DVLA court summons issued

[danny_kiernan]

Hi all,

 

I know some of you don't agree with me about ANPR, but I have just now booked a claim on MCOL against the DVLA for breach of the data protection act (via sharing information with councils/police/parking contractors/supermarkets. I have not been affected personally by this, but the DVLA are sharing my details with practically anyone, which I find repugnant.

 

Dani

[buzby]

No argument from me - however they do clearly state on their website that they information they hold can and will be disclosed to certain classes of users - even hold data they do not place on the V5 (like a finance company interest). Faced with this, a claim could be successfully resisted due to them being required to do so under the RTA.

[PhantomReclaimer]

No argument from me - however they do clearly state on their website that they information they hold can and will be disclosed to certain classes of users - even hold data they do not place on the V5 (like a finance company interest). Faced with this, a claim could be successfully resisted due to them being required to do so under the RTA.

 

DVLA are only allowed to release information to persons who have "reasonable cause" to have it. If you take an example relevent to many of us here - the pursuing of a "penalty charge" by a private individual or fim for over staying, failing to display, etc - then it is difficult to see how the pursuit of an obviously unlawful and unenforcible debt could ever be regarded as "reasonable". Such behavior is, by it's very definition, entirely unreasonable.

 

P.

[buzby]

But that's just it! 'Reasonable Cause' is a legally accepted woolly term to mean that a wide latitude is given with no precise specification. For example, if I found a note on my windscreen saying a car had reversed into me in a private car park and riven off, I could contact the DVLA with this number as I had a 'reasonable cause' to know your whereabouts. After paying the fee, I would be given your details.

 

Now, this would by the same time of claim made by Car Park enforcement firms, who claim to be pursuing motorists for breach of contract, the DVLA is not an arbiter of if they are right or wrong, but if the fee is paid the details are provided. I just don't see you being able to successfully challenge it - although I would be delighted if you succeeded!

[PhantomReclaimer]

But that's just it! 'Reasonable Cause' is a legally accepted woolly term to mean that a wide latitude is given with no precise specification. For example, if I found a note on my windscreen saying a car had reversed into me in a private car park and riven off, I could contact the DVLA with this number as I had a 'reasonable cause' to know your whereabouts. After paying the fee, I would be given your details.

 

Now, this would by the same time of claim made by Car Park enforcement firms, who claim to be pursuing motorists for breach of contract, the DVLA is not an arbiter of if they are right or wrong, but if the fee is paid the details are provided. I just don't see you being able to successfully challenge it - although I would be delighted if you succeeded!

 

I don't think the term "reasonable cause" is at all woolly or indistinct. You just have to apply the common English definition to the words. The word "reasonable" means...well... reasonable. Therefore, you have to have reasonable cause to get the information, rather then unreasonable cause, good cause or just some cause to want it.

 

The law requires that only someone with reasonable cause may be supplied with the information. Clearly then the person requesting the information has to demonstrate to the DVLA that they do in fact have reasonable cause and if they say that it's for pursuing a fine, penalty or other charge related to a breach of contract between private parties then they clearly have not met that burdon because such charges are unlawful and therefore are unenforcible at Law.

 

The issue of contractual penalties is not a novel or ambiguous area of law and the principles relating to it have been established for over a century. Everyone who has studied law will know about contractual penalties, including the legions of lawers no doubt employed by DVLA. I know for a fact that DVLA knows about the law relating to CP's as I have written to them about it.

 

It is for DVLA to satisfy themselves that any request for information is founded on "reasonable cause". It is not a case of the DVLA being arbiter of whether the parking company is right or wrong as they are clearly wrong as has been established in law on several occasions in well known cases. If I wrote to DVLA requesting your info because I've decided to issue a "fine" to everyone who drove past my house in a car painted in a colour I didn't like then they'd tell me where to get off as I clearly would be pursuing a sum that wasn't enforcible at law. It's the same with private parking companies. DVLA know fine well that these companies are pursuing unenforcible and unlawful sums yet still give them information.

 

P.

[buzby]

If you don't think 'reasonable cause' is woolly or indistinct, it is only because you have a pre-conceived notion on what 'reasonable' is. As for your example of fining folk who drive past your house - do you have full ownership of the land they drove over and provided appropriate signage? The DVLA have no discretion in the matter, and I seriously doubt that they have any intention of being an arbiter in any civil action on whether they should release the information or not. If you say you need the data because of damage on private property (reasonable) you get the info. If you say you really fancied the driver of the MG in that shopping centre car park, they won't. (Unreasonable).

