Thread: DVLA made £9m selling motorists' details

I was thinking about writing to the DVLA stating that whilst I am the registered keeper of vehicle X I am not the only driver of it. And whilst they do have the right to inform Police and other authorised agencies of my details they do not have the right under the data protection act to pass my details to private parking or clamping companies until such time as the person enquiring has identified the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, which may or may not be me, because private parking is a contract between the driver at the time and the parking company. Should it therefore transpire that I was not the driver by passing my details wrongly they are involving me in something I shouldn't have to deal with.

Any-one got any comments on whether this would work

Mossycat

Additionally I was also wondering about a letter to the private parking companies when they write to me as registered keeper, using the usual templates but adding that I am a very busy person and should they continue to write to me I would charge them £25 for perusal and construction of any further correspondence when I have already told them they need to write to the driver at the time of the incident. This fee would also be charged to them if they then appoint debt collectors or any other party on a per letter basis.

I don't see why this wouldn't work because as a self employed individual my time is chargeable and I could show a loss if it went to Court (and Yes I would be willing to sue them)

Any comments (excluding those from trolls) would be appreciated

Mossycat

Actual figures for number of details sold onto private companies by year

2002-03 868,385
2003-04 889,663
2004-05 960,560
2005-06 1,264,284
2006-07 1,343,903

Originally Posted by taxidodger

"This is an alarming trend where peole's information is being used to make profits. It's an utter disgrace."

Sounds like an MP jumping on the bandwagon. Has it been established the DVLA are making a profit. The DVLA will argue that the charges are to cover their costs. People actually have to process the requests So they would have some valid costs. Whether they are making a profit remains to be demonstrated. As the majority of this money is coming from PPCs I don't have to many problems with this.

Originally Posted by taxidodger

As well as paying £2.50 for an individual's details, which is done by applying in writing, firms can also pay a £3,000 fee to access its database online making it easier to obtain the information.

There are certain other rules and requirements that have to be met before they can obtain online access.

While I don't like the idea of having my public details sold (As is Easter does the £2.50 equate to 30 pieces of Silver?:grin: ) at the end of the day I'd prefer the PPCs to use the current method which can be defended with the excellent template letters on this site.

If they remove this route then I suspect the PPCs and the landowners will resort to the next easiest remedy which is clamping. Its a lot harder to get your money back from a PPC than it is to not pay in the first place.

Originally Posted by pin1onu

If they remove this route then I suspect the PPCs and the landowners will resort to the next easiest remedy which is clamping. Its a lot harder to get your money back from a PPC than it is to not pay in the first place.

Perhaps not. Scotland already outlawed any form of clamping as its effect on the vehicle owner (depriving him of use of his vehicle) were not commensurate with a civil penalty of parking incorrectly. It was, a senior Sheriff commented 'extortion'. You just need to take the same steps...

Originally Posted by buzby

Scotland already outlawed any form of clamping as its effect on the vehicle owner (depriving him of use of his vehicle) were not commensurate with a civil penalty of parking incorrectly. It was, a senior Sheriff commented 'extortion'. You just need to take the same steps...

Unfortunately, unlike Scotland (Black vs Carmichael), in England and Wales the existing case law allows clamping on private land under certain conditions (Arthur vs Anker and Vine vs Waltham Forrest). This has been further amplified under the PSI Act and regulations.

I'm aware of this - however the argument in both jurisdictions remains the same, so all it takes is the same public outcry to prevent it continuing and disadvantaging our southern friends... As I recall, we (in Scotland) were in limbo a while, when a clamped motorist used an angle grinder to remove the clamp and leave it destroyed (but complete) at the roadside. It was a civil action by the clamping company for damage to their equipment that brought the matter to a head. The Sheriff denied the claim, saying that if they hadn't put the clamp on the car, it would not have damaged. The clamping firms in Scotland stopped almost overnight.

Originally Posted by buzby

I'm aware of this - however the argument in both jurisdictions remains the same, so all it takes is the same public outcry to prevent it continuing and disadvantaging our southern friends... As I recall, we (in Scotland) were in limbo a while, when a clamped motorist used an angle grinder to remove the clamp and leave it destroyed (but complete) at the roadside. It was a civil action by the clamping company for damage to their equipment that brought the matter to a head. The Sheriff denied the claim, saying that if they hadn't put the clamp on the car, it would not have damaged. The clamping firms in Scotland stopped almost overnight.

I respect what you are saying about public outcry. Unfortunately it would take an act of parliament to overturn the existing case law. Like a lot of people I was hoping for clamping to be either banned or have a lot stricter regulations than is the case with the PSI Act. Unfortunately it did neither.

While a public outcry against the DVLA may close down the PPCs issuing tickets - it won't end clamping. IMV it will make more companies seek this remedy as a way to boost falling coffers if the DVLA route is shut off - it a low cost solution to the problem.

Still, if the public do take the issue into their own hands (as with the original Scottish enforced removal, but not theft), then there still remains possibility of the restraint being viewed as unreasonable - as with the Scottish case.

Should the DVLA restrict the access to personal data, then it still holds true that piles of wrecked but complete clamps will still be a civil issue, and with no info forthcoming from DVLA, formal civil action just as difficult. Wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by buzby

Should the DVLA restrict the access to personal data, then it still holds true that piles of wrecked but complete clamps will still be a civil issue, and with no info forthcoming from DVLA, formal civil action just as difficult. Wouldn't you agree?

Unfortunately their may be a complaint from the PPCs that wrecking a clamp constitutes criminal damage. The police would be obliged to investigate. Once the police are involved then it becomes a criminal matter not a civil one. A number of people have discovered this to their cost. Of course if some kind person were to remove the clamp for them they could honestly hold their hands up and say "not me Guv".

Remember clamping is not the only option. They could also tow away and impound and/or block in vehicles. All three activities constitute remedies under "damage distress feasant" and require licensing from the SIA.

As I noted earlier, the Sheriff accepted the motorists contention that if thye hadn;t immobilised his vehicle he wouldn't needed to have excert damage to remove it. He also went on to state that he took the utmost care to minimise any damage to the equipment - which the Sheriff didn;t actually comment on.

I cannot comment on the alternative (tow/lift) as the only time I have seen this achieved is NOT on private property. I assume it still goes on but I don;t see many (any?) of the flat-bed trucks in Glasgow where there used to be lots... maybe I'm in the wrong places...