The ICO has requested site of the letter DVLA sent me,

well, DR+ are NOT the agents of the landowner and nor are JD parking

. The DVLA owe you a duty of care but they prefer to ignore this inconvenient fact.

A carefully constructed argument about the lack of quality control and the allowing of an UNINTERESTED THIRD PARTY may at least get DR+ banned from accessing anyones details in the future.

You have a case for suing DR+ for obtaining your details in breach of the KADOE agreement and processing it unlawfully ( passing them on) Knowing what the parking contract with LL says will determine if JD should also get the treatment.

I cant find an ICO registration for JD parking consultants so you will have to make further enquiries as to whether they are actually allowed to process data.

I suspect this is why they cant use the KADOE so look at the cases involving MIL and supposed parking debt buying and use that to your advantage

J D Parking Consultants Ltd ICO registration number- Z1617300.

Am I correct in thinking that only JD Parking have the right to ask for PWs data in this instance as their signs advise the motorist that they may contact the DVLA. Whereas DR+ have not given

any prior notice that they intend to ask the DVLA for ones data.

Like many situations not revolving around parking a third party may have rights to take action or enforce their interests but in this case DR+ said they were acting on behalf of the landowner as their agent and that is patently untrue.

DR+may be the agent of PD but that doesnt automatically mean that they have the necessary permissions either.

This is where the DVLA do badly and try and cover up their terrible quality control. They only ask one of the bigger parking co's to show they have done things nicely once a year and take at face value what they are told rather than doing something like picking say even 5 access requests at random

and then asking not only the parking co for evidence they are fulfilling the requirements of the Act an their agreement but asking the motorist if they believe the request showed reasonable cause.

Now going on the usual stats 4 out of 5 wouldnt even get a response so it would be then necessary to consider carefully the 1 that did reply to the survey.

Winning an appeal or even beating off a court claim doesnt automatically mean that the parking co were wrong to apply for the keeper data but there are many circumstances where it never would apply and if an appeal is won on procedural grounds the the parking co would be wrong even if on another occasion they got it right.

The DVLA would lose millions in income, as would the parking co's so dont expect any changes in the near future despite a supposed tightening up of the privacy laws. Laws are there to protect money not people

Certainly anyone who has been on this motoring Forum for a while knows that none of the major parking companies told the truth when they became members of the BPA or the IPC. Not a single one complies with all the requirements in order to be able to form a contract with motorists. This of course means that these crooks have no reasonable cause for asking for our data. Yet one gets the impression that the DVLA appears not to know. And it isn't as if it is a secret. Every week we see motorists having their ticket quashed because of failures by the parking companies to comply with the Law.

As ignorance of the Law is not an excuse one wonders whether the DVLA knows but carries on regardless [ perhaps because they need the money] which means they are unfit to administer

the release of our data.

Or they don't know about the lies in which case they are unfit to administer the release of our data.

How the DVLA have got away with this for so long is amazing. They are an embarrassment. It is a reflection perhaps just how weak the controls are over the DVLA.

DVLA will carry on regardless as they make money from the non GDPR Compliant relase of Keepe data. As a Quango they rgard themselves as beyond the law. Time they were tolchocked.

Like other grand designs of governemnt they are too big to fail, they will ignore the law even when the ICO orders them to behave in a certain way. HMRC ad councils do it all the time, the NHS and govt ministers individually may get ordered by courts to take certain action but no-one sends them to prison for contempt of court.

No doubt ill be issuing a claim for damages in the near future. Id love to get the DVLA into court.

We'd all love to see that Paul.

Yes DVLA are slippery as evidenced by their many appearances on Watchdog. They are good at removing entitlements and substituting others, so car driver loses car entitlement and gets full Motorcycle when he has never been near one in his life. Time they were brought to book

Open

DX

So the ICO have determined that the DVLA has used the wrong lawful basis for processing under the GDPR. In my own case the DVLA stated they’d provided DR plus with my data because they were either the agent of the landowner or had rights to do so on behalf of the agents of the landowner, but never provided me with proof. Interestingly, the ICO stated that the DVLA do not hold this information, so cannot provide proof and the only way I can find out is if I make a FOI request to the parties involved, although there are exemptions they can use to avoid complying. 
 

