affected personally by this, but the DVLA are sharing my details with practically anyone, which I find repugnant.

Dani

[buzby]

No argument from me - however they do clearly state on their website that they information they hold can and will be disclosed to certain classes of users - even hold data they do not place on the V5 (like a finance company interest). Faced with this, a claim could be successfully resisted due to them being required to do so under the RTA.

[PhantomReclaimer]

Originally Posted by buzby

No argument from me - however they do clearly state on their website that they information they hold can and will be disclosed to certain classes of users - even hold data they do not place on the V5 (like a finance company interest). Faced with this, a claim could be successfully resisted due to them being required to do so under the RTA.

DVLA are only allowed to release information to persons who have "reasonable cause" to have it. If you take an example relevent to many of us here - the pursuing of a "penalty charge" by a private individual or fim for over staying, failing to display, etc - then it is difficult to see how the pursuit of an obviously unlawful and unenforcible debt could ever be regarded as "reasonable". Such behavior is, by it's very definition, entirely unreasonable.

P.

[buzby]

But that's just it! 'Reasonable Cause' is a legally accepted woolly term to mean that a wide latitude is given with no precise specification. For example, if I found a note on my windscreen saying a car had reversed into me in a private car park and riven off, I could contact the DVLA with this number as I had a 'reasonable cause' to know your whereabouts. After paying the fee, I would be given your details.

Now, this would by the same time of claim made by Car Park enforcement firms, who claim to be pursuing motorists for breach of contract, the DVLA is not an arbiter of if they are right or wrong, but if the fee is paid the details are provided. I just don't see you being able to successfully challenge it - although I would be delighted if you succeeded!

[PhantomReclaimer]

Originally Posted by buzby

But that's just it! 'Reasonable Cause' is a legally accepted woolly term to mean that a wide latitude is given with no precise specification. For example, if I found a note on my windscreen saying a car had reversed into me in a private car park and riven off, I could contact the DVLA with this number as I had a 'reasonable cause' to know your whereabouts. After paying the fee, I would be given your details.

Now, this would by the same time of claim made by Car Park enforcement firms, who claim to be pursuing motorists for breach of contract, the DVLA is not an arbiter of if they are right or wrong, but if the fee is paid the details are provided. I just don't see you being able to successfully challenge it - although I would be delighted if you succeeded!

I don't think the term "reasonable cause" is at all woolly or indistinct. You just have to apply the common English definition to the words. The word "reasonable" means...well... reasonable. Therefore, you have to have reasonable cause to get the information, rather then unreasonable cause, good cause or just some cause to want it.

The law requires that only someone with reasonable cause may be supplied with the information. Clearly then the person requesting the information has to demonstrate to the DVLA that they do in fact have reasonable cause and if they say that it's for pursuing a fine, penalty or other charge related to a breach of contract between private parties then they clearly have not met that burdon because such charges are unlawful and therefore are unenforcible at Law.

The issue of contractual penalties is not a novel or ambiguous area of law and the principles relating to it have been established for over a century. Everyone who has studied law will know about contractual penalties, including the legions of lawers no doubt employed by DVLA. I know for a fact that DVLA knows about the law relating to CP's as I have written to them about it.

It is for DVLA to satisfy themselves that any request for information is founded on "reasonable cause". It is not a case of the DVLA being arbiter of whether the parking company is right or wrong as they are clearly wrong as has been established in law on several occasions in well known cases. If I wrote to DVLA requesting your info because I've decided to issue a "fine" to everyone who drove past my house in a car painted in a colour I didn't like then they'd tell me where to get off as I clearly would be pursuing a sum that wasn't enforcible at law. It's the same with private parking companies. DVLA know fine well that these companies are pursuing unenforcible and unlawful sums yet still give them information.

P.

[buzby]

If you don't think 'reasonable cause' is woolly or indistinct, it is only because you have a pre-conceived notion on what 'reasonable' is. As for your example of fining folk who drive past your house - do you have full ownership of the land they drove over and provided appropriate signage? The DVLA have no discretion in the matter, and I seriously doubt that they have any intention of being an arbiter in any civil action on whether they should release the information or not. If you say you need the data because of damage on private property (reasonable) you get the info. If you say you really fancied the driver of the MG in that shopping centre car park, they won't. (Unreasonable).

[PhantomReclaimer]

Originally Posted by buzby

If you don't think 'reasonable cause' is woolly or indistinct, it is only because you have a pre-conceived notion on what 'reasonable' is. As for your example of fining folk who drive past your house - do you have full ownership of the land they drove over and provided appropriate signage? The DVLA have no discretion in the matter, and I seriously doubt that they have any intention of being an arbiter in any civil action on whether they should release the information or not. If you say you need the data because of damage on private property (reasonable) you get the info. If you say you really fancied the driver of the MG in that shopping centre car park, they won't. (Unreasonable).

Well, obviously you are able to define "reasonable" and use it in it's proper context in two examples so why can't a DVLA lawyer? As for them being arbiters of a civil action you again have just suggested that they should be by considering signage, ownership of road, etc.

You are correct in that DVLA have no discretion in the matter of giving out information. They are bound by the Law. If the person requesting it cannot demonstrate "reasonable cause" then they MUST NOT release the information. DVLA should NOT be releasing information purely because the applicant says he has reasonable cause. He should have to show that he does.

