Parking company breaching DPA

[Crackpott]

I am suing both a Parking company and a Supermarket company. Suing them for my time prepping and Appealing. Im also suing them for Breaches of the DPA.

 

One of the reasons for their breach, I have been told, is that the Parking Company passed on my details to a Debt Recovery Company AFTER a POPLA appeal was started but BEFORE the POPLA decision was made. (I won the POPLA Appeal). I have been told this was a breach of the DPA but for the life of me I cannot find any reference to passing on of details anywhere.

Can anyone help?

 

By the way. The parking company obtained my details and sent me a PCN as Keeper 6 months after the alleged parking contravention knowing there was no keeper liablility.

[Bazooka Boo]

Who is the PPC and who is the supermarket?

 

What DPA breaches are you suing them for?

[Crackpott]

Who is the PPC and who is the supermarket?

 

What DPA breaches are you suing them for?

I would rather not mention the names in case they read these forums.

 

The one Breach I have been told is valid at present is that they obtained and held on to my Data when they had no reason to. The knew or should have known there was no Keeper Liability yet the sought my details from the DVLA.

 

The other reason is the question I asked above. I have been told that the PPC had no right to pass on private details prior to a POPLA decision. Thats what I am trying to find details about

[BankFodder]

Naming names will have no effect on the advice that you are given here or the ultimate outcome of your case – as long as everything you say is true and you act in a straightforward way towards everyone.

 

Naming names helps others who are in the same position and also naming names helps to give a shot across the bows of the people you are up against if they do happen to read this thread.

 

We don't need any cloak and dagger secret squirrel stuff here

[Crackpott]

Naming names gives ammunition to any defendant in a case. I know that for a 100% fact

Sorry you disagree

I wont bother the forum any more.

[dx100uk]

moved to the private parking forum.

 

I know what you are getting at here

but

you've sort of missed the point.

 

its not a case of they have broken any of the act by passing your details onto a dca.

and its nowt whatsoever to do with the retail chain either.

 

what MIGHT have happened is the PPC roggered the DVLA for your details under false pretences

 

but that's unproved yet

 

erics brother will be on soon

[ericsbrother]

without a minimum of information we cant advise you

 

 

but I can say that passing on details to a dca is not a breach of the DPA UNLESS the company isnt registered with the ICO in the first place.

 

 

That is unlikely but they may have used the wrong templates when registering or not renewed their registration correctly.

 

 

Obviously we cant chack that because we dont have a clue who you are talking about so you are on your own.

[Consett26]

but I can say that passing on details to a dca is not a breach of the DPA UNLESS the company isnt registered with the ICO

It is if they had no entitlement to process the data in the first place.

 

 

I think this is the route the OP is going down [external link removed - please read our rules -dx]

[renegadeimp]

Little leap of judgement but it sounds like hes been getting advice from fotl sites, and because people here didnt immediately agree, hes gone back over there

[Consett26]

Little leap of judgement but it sounds like hes been getting advice from fotl sites, and because people here didnt immediately agree, hes gone back over there

No he isn't following fotl stuff, he's following established law (principally Vidal-Hall Vs Google Inc and Halliday Vs Creation Consumer Finance Ltd) . Its well documented on sites like parking prankster. Unfortunately the clear guidance I linked to above from elsewhere has been deleted because it broke site rules (the linked site is commercial). Having said that it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to find either that site or one with similar advice via google

[Consett26]

And here's a report of an example of DPA damages(albeit settled out of court)

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/smart-parking-settle-out-of-court-for.html

[ericsbrother]

he is throwing stones up the wrong tree though. It is only the parking co he has a claim against, you cant sue someone for receiving information otherwise your local council would send out all of the rates demands to just on house and let them either pay it or pass them on.

