The DVLA. Are they out of order??

[Chipper64]

Does anyone else think it's only a matter of time before DVLA are taken to court for providing personal details to PCN Companies (when so many have been found to operate outside of agreed guidlines) for what amounts to nothing more than a civil matter and not a criminal offence?

 

It happened to the banks so if it is proven to have been wrong, the DVLA had better watch out for all the back claims (and the DVLA will have records of those individuals whos details they have supplied to such companies...won't they?)

 

[citizenB]

you would think so.. I don't know if you can do a Subject Access Request to the DVLA for your own data ?

[Chipper64]

Suppose it could be the next PPI type of claimback programme.

[esmerobbo]

"Reasonable cause" is the key anybody with reasonable cause can require the DVLA to furnish them with a keepers details. Where it falls over is in a PPC's case being a member of an accredited ATA is enough reasonable cause. Its bad enough when they do a paper request because they simply say the cause is the issue of a charge. If they have access to the electronic link, they just receive the details! The only record the DVLA have of the request is that it was made, not for the reason it was made!

 

When keeper liability first came in the DVLA suspended 5 companies from receiving details for 3 months for issuing false claims on their signs and or paperwork. Since that time they seem to be able to get away with anything.

 

Complain to the DVLA they contact the BPA who then say they are not a regulator, yet have a sanctions system which is very secretive about it.

 

It really does need looking at because as you say certain companies are really overstepping the mark when it comes to these charges.

[Chipper64]

Well, to me, it looks like there's scope for investigation to unearth issues that could to people being able to reclaim any money they may have paid, if not from the PPC from the DVLA.

 

This could be embarrasing and costly for the governement and also lead to other investigations into Personal Data Protection.

[esmerobbo]

If you fancy a read!

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197528/Release_of_information_from_DVLA.pdf

[citizenB]

That is interesting, esme..

[Chipper64]

"It is an offence under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act to obtain information under false pretence or to use it for a purpose other than that originally stated."

While i'm no legal expert, this does seem thin ice. If PCC's are sending threatening letters and demands for money, surely this is against the principle on which the data was realeased?

[Nev Met]

..........and this from Nov 2011 (although it pre-dates PoFA and POPLA by just short of a year and hence they are not referred to)

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/writev/dda/dda09.htm

[esmerobbo]

"It is an offence under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act to obtain information under false pretence or to use it for a purpose other than that originally stated."

While i'm no legal expert, this does seem thin ice. If PCC's are sending threatening letters and demands for money, surely this is against the principle on which the data was realeased?

 

Not really they are perfectly entitled to send a "demand" or request for payment for something you owe them. As long as they follow the correct format for requesting payment. The whole problem is the amounts they claim, and the way they go about trying to collect it. I dont think many people would complain if NCP sent a NTK for any due amount ie: the cost of parking which was not paid, £2.50 DVLA fee and say £5 admin, its the £60/70/100 for whatever they have dreamed up they want paying for.

 

I remember the good old days NCP car park you drove in took a ticket, on the way out handed ticket to person in kiosk and they charged you whatever was due. Now stay 10 mins over the paid time and they deem it reasonable to charge you £60/70

[Chipper64]

I completely agree with the concept of paying to park and that the excessive charges are THE problem we want to get rid of. BUT, my point was that when proven to use the data and then NOT to follow guidelines (coersion, extortionate charges etc etc), thats when the DVLA have failed to protect our data and should be culpupal.

[dw190]

I completely agree with the concept of paying to park and that the excessive charges are THE problem we want to get rid of. BUT, my point was that when proven to use the data and then NOT to follow guidelines (coersion, extortionate charges etc etc), thats when the DVLA have failed to protect our data and should be culpupal.

 

 

I wonder if the applicants for this data have the right to pass it on to third parties in their attempts to recover their extortionate charges.

[Chipper64]

nice one dw 190, great point. I think we're getting there now

[dw190]

nice one dw 190, great point. I think we're getting there now

 

 

Quite a lot of advice goes out to send complaints to the dvla about many things.

 

 

I think anyone who has received a letter from a DCA should complain to the DVLA that the information provided by the Agency has been passed to a t/party without the consent of the Data Subject.

[dw190]

Where reasonable cause has been demonstrated, information is disclosed on the condition that it will only be used for the requested purpose and that the recipient will protect its confidentiality. It is an offence under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act to obtain information under false pretence or to use it for a purpose other than that originally stated.

 

I wonder if the applicants disclose that they may pass the information on to DCA's

 

 

I have not had the opportunity to make a Subject Access Request to the DVLA but anyone who's data has been passed on to a DCA could make a SAR and see what reasons the applicant has given.

 

 

 

 

[ericsbrother]

passing on info to a DCA is allowable. The real problem is the debt doesnt exist so the application itself is dishonest but the DVLA blindly accepts these gentlemen's word that they are real.

[Crocdoc]

"Reasonable cause" is the key anybody with reasonable cause can require the DVLA to furnish them with a keepers details. Where it falls over is in a PPC's case being a member of an accredited ATA is enough reasonable cause. Its bad enough when they do a paper request because they simply say the cause is the issue of a charge. If they have access to the electronic link, they just receive the details! The only record the DVLA have of the request is that it was made, not for the reason it was made!

 

When keeper liability first came in the DVLA suspended 5 companies from receiving details for 3 months for issuing false claims on their signs and or paperwork. Since that time they seem to be able to get away with anything.

 

Complain to the DVLA they contact the BPA who then say they are not a regulator, yet have a sanctions system which is very secretive about it.

 

It really does need looking at because as you say certain companies are really overstepping the mark when it comes to these charges.

 

I agree that this whole issue needs to be looked at in much greater detail, however I was recently made aware of a case in Scotland relating to the lack of ENTRY signage at a Lidl's Supermarket . A number of Parking Charges were issued in the absence of signage and a subsequent compliant was raised through the BPA by the local CAB. Not surprisingly this complaint was rejected on the basis that the BPA do not insist on entry signage in all cases.

 

A further compliant was then raised through the DVLA on the reasonable cause issue, as a consequence the DVLA investigated the matter further and found in favour of the complainer. The outcome was that all charges had to be refunded or cancelled during the period that entry signage was missing and as I understand it the BPA received a slap for failing to investigate the matter properly (Nothing new there then)

 

However to date the company in question have not notified the recipients of cancelation and thefore a further complaint may be required. Nevertheless ther appears to be a glimmer of hope that things are moving in the right direction.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Crocdoc

[Chipper64]

Regarding that case in Scotland. Those people who made the payments for those charges need to be refunded. Either through the PCC repaying them (not likely without pressure from those who made the judgement) or by directly chasing up for a refund (IF THEY ARE AWARE THEY ARE DUE ONE).

 

Crocdoc. Any chance you could provide the name of the area so that we can get this info out to those who have paid?

[Crocdoc]

Dalkeith Midlothian, I understand that some are held on record by a freind in CAB, however the company will not be aware of which therfore they must notify all concerned or risk a second complaint to the DVLA.

[Chipper64]

Second, third, fourth.

 

The more the merrier. I would think most people would appreicate a nice windfall in the New Year off the PCC.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Chipper64

[lookinforinfo]

Do you think bailiff companies inform DVLA that they will use the data on their ANPR vehicles and may clamp the car even when not parked near their property. And not even when their L/O refers to a different address than the one they are attending.