Data Protection Complaints – Template Letters

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

MPORTANT INFORMATION

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

This is what the writer would do in the contemplated circumstances. It is placed freely in the public domain on the basis that if it is used no liability of any kind attaches to the writer and/or the publisher.

Any person relying on this information does so entirely at their own risk.

************************* ************************* ********
WebFerret’s thread “The DVLA should be sued under the Data Protection Act” inspired me to give some serious thought to a matter that had been at the back of my mind for some time. In short, no I don’t think that the DVLA should be sued, but I do think that there are grounds for complaint. These grounds are set out in the letters below.

It may seem dull and unexciting but I think that an unemotive approach stands the best chance of success. Success being to have the Information Commissioner to instruct the DVLA to stop selling data to private companies.

Now this may be counter-productive as if this were to happen, I suspect that the private parking companies will resort to more clamping rather than putting in place an ethically workable scheme.

Essentially you have three complaints to make: (i) to the private parking company, (ii) to the DVLA, and (iii) the Information Commissioner. The letters I offer as suggestions are as set out below.

Personally I think that the only way that this debate will be won will be if there is a judicial review. However, Government Agencies do not have a great deal of credibility on data protection at the moment and so if loads of complaints are made, who knows?

I would add this as part of the armoury in the fight against this pernicious activity.

Please feel free to respond to this post and contribute to the debate. I am no expert on the Data Protection Act so would particularly welcome contributions from those who are.

I may update this post accordingly.

Complaint 1 – To the Private Parking Company

[Private Parking Company
Address]

[dd/mmmm/yyyy]

For the attention of the Data Controller

Dear Sirs,

I refer to previous correspondence under your reference [#].

It is my understanding that you obtained my personal data from the DVLA. It is my belief that the DVLA passed my personal data to you unlawfully. This is the subject of a separate complaint by me against the DVLA. If this complaint is upheld then it is likely to be the case that you will be processing my personal data unlawfully.

In the meantime I assert that I have not given you consent to process (including holding) my personal data. I request that (save for responding to me that you have done so or if not why not) you immediately cease processing my personal data whether by automatic or other means and also expunge all my personal data from all your relevant filing systems.

Please confirm to me that you have done so within fourteen days of the date of this letter.

Yours faithfully

Complaint 2 – To the DVLA

Ian Broom
Customer Services Manager
DVLA
Swansea
SA7 0EE

NB Verify that this name and address remains current here.

[dd/mmmm/yyyy]

Dear Mr Broom,

Re: VRM [#]

I am writing to you to complain about the fact that you sold my personal data to [insert name of private parking company]. My understanding is that you sold my data in the mistaken belief that they had established “reasonable cause”. Please provide to me (at no cost) copies of the evidence used by [insert name of private parking company] to establish reasonable cause.

My complaint is that such transfer of data was unlawful and in breach of my rights for the following reasons:

1) You hold and process personal data in connection with your register containing details of all vehicles licensed for use on the road. [Insert name of private parking company] requested details of the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in relation to an alleged contractual and/or tortious claim relating to activities while the vehicle in question was off the road. In other words while it was outwith the purposes for which you are holding my data.

2) [Insert name of private parking company] requested details of the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in relation to an alleged contractual and/or tortious claim. However, any claim that they may have is against the driver and not the registered keeper. There is no analogy in contract or tort to the owner liability for parking tickets as established in the decriminalised parking enforcement set out in the Road Traffic Act 1991. Further, there is no comparable analogy to the rebuttable presumption, in that act, that the registered keeper is the owner.

3) It is my belief that the claim [insert name of private parking company] allege that they have is directly analagous to that which Excel Parking had against members of a group known as the "Portland Retail Park Action Group". A case involving Excel Parking and a member or members of the Portland Retail Park Action Group proceeded to court on 18 March 2008. In this case the Judge at Mansfield County Court is quoted in the press as ruling "There was no justification for the £100 fine. It was a penalty charge and therefore unenforceable by the court."

In my view the above absolutely counters any alleged "reasonable cause".

I therefore request that you cease selling my personal data to organisations such as [insert name of private parking company].

Yours sincerely

Complaint 3 – To the Information Commissioner

The Information Commissioner wants you to submit complaints on a form. The form is here.

This is what you may wish to consider including at item 6 on the form:

1) The DVLA sold my personal data to [insert name of private parking company]. My understanding is that they sold my data in the mistaken belief that they had established “reasonable cause”. [I have requested from the DVLA but not received copies of the evidence used by [insert name of private parking company] to establish reasonable cause].

