No worries, No I'm not scottish - my family (on my dad's side) comes from Ireland (a couple of generations ago)- but I do have some distant scottish relatives. My Dad did a lot of research into the family history and discovered that our ancestors were actually polish mercanaries, who went to fight in Ireland in the 5th/6th century (Or thereabouts - not sure, without going through his books). The name Kiernan comes from a polish/Gaelic Hybrid - which means literally 'keeper of the keys'. I have been meaning to go through all of my Dads books/papers, for quite a while, but can't bear to - it's still fresh in my memory even though he died 3 years ago. Kind Regards Dani

Hi kregrs, Failure to provide - is not just refusal to provide, it is also when you have been given the test and have failed to provide enough breath. The most common reasons for Failure to provide/Refusal to provide (which have been successfully used in cases) are: Asthma Bronchial infection/Bronchitis Lung problems Heart Problems Shock Nerves/Stress Inability to understand what is being asked, due to injury,disability, language barrier, comprehension issue etc. Phobias Thats not a comprehensive list, but it should give you an idea. Dani

Woah another insulting post, I can barely keep up with the posters on this board that like to insult me You obviously have a very dim view of people, were you always so narcissistic - or did it come on just now? You seem to think I like people drink driving, well no I don't as drink driving has repercussions on everyone, pedestrians, other drivers etc. I peronally had a cousin who was killed by a drunk driver, so I am quite happy for people caught driving over the limit - to have the book thrown at them. However, I do not tar everyone with the same brush - if there are grounds for doubt, then those grounds should be removed, for whatever reason. If a person can be forced to give a blood test for drugs, why not for alcohol? Yes people do have legitimate reasons for failure to provide, granted most may just be trying to avoid a sentence, but there are always some which are totally innocent. Dani

Hi kregrs, I appreciate all feedback, but I think you may not have thought it through. A persons reason not to give a sample may be out of religious reasons, fear of disease and all sorts of other reasons. Dani

Do you see a failure to provide offence for drugs, or a failure to provide offence for fingerprints? The answer is no, thats why it is silly. I am fairly sure that a couple of burly policemen can hold me down and get a blood sample (via a doctor of course), or even force me to blow into a tube (before I run out of breath). As an added bonus it would clear all the failure to provide cases off the courts schedule too. Dani

Ok mr silly, Invoke - not enact, it was late at night gimme a break. Dani

The quick answer is 'yes' Dani

Hi renesis, This is another government abuse, which I want to take to court. I am sorry but it makes no sense to me whatsoever, you get disqualified from driving for an alcohol related offence and then have to undergo a medical - how come you don't have to undergo a medical when first applying for your licence? Disqualification means, a qualification removed - so why aren't the same rules followed to re-qualify? 'Failure to provide' is my pet hate at the moment, because it is silly. OK say you get arrested and go to a police station, you refuse to have your fingerprints taken or photo taken - the police can force you to do it. Same with drugs offences, they can force you to have a drugs test. So why can you saying 'no' to a breath test result in an immediate ban and possibly other penalties. Surely can't the police just get a forced blood test like they do with drugs? Our police state is mad. Dani

Hi F.P. Welcome to the forum, Firstly Buzby is right, it's no use haggling about a first name, someone will have to pay the fine in the end - if no-one turns up at court that is. Heres what you need to do anyway: 1) Write a letter to the DVLA explaining all the circumstances, plus use my template to show the laws you are enacting. Send this registered post (if you feel cheeky send an invoice for the postage cost with it ) 2) If they do take you to court, take along all the evidence you have, to show the judge. If they start saying they received no details from you, show them the evidence above and advise the judge that they are just trying to hide behind the lost-in-post [problem]. If they do take it to court, I am quite happy to go through the paperwork first and also attend court with you (should you need it). PM me if you need any help:) Dani

Finally a reply: Thank you for your e-mail of 10th October to the Drivers Customer Services. Your query has now been passed to me as I am responsible for the release of data from the Driver Register. I have had sight of the previous correspondence regarding your initial request invoking section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). As you are now aware, the Agency does not process personal data without the licence holder's permission unless there is a legal obligation to do so. You have now asked for further clarification in respect of authorised persons and compliance with the DPA. I should begin by explaining the Driver and Vehicle registers are entirely separate. Different legislation applies to each, therefore an authorised person for the purpose of driver licensing may not be an authorised person for vehicle matters. Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2000 provides for information held on the vehicle record to be released to police, customs officers, local authorities investigating an offence or a decriminalised parking contravention, or to those who can demonstrate "reasonable cause" for having that information made available to him. This includes parking enforcement officials etc. In addition to this various Government bodies have powers under specific legislation to request data from DVLA, for purposes prescribed in that legislation. Examples include HM Revenue and Customs and the Child Support Agency. Under section 10 DPA if an individual believes that a data controller, (in this case DVLA), is processing personal data in a way that causes or is likely to cause substantial unwarranted damage or substantial unwarranted distress to them or another, that individual has a right to send a notice to the data controller requiring him to stop the processing ("the data subject notice"). An individual is not entitled to serve a notice if any of the first four conditions of processing in Schedule 2 apply. These conditions were listed in your second request therefore I shall not repeat them all. In this instance the relevant condition is that " processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by a contract". It is due to a legal obligation (set out in paragraph 4 above) that DVLA would release information to a parking enforcement official. This is also applicable to your example of a driver who is stopped whilst speeding. The driver is required by law to provide his/her personal driver details to the police. The driver has broken the law therefore the punishment by fine or conviction is not unwarranted. Again if a person parks on double yellow lines, enforcement action would not result in unwarranted damage or distress. I hope that the above is sufficient to answer your query and that you are satisfied that the DVLA is operating in compliance with the DPA. If you require anything further please let me know. More emails to follow Dani