[Consett26]

He isn't talking about suing the DCA though. If you go back and read the very first sentence of this thread, it says "I am suing both a Parking company and a Supermarket company." As I see it, he was asking whether the release of his details to the DCA constituted a breach of the DPA by the parking company

[ericsbrother]

the answer to that point is still NO

 

why does he want to sue the supermarket,

who have not handled his personal data and have (if the paperwork was done properly) assigned all rights to the parking co.

 

you cannot sue for preparation time for appealing via a recognised procedure.

 

 

He won the POPLA appeal so as he accepted the terms of using POPLA's process you cant then complain afterwards that you had to spend some time preparing your case. Pure folly to do so.

 

 

Suing the parking co will only be successful if it can be shown that they obtained the keeper details unlawfully or without reasonable cause and then used that data improperly.

 

 

This is not the same as winning a POPLA appeal ( but in this case he does appear to hav a good case).

 

 

In the origianl post he does mention that passing his details on to the dca was in his opinion a breach when it isnt.

 

 

The law makes clear differentiations between the types of agencies servants and other parties in this regard

 

That is why he cant find any refeence to it

[Consett26]

In the origianl post he does mention that passing his details on to the dca was in his opinion a breach when it isnt.

Sorry, but I disagree. Surely if the data is obtained unlawfully, any processing that is done with it, including passing it on to a DCA, is likewise unlawful

 

ETA - it seems that DVLA take a similar view ;-)

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/dvla-confirm-massive-data-protection.html

[ericsbrother]

you have completely misunderstood the difference between the collection activity of a dca and MIL, who claim to have bought a debt.

 

 

The DVLA's view was on the parking co's activity, not MIL's.

 

 

MIL lose in court becasue they have no locus standi not because of a breach of the DPA.

Different law governing property.

 

You are entitled to your opinion but if the OP continues going down that particular road he will learn a dreadful lesson when he actually has a decent claim against one party and should stick with that.

 

 

If a company is registered with the ICO they can process data without people's permission subject to their registration conditions.

 

 

The entire point about suing a parking co as per VCS v Philip is that the parking co lied to obtain the information in the first place, not what they did with that information.

 

 

The same applies here, only the parking co obtained the info unlawfully, the dissemination to a dca is allowed under specific parts of the DPA

 

Suing anyone else will lose him money and may very well get the only decent claim thrown out to boot if he names everyone else as co-respondents.

[Consett26]

I haven't misunderstood anything.

 

 

The OP wanted to know if what he'd been told was true

- that the parking company had breached the DPA by passing his details on to a DCA (like MIL) and it matters not if the debt has been assigned or the DCA is acting as an agent for the parking company.

 

DVLA have said that,

under the terms of the KADOE contract,

a parking company cannot pass data onto MIL without DVLA's permission.

They didn't have this permission ergo the data has been disclosed to a third party (MIL) unlawfully.

 

 

It makes no difference what the parking company's DPA registration says.

Put simply, your assertion that

"The entire point about suing a parking co as per VCS v Philip is that the parking co lied to obtain the information in the first place, not what they did with that information" is completely wrong in this case.

 

 

This particular case is entirely about what the parking companies did with the data after they had obtained it

- they did something they were not allowed to do based on KADOE and irrespective of their DPA registration - i.e. they disclosed it unlawfully.

 

The relevance to the OP is that here is an example of a data protection breach caused by a parking company disclosing data to a debt collector.

 

 

I stand by my original point that,

if data is obtained unlawfully,

it cannot possibly be processed or disclosed without breaking the DPA whatever the registration of the processor might say.

[Raykay]

a parking company cannot pass data onto MIL without DVLA's permission.

They didn't have this permission ergo the data has been disclosed to a third party (MIL) unlawfully.

 

 

it could depend on who the DCA are claiming on behalf of - the parking company or as in the MIL case, themselves.

[ericsbrother]

dca's are normally covered under "legitimate interests" exemptions as they act for the credotor. the real problem is that parking co's are rarely creditors of legitimate debts but this is all a red herring as far as the OP's case, he still only has 1 target to go after. It is not an offence to receive information that is improperly obtained.