My complaint is that such transfer of data was unlawful and in breach of my rights for the following reasons:

a. The DVLA holds and processes personal data in connection with their register containing details of all vehicles licensed for use on the road. [Insert name of private parking company] requested details of the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in relation to an alleged contractual and/or tortious claim relating to activities while the vehicle in question was off the road. In other words while it was outwith the purposes for which the DVLA are holding my data.

b. [Insert name of private parking company] requested details of the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in relation to an alleged contractual and/or tortious claim. However, any claim that they may have is against the driver and not the registered keeper. There is no analogy in contract or tort to the owner liability for parking tickets as established in the decriminalised parking enforcement set out in the Road Traffic Act 1991. Further, there is no comparable analogy to the rebuttable presumption, in that act, that the registered keeper is the owner.

c. It is my belief that the claim [insert name of private parking company] allege that they have is directly analagous to that which Excel Parking had against members of a group known as the "Portland Retail Park Action Group". A case involving Excel Parking and a member or members of the Portland Retail Park Action Group proceeded to court on 18 March 2008. In this case the Judge at Mansfield County Court is quoted in the press as ruling "There was no justification for the £100 fine. It was a penalty charge and therefore unenforceable by the court."

d. There is no suggestion that [Insert name of private parking company] requested the data for the purposes of identifing vehicles on the road to help prevent and detect crime, to investigate suspected insurance fraud, to improve road safety or to ensure that vehicles are properly taxed all of which I concede would be “reasonable causes”.

3) [Insert name of private parking company] have used this data to harass me in an attempt to assert my liability for an alleged contractual and/or tortious claim that they assert they have. They have failed to support their allegation with responses to my requests for statute or case law to support their claim and they are making dubious and questionable assertions in connection with their claim. It may be that some of their activities border on criminal behaviour.

************************* ************************* ********
IMPORTANT INFORMATION

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

This is what the writer would do in the contemplated circumstances. It is placed freely in the public domain on the basis that if it is used no liability of any kind attaches to the writer and/or the publisher.

Any person relying on this information does so entirely at their own risk.

[petej2811]

BB,

I like this. Very tidy and concise.

A job well done, old boy.

PJ

[patdavies]

Bernie,

I would change Keeper to Registered Keeper. They are different things. The DVLA do not hold details of either the owner or the keeper of a vehicle - only the registered keeper.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by petej2811

BB,

I like this. Very tidy and concise.

A job well done, old boy.

PJ

Thanks, much appreciated.

Originally Posted by patdavies

Bernie,

I would change Keeper to Registered Keeper. They are different things. The DVLA do not hold details of either the owner or the keeper of a vehicle - only the registered keeper.

Thanks, done!

[WebFerret]

Fantastic job, I can't thank you enough for your outstanding contribution and commitment to my goal: 'cutting off the very supply of personal data that fuels these Private Parking Company scams'.

Quote: "Success being to have the Information Commissioner to instruct the DVLA to stop selling data to private companies." - absolutely agree with your rational and don't think for one minute that it's dull, and would indeed be a sweet success.

Quote: "Government Agencies do not have a great deal of credibility on data protection at the moment and so if loads of complaints are made, who knows?" - indeed, my thought too.

For encouragement:
Margaret Mead once said: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, for Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has."

Nice one Bernie & thank you.

[Barnsley Boy]

Excellent Work B the B, your usual high standard.

But........... taking up the "health warning" in the original thread, I too believe that closing off the DVLA data supply route would result in more car clamping and vehicle towing.

The old proverb "Be careful what you wish for, it may come true" is very apt. It is one thing to deal with dodgy invoices, it is quite another to be actually out of pocket having been made to pay under duress to get your car back.

I accept that, in most cases, the "clampee" would have a good case against the "clamper" and could pursue redress through the county court. Most individuals however, would find taking this route too daunting. The Parking Companies would have the upper hand.

What we want is a strategy to get the scammers out of this miserable business, cutting off the supply of data is but one of the issues.

[Medusa]

An excellent and nice start to what may lead to proper regulations that are enforced, rather than extenuated for the penal authorities, and enforced strictly where extenuation is removed, in the balance of justice, against people, in the category of motorists. This topic needs widening to include focus on all the systems of revenue collection under palliated descriptions that make stealth tax sound like good causes like saving the ozone, and western democracy being under attack.


My concerns are that Britain has been heading into a decline of ethical and spiritual values, since the derogation of the Bill of Rights, 1688-9 seen in 1929 ,when it was seriously and dangerously tampered with and the then Chief Lord Justice Hewart, warned of these consequences that lead to despotism. In those days, Justices were not so venal as today, when politics and promotion pursuades people to compromise integrity for a wage packet to combat a mortgage.


Councils and government departments are certainly manifesting conduct that has all the aspects of despotic and autocratic rule, and this is partly due to bureaucratic procedures that are template driven, AND more importantly a change in causal thinking from natural causation to 'final cause' target driven cultures thinking of revenue and placing it ahead of justice.


The result of the latter is a system of template driven cultures that are formed like sharks teeth, that show when in, there is no way out, but a phenomenal effort in thrust by rebuttal arguments that meet with compromised integrity in most judicial and quasi judicial bodies, like LGO, TEC, County Court, and so on, where the only viable court to treat the results of excess of zeal in template enforcement is the High court, beyond the reach of the average citizen. IF CIO and other such bodies do NOT step forward and pro-actively set the boundaries, then these boundaries will be ever moved backwards allowing stealth revenue to enter its void.