Yippee

Hi gwc, Firstly I am quite happy to say that I am wrong, I have studied all the legislation and you appear to be, in theory correct. So I apologise quite unashamedly to you. However, Are you displaying trade plates on every single car? If you aren't - you could face prosecution. If you buy and sell them in a normal way (without a trade licence), you Do have to fill out the V5. Auctions are not an exception to the rule - they are merely an intermediary between the seller and the purchaser, so do not fall under the same laws. Dani

I cannot answer for a 3rd party (The post office), but I think that the clue is in the title POST OFFICE. That was the full text from the royal mail website (as I stated)- not my own assumptions or advice - so calm down barracad - or are you trying to wind me up and start a flame war - wouldn't suprise me if you were. Dani

There is a reason, but I'd rather not explain until I get a reply - I don't do anything without a clear purpose in mind - everything about the email is intentional, including the Huuuuge letters on schedule 2. dani

Before posting something like this - please check your facts. Under the system of continuous registration, to retain their ability to operate - all dealers and scrap dealers are required to inform the DVLA of any change in ownership. This falls under the 2 pronged continuous registration policy of the DVLA (it is actually 3 pronged, but I don't want to confuse you): 1) Owner advises DVLA of change of ownersip 2) Buyer Advises the DVLA that they have received the vehicle. You are talking out of your hat here, ALL buyers of vehicles have to advise the DVLA, not just private buyers. Please stop trying to spread misinformation, until you get your facts straight. If you DO actually own a dealership - you should be prepared to have the DVLA descend on you as you are breaking the law. Kind Regards Dani

Oh dear semantics again, Rather than typing quickly, I will spell it out. A magenta flash is not as perceptible as a white flash, and shouldn't blind you. I say shouldn't, but there are reported incidents of truvelo camera filters not working.

Truvelo Cameras don't flash, Rob - well in any perceptible way - unlike Gatsos which have a distinct flash.

Pat, read the British Nationality Act 1981 - the only people currently known as British subjects are people who acquired British nationality through a connection with British India, or who have declared themselves British subjects in the Republic of Ireland. We are however, subjects of the crown, but not called british subjects - it's a nomenclature issue. Most of us are, legally, known as British Citizens. Dani

Don't worry about a speeding fine, a frontal gatso picture is inadmissable, just spent about 20 mins researching. I agree with you that it is really dangerous though - surely that leads to a drivers inability to pay due care and attention to a road? Dani

A Gatso Camera - is supposed to flash behind you, when you have broken the speed limit within the lines (which follow the cameras placement), was it a gatso - easy to tell, they are big yellow boxes on a pole? Kind Regards Dani

Cool - I got a different response this time: bh 11/10/2007 Thank you for your email I confirm receipt of your email. A full reply will be sent to you shortly. Regards XXXXX XXXXX Last time I got this: THIS IS A SYSTEM GENERATED AUTO REPLY - Please read it as it may apply to you. Thank you for your e-mail. We will endeavour to respond to your enquiry within 3 working days. Alternatively, for help, advice and online services you can visit the website at www.direct.gov.uk/motoring where you can also download many of our forms. Please Note: If you do not appear to have received a reply within 3 days, it would be advisable to check any 'Junk Mail' or SPAM filters which may be installed on your system, prior to any further contact. Our reply may have been erroneously blocked by such software.

Hi Bitstressed, Firstly, don't worry - it may seem intimidating that they are a Government Agency - but they are not able to do anything to you, thats why they have 'kindly' extended the deadline to pay. There is nothing kind about it, you see, if you pay it - you have accepted liability, which is what they want for their figures. So they can say at the end of their financial year n penalties issued and n paid. Did you use my template letter btw, if you didn't, now is the time to draft a response, utilising it. If you have and that is their response, then quite simply, put down in a letter that you refuse to pay an illegal fine under the liberties granted to you, as a British Citizen, under the bill of rights and you would advise them to take you to county court, for the sum - if they believe they are totally within their rights. The fee, to pay the DVLA, on top of their illegal fine if you lose in court is minimal, but they are now not registering cases at county court as they have lost quite a number of times. I'm sending you a PM, just to reassure you. Dani

Hi XXXXX, Thank you for your swift reply. I would like to ask a few further questions to clarify my understanding of the data protection act, if that is ok? 1) Who would your agency deem as authorised persons? 2) If the authorised persons are parking enforcement, debt collectors/bailiffs - how does that fall in line with the following sections of the DPA. 10 Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons— (a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and (b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply— (a) in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met, or (b) in such other cases as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order. And Schedule 2 SCHEDULE 2 Conditions relevant for purposes of the first principle: processing of any personal data 1 The data subject has given his consent to the processing. 2 The processing is necessary— (a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or (b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract. 3 The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract. 4 The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject. I will give you an example: Say a person is stopped whilst driving for speeding, wouldn't the release of personal driver details to the police fall under part II section 10 as a fine/conviction would be both damaging and distressful for the driver? Or a persons car is parked on a double yellow line, and a parking enforcement company contacts your agency - that would also warrant damaging and distressful - if your agency gave out the drivers details? 3) Wouldn't the same apply to registration details? 4) If the answers to any of my questions are true, wouldn't this indicate, that the DVLA has been in breach of the DPA for quite some time? Thank you in advance, for taking your time, to answer my questions Dani Kiernan

Woohoo - I got some post, oh a bill and ... another bill, oooo provident inviting me to waste my money - only 8 days after they are all postmarked I love Royal Mail I can't wait to get censored letters soon, well with the orwellian society that the government is creating - it can't be far away Dani

Hi GodMother - I am not disputing that fact whatsoever