DVLA and Data Protection

[stuartw]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who is appalled by the fact that the DVLA sells our details to Local Authorities and Private Parking Companies. It's a legal requirement for us all to register our vehicles with the DVLA, and although I would never allow them to pass my details on to a third party if I had a choice, I'm sure there's something in the small print that lets them get away with it.

 

However I was wondering if any one knew the actual legalities of this practice and if there was any way of stopping it happening through, for example, the data protection act?

[Tony P]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?324737-DVLA-and-data-release-to-Private-Parking-Companies

Read and watch all the links. It will make your blood boil.

 

Nev Met's efforts and research results were alluded to the the recent Sunday Mail front page article.

[Nev Met]

The MoS article was a more in depth follow up of the BBC Watchdog programme from the Thursday before. I had no contact with the MoS but I did 'brief' Watchdog fully and in detail. They then produced their own programme from that.

 

Moving on, Stuartw, you could try looking at serving a Sec 12 notice on the DVLA to try and prevent them processing your data automatically via the Electronic Data Interchange (the 'EDI').

 

The DVLA are at the moment resisting such notices and their logic for doing so goes like this.

 

The EDI does not make automated decisions. The decision to release data to a PPC is made at the actual point that they sign the contract for EDI access. The EDI is merely the automated tool that releases the registered keeper data on demand.

 

What this exposes is the DVLA 'spin' that there are robust safeguards in place, there are none. Once the contract is signed then every single request for registered keeper data from that PPC will be granted without any oversight whatsoever.

 

In summary, the DVLA argument is that whilst Section 12 Notices allow you to prevent automated decisions being made, the decision to release registered keeper is not automated, only the actual release itself.

 

This article is also worth a read http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2012/02/parking-[problem]-is-real-war-on-motorist/

[stuartw]

Thanks for the info guys, It's sobering reading.

 

The whole system of parking and traffic enforcment is corrupt and exploitative from top to bottom, from the reprehensible activities of private parking companies to our very own despised local councils. Driving has now become extremely stressful, there's traps everywhere, and no matter how careful you are, it's ineveitable that you'll get a ticket/PCN for something, often without realising you've commited an offence (I'm currently fighting a 62J offence: 'parking with 2 wheels on a footpath', when in reality I actually did neither, I merely pulled over to the side of the road for a few seconds to drop off a passenger)

 

The fact that this exploitation comes from, and is facilitated by, official government and local government bodies is utterly disgraceful and it would appear that we are powerless to do anything about it.

 

I suggest 2 things that could stop a lot of this unacceptable behaviour:

 

1. Stopping the DVLA passing information on to private organisations automatically. It's an obvious one but it would stop a lot of cowboy organisations in their tracks if they had to make a formal request and justify why they needed the information, or if as members of the public we had to give our permission to allow the DVLA to pass on personal details. I can't believe this does not contravene the data protection act.

2. Allowing the Parking and traffic appeals service (PATAS) to accept mitigation and be able to use their discretion when dealing with an appeal. Because PATAS cannot do this it allows local authorities to inappropriately exploit the minutiae of road traffic regulations and get away with it.

[Tony P]

This article is also worth a read http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2012/02/parking-[problem]-is-real-war-on-motorist

 

CAG automatically restricts the word 's c a m' so the link does not find the page.

Change '[problem]' to 's c a m' without spaces.

 

Ain't free speech marvellous !