Jump to content


DVLA accuse local authorities of misuing their data.....they barred 150 Local authorities last year !!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2872 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

LOCAL authorities are being suspended, and in some cases permanently barred, from accessing the information held on vehicles and drivers at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), because of constant abuses of the system and flagrant mis-use of data, in complete contradiction to DVLA’s own rules and those of the Data Protection Act.

 

ON 14th May at the Local Authority Civil Enforcement Forum (LACEF)annual conference in Leicester Mr Mike Butler; DVLA Data Sharing Manager gave a speech about the local authorities and their request to DVLA for keeper records. Mr Butler stated the following:

 

“More than 150 councils have been barred at some stage because they have breached motorists’ privacy.We have been warning councils over unlawful spying using anti-terror legislation.”

 

He reiterated the basic rules for local authorities:

 

They can only access DVLA data if it is linked to the offence (usually parking).

 

There must be hard evidence – not a suspicion of wrong-doing.

 

Local authorities must already have the registration number of the vehicle – they cannot ‘fish’ the DVLA records.

 

Local authorities must have a proper audit trail in place.

 

Correct storage and retention of data is important.

 

 

 

 

Mr Butler explained: “With enquiries from local authorities, we experience some serious and some more commonly occurring issues.” These include:


    • Unable to evidence validity of enquiry

    • Incomplete or no audit trail

    • Gathering information for intelligence purposes

    • Personal data retained from erroneous enquiries

    • Altering date of event to obtain keeper details

    • Unauthorised enquiries made through intermediary

    • Absence of a data retention policy

    • Making enquiries without reasonable cause to information

    • Files containing personal data not adequately secured.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailiffs and local authorities routinely access DVLA records in relation to unpaid parking charge notices. In addition, when a bailiff levies upon a car when enforcing a Liability Order the DVLA records will be accessed by the bailiff company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have copied to Local Authority forums as well.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would a local authority need to harvest data held by the DVLA if the registered keeper has already responded to a PCN. There should be no requirement for paying out to access records before sending out the Notice to owner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would a local authority need to harvest data held by the DVLA if the registered keeper has already responded to a PCN. There should be no requirement for paying out to access records before sending out the Notice to owner.

 

 

Because the keeper doesn't always get the PCN!

 

The DVLA story is from ages ago and not exactly exciting most suspensions lasted 2-3 days and were down to contractual or administrative errors. The fact that the DVLA audit system highlighted the issues shows the system does actually work, if not they would not have suspended anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the keeper doesn't always get the PCN!

 

If they have replied to a PCN then there is a good chance they have received it.

 

Surely the local authorities should be appearing responsible, and only applying to the DVLA in cases where there is no appareent detail of the registered keeper, which would reduce the amount billed to the tax paying constituents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they have replied to a PCN then there is a good chance they have received it.

 

Surely the local authorities should be appearing responsible, and only applying to the DVLA in cases where there is no appareent detail of the registered keeper, which would reduce the amount billed to the tax paying constituents.

 

You seem to have totally missed the point!! Anyone can receive a PCN even if they do not own a car, therefore anyone that receives a PCN can make a challenge, however here's the point that seems to have gone over your head.....it is the owner that is liable. The council do not know who the owner is without contacting the DVLA and they have a legal duty to serve a notice to owner on the OWNER not the driver or anyone that cares to challenge a PCN.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Shercar was a horse.

Frederickson - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - Lost - Claiming back from post office

Connaught Collections - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - No Agreement - returned to client

Lowell - CCA sent 11/4/07 - No agreement - returned to client

Moorcroft - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - No Agreement - returned to client

Red Castle - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - Copy returned but no T&C's

Robinson Way - CCA Sent 16/5/07

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...