The new changes that are set to take appeals procedures away from the already questionable independent bodies like PATAS and NPAS, and give them to the very councils that enforce penal revenue collection will lead inevitably to appeals being made to the bodies delivering penalties that are in many cases unlawful presently widespread. Councils already show venal and malfeasant conduct by side-stepping these adjudicator systems by omitting the proper appeals service of documents at the stages of Schedule 6 of the RTA, and TEC CPR 75.3. This is the face of malfeasance in its growing features, and the aforementioned move leaves the appelant making his appeal to that same body whose revenue interests will overwhelm sound justice being done.


That is the drift of legislation. The compromised integrity of judicial bodies is factually based on rulings that show a willingness to create exceptions to class rulings that confute the rulings themselves. This body of evidence that is growing is also backed by CPS investigations that are fettered by powerful vested interests that stop them on the mere arguments that felons who fail to make written unambiguous agreements about their felonies, can escape justice, because the collateral evident in emails and diaries are no longer treated as viable forensic evidence, Hence the Cash for Honours ruling that is to everybody a clear protectionism move to take away culpability from would be autocrats, giving them free reign. These things have been foreseeable since 1929, and are even more so evidenced by the climate of false cause reasons that is a fundamental part of target driven cultures, which manufacture false causes in order to gain revenue.


That may all be somewhat abstract and off piste, but these principles are being tampered with, and there is usually no civil way back except civil disobedience and disorder that will inevitably result from the notion that the LAW MUST be upheld, for penal enforcement, and HELD UP when the enforcers are able to semantically palliate what they are doing.

It's an age old art of 'suppressio veri and suggestio falsi', The semantic game is well under way, and its plunder is a precisely determinable effect in scientific methodology of sufficient and necessary causal relationships. Too abstract to go into here, where I fear this short comment also is too abstruse for many.
Nevertheless, this beginning needs to be a sticky and constant focus needs to be applied. WATCH and don't let it slip away like the dream of a bit of news yesterday, forgotten by tomorrow while the process is gradual and the garden gets overgrown with weeds and then the job is massive and has to be a radical uprooting, whose corollary in society is civil disobedience.
Good work!

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Great post here from Sidewinder on this subject.

DVLA attempting to explain why they feel this is reasonable cause.

[Barnsley Boy]

B T B

There is undisputed "reasonable cause" er.... that is "reasonable cause" for the DLVA to issue RK details to the scammers on the grounds that they get £2.50 a pop.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

The DVLA say that there is reasonable cause because the PPCs have a legitimate business and identifying the keeper is the logical first step in identifying the person responsible for their charges.

I would dispute that on the grounds that:
1) There is no legitimacy in the pursuit of a civil penalty
2) There is no obligation on the keeper to maintain a register of who was driving on any given day.
3) There is no obligation on the keeper to name the driver if they knew who he was.
4) Many PPC's prey on ignorance and simply assert keeper liability. Such an assertion has no basis in law.

It's an uphill struggle to convince the DVLA though. The argument will be stronger if the outcome of the OFT/Banks case endorses the unlawfulness of penalties in consumer contracts.

[pin1onu]

IMO there is a fundamental flaw with the DVLA case for providing information to PPCs.

On the directgov website page How to request information from the dvla and in form V883 they refer to companies issuing Penalty Charge Notices.

Now it is my understanding that a Penalty Charge Notice can only be issued by a local council operating a decriminalised parking enforcement scheme.

By my reckoning if any private company applies under for information using this form they are guilty of offenses under Data Protection Act and also are guilty of fraud as they are claiming their documents to have official status when clearly they don't and the DVLA in releasing the information are accessories to the fraud.

Worth a challenge?

[adamna]

This is a 'good day'. Thanks Bernie, I've never had one of these 'PCN's', but the day I might I would thank you again. It's almost worth getting one to utilise your templates

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I have updated the template letters to reflect the Mansfield County Court decision against Excel Parking.
Judge says Excel parking fines illegal - Mansfield Chad
(Mansfield Chad - Published 21 March 2008 - H/L Judge says Excel parking fines illegal)

[adamna]

Excellent news! Congratulations and thanks to all those that went through the process, the nation is grateful!

[WebFerret]

Originally Posted by pin1onu

IMO there is a fundamental flaw with the DVLA case for providing information to PPCs.

On the directgov website page How to request information from the dvla and in form V883 they refer to companies issuing Penalty Charge Notices.

Now it is my understanding that a Penalty Charge Notice can only be issued by a local council operating a decriminalised parking enforcement scheme.

By my reckoning if any private company applies under for information using this form they are guilty of offenses under Data Protection Act and also are guilty of fraud as they are claiming their documents to have official status when clearly they don't and the DVLA in releasing the information are accessor