The DVLA must comply with accountability under the GDPR and have systems in place to make sure they share data to parties that have legal authority to receive it. The above suggests they are making an assumption not relying on fact.

Im speaking with a journalist on this now, so any comments on the above is appreciated.

Paul 

You haven't really given enough information to be able to make as appropriate comments as would help.

My initial observation is that PoFA was introduced in 2012 and only now are they deciding that the DVLA are processing our data under the wrong section. And the DVLA never got it right from the start.

The ICO 

Consent is only appropriate if you can offer people real choice and control over how you use their data, and it can help to build trust and engagement. But if you cannot offer a genuine choice, consent is not appropriate. If you intend to process the personal data anyway on another basis, asking for consent is misleading and inherently unfair.

You must also be able to stop processing on request. If you need to continue to process the personal data even after consent is withdrawn, consent is not appropriate.

If you are processing the personal data of children under 18, you can still consider asking for consent. However, sometimes using an alternative lawful basis will be more appropriate and provide better protection for the child.

And this

Can we change our lawful basis?

You must determine your lawful basis before starting to process personal data. It’s important to get this right first time. If you find at a later date that your chosen basis was actually inappropriate, it will be difficult to simply swap to a different one. Even if a different basis could have applied from the start, retrospectively switching lawful basis is likely to be inherently unfair to the individual and lead to breaches of accountability and transparency requirements.

To my mind the DVLA have never got to grips with the meaning of  "reasonable cause" especially when dealing with the bunch of crooks that are the main parking companies. Also the DVLA  seems to accept any old tat that the rogues provide them with as a reason for sending our data without as much as a query. They rely on the Code of Conduct of those other well known scammers-BPA and ISC. And at the moment neither of their codes comply with PoFA nor the Private Parking Code of Practice But the good old DVLA bashes on totally oblivious to the situation they are in. 

Time and again we see VCS for instance having their cases at Liverpool airport, Bristol airport and every other airport they cover because of  airport Byelaws. Do the DVLA know about these? If so why do they continue to send our data to other motorists for exactly the same reason.

And where is the reasonable cause when the crooks send in requests for data on residents parking in their own bay or on roads covered by the RTA? One hopes that they are just incredibly useless rather than involved with the scammers.

Im informed that the DVLA/ICO story will appear in the press over the weekend. Should be an interesting read.

The DVLA may have got themselves in to a spot of bother.

Well done.

Could you link us to the story once it's out please?

HB

Yes good that the press are taking an interest, DVLA had bread butterd both sides for too long with no scrutiny.

Yes ill post a link - I expect there'll be a lot of interest in the story.

There are two versions, one for print and a longer online version, both versions were being looked over by lawyers last night. 

The journalist is hopeful that the story will be out tomorrow.  

Thank you for the link. Here's one directly to the Guardian.

It's a shame the journalist talks about parking 'fines' though.

Parking fines: DVLA breached law over sharing drivers’ details | DVLA | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Agency could face compensation claims after data watchdog rules it applied wrong part of the law

HB

Yes the common misconception of the meaning of Fine compared to Invoice grounded in Contract Law seems lost on Journo's.  Of course with a headline like

"Motorist given FINE for parking on his own Driveway" doesn't hit as hard as "Private parking Contractor mistakenly Invoiced a motorist for parking on his own driveway," nor as emotive.

In reality the DVLA will just change the basis and ground for release of data and carry on regardless.

Changing the lawful basis for processing data is not a good option as per the ICO guidance.

If you have a parking ticket you could get compensation due to DVLA law breach, expert says

WWW.BRIDPORTNEWS.CO.UK

---

The DVLA passed on motorists’ personal details to private parking firms

Threatening letters from a DCA chasing up a charge emanating from a data breach does cause distress.?

At the moment the Law and the Codes of Practice of the scammers are out of kilter. I wonder if the DVLA will ever notice............

Very much doubt it LFI the DVLA is very Adventures of Stevie V more interested in the" Dirty Cash" they get from the fleecer's