This is not a complicated call for DVLA to make. The word "reasonable" is easily understood and I fail to see how anyone could consider the pursuit of an unlawful and hence, unenforcible, debt to be anything other than utterly unreasonable.

All DVLA needs to do is to ask whether the person requesting the information is doing so in relation to any contractual dispute involving the use of a motor vehicle on private land. If they say they are then they should investigate further to establish whether what is being pursued is likely to be an unlawfully levied contractual penalty such as for overstaying, failing to pay, etc. If it does appear to be a penalty, or other unenforcible sum, then they should refuse to provide the information. If the person requesting the information is aggreived at the decision not to release the information then they can always appeal.

Also, I think a change in the law is required here. I think that in most cases if a request for your information is made to DVLA then you should be informed of it and the reason why it is being requested and be given an opportunity to object in same cases.

P.

[danny_kiernan]

WOW, I have opened a can of worms here.

I have no problem with the DVLA providing details to a 3rd party, via a court order - but just providing details willy nilly is what I find wrong.

Does anyone else feel like they are living in 1982?

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

I agree with phantomreclaimer's last post, but think a court order should be sought first, then a court will see how 'reasonable' the request is.

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

Originally Posted by PhantomReclaimer

It's the same with private parking companies. DVLA know fine well that these companies are pursuing unenforcible and unlawful sums yet still give them information.

No it isn't - the DVLA has supplied information to the parking company, for a yearly sum. The DVLA even have a web service set up for their subscribers to obtain information from a registration number.

Haven't you all noticed our goverment has decided to turn capitalist, the DVLA is one of the agencies making money for the government via selling registration number details.

I preferred it when the government was trying to look after us, not make money - even thatcherism is better than our current government.
Dani

[patdavies]

This is the DVLA's webpage that states their policy.

These are the reasons considered reasonable by the DVLA previously

safety recall by vehicle manufacturer – to enable the manufacturer, or an agent acting on their behalf, to trace keepers to ensure that a vehicle is checked and any modifications are made
abandoned Vehicles – to help trace keepers who abandon their vehicles on private property outside the control of local authorities
minor hit and run incidents – to help trace keepers of vehicles involved in minor hit and run incidents not warranting a full police investigation.Circumstanc es could include incidents of personal injury or damage to property
toll/road charges – information may be released to help trace keepers of vehicles that have failed to pay road/tunnel/bridge charges
drive-offs – to help trace keepers of vehicles that drive off without paying for goods/services. Circumstances could include incidents of failing to pay for petrol or repairs for a vehicle
unauthorised parking on private land – to help landlords or their agents to trace keepers who obstruct access, contravene parking restrictions or trespass on private land
suspected fraud – to establish keepers of vehicles where insurance claims have been received
investigations into suspected vehicle ‘clocking’ – to confirm if a vehicle’s recorded mileage is genuine
enforcement of traffic related offences outside the UK – to UK agents acting on behalf of non-UK authorities to pursue keepers for non payment of penalties for parking and toll road violations incurred outside the UK
stolen cheque payments – to investigate payments related to a vehicle using stolen cheques
tracing company assets – to a liquidator appointed by the court to confirm the assets of a company following insolvency
confirmation of keeper details to ensure seizure of correct vehicle by bailiff/debt collection agents under court order
person acting as an executor of a deceased’s estate to confirm vehicle assets

This is the application form used by parking companies and this the one for individuals. As you will see, the thresholds are different...

[danny_kiernan]

Ah but you have forgotten the £500k paid by the car manufacturers for all the drivers details :o)

[danny_kiernan]

Pat, please don't try to offer us a turd and try to pass it off as something else, by scattering a bit of glitter on it (via legalities).

Your employer...oops the DVLA is breaking the law and has been for quite some time and I mean to stop that in any way I can

[danny_kiernan]

No amount of disinformation will stop me

[danny_kiernan]

Lets not forget the deal, the DVLA did with the insurance companies, where they share data, sorry but I must have been asleep when a private company (insurance company) supplies details to the DVLA - have they not heard of the data protection act?

[buzby]

Sorry, but you've lost the plot here. Firstly, Pat provided the complete list of situations where the DVLA will provide data on request to third parties. You obviously don't like this, so instead of complaining about a system that has been in place (with some modifications) since the DVLC was originally set up (previously, it was the local councils). Take it up with central government.

As to the new supposed conspiracy about insurers, the only information provided is whether a Registration Number is flagged as covered. Not the type of policy, excess or anything else. Without this, online Road Fund renewal could not work. You haven't complained about VOSA telling the DVLA that your MoT has expired but I'm sure that won;t be long in coming.

Why not concentrate on things that are REALLY unfair? Like the fact you have to continuously declare a SORN for an unused vehicle and pay massive fines if you don't? That's the biggest assault on personal freedoms this decade? [Scrub that, just saw your other thread!]

[PhantomReclaimer]

Originally Posted by buzby

Sorry, but you've lost the plot here. Firstly, Pat provided the complete list of situations where the DVLA will provide data on request to third parties. You obviously don't like this, so instead of complaining about a system that has been in place (with some modifications) since the DVLC was originally set up (previously, it was the local councils). Take it up with central government.

No I think you are missing the point. It's ir