[PhantomReclaimer]

If you don't think 'reasonable cause' is woolly or indistinct, it is only because you have a pre-conceived notion on what 'reasonable' is. As for your example of fining folk who drive past your house - do you have full ownership of the land they drove over and provided appropriate signage? The DVLA have no discretion in the matter, and I seriously doubt that they have any intention of being an arbiter in any civil action on whether they should release the information or not. If you say you need the data because of damage on private property (reasonable) you get the info. If you say you really fancied the driver of the MG in that shopping centre car park, they won't. (Unreasonable).

 

Well, obviously you are able to define "reasonable" and use it in it's proper context in two examples so why can't a DVLA lawyer? As for them being arbiters of a civil action you again have just suggested that they should be by considering signage, ownership of road, etc.

 

You are correct in that DVLA have no discretion in the matter of giving out information. They are bound by the Law. If the person requesting it cannot demonstrate "reasonable cause" then they MUST NOT release the information. DVLA should NOT be releasing information purely because the applicant says he has reasonable cause. He should have to show that he does.

 

This is not a complicated call for DVLA to make. The word "reasonable" is easily understood and I fail to see how anyone could consider the pursuit of an unlawful and hence, unenforcible, debt to be anything other than utterly unreasonable.

 

All DVLA needs to do is to ask whether the person requesting the information is doing so in relation to any contractual dispute involving the use of a motor vehicle on private land. If they say they are then they should investigate further to establish whether what is being pursued is likely to be an unlawfully levied contractual penalty such as for overstaying, failing to pay, etc. If it does appear to be a penalty, or other unenforcible sum, then they should refuse to provide the information. If the person requesting the information is aggreived at the decision not to release the information then they can always appeal.

 

Also, I think a change in the law is required here. I think that in most cases if a request for your information is made to DVLA then you should be informed of it and the reason why it is being requested and be given an opportunity to object in same cases.

 

P.

[danny_kiernan]

WOW, I have opened a can of worms here.

 

I have no problem with the DVLA providing details to a 3rd party, via a court order - but just providing details willy nilly is what I find wrong.

 

Does anyone else feel like they are living in 1982?

 

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

I agree with phantomreclaimer's last post, but think a court order should be sought first, then a court will see how 'reasonable' the request is.

 

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

It's the same with private parking companies. DVLA know fine well that these companies are pursuing unenforcible and unlawful sums yet still give them information.

 

No it isn't - the DVLA has supplied information to the parking company, for a yearly sum. The DVLA even have a web service set up for their subscribers to obtain information from a registration number.

 

Haven't you all noticed our goverment has decided to turn capitalist, the DVLA is one of the agencies making money for the government via selling registration number details.

 

I preferred it when the government was trying to look after us, not make money - even thatcherism is better than our current government.

Dani

[patdavies]

This is the DVLA's webpage that states their policy.

 

These are the reasons considered reasonable by the DVLA previously

safety recall by vehicle manufacturer – to enable the manufacturer, or an agent acting on their behalf, to trace keepers to ensure that a vehicle is checked and any modifications are made

abandoned Vehicles – to help trace keepers who abandon their vehicles on private property outside the control of local authorities

minor hit and run incidents – to help trace keepers of vehicles involved in minor hit and run incidents not warranting a full police investigation.Circumstances could include incidents of personal injury or damage to property

toll/road charges – information may be released to help trace keepers of vehicles that have failed to pay road/tunnel/bridge charges

drive-offs – to help trace keepers of vehicles that drive off without paying for goods/services. Circumstances could include incidents of failing to pay for petrol or repairs for a vehicle

unauthorised parking on private land – to help landlords or their agents to trace keepers who obstruct access, contravene parking restrictions or trespass on private land

suspected fraud – to establish keepers of vehicles where insurance claims have been received

investigations into suspected vehicle ‘clocking’ – to confirm if a vehicle’s recorded mileage is genuine

enforcement of traffic related offences outside the UK – to UK agents acting on behalf of non-UK authorities to pursue keepers for non payment of penalties for parking and toll road violations incurred outside the UK

stolen cheque payments – to investigate payments related to a vehicle using stolen cheques

tracing company assets – to a liquidator appointed by the court to confirm the assets of a company following insolvency

confirmation of keeper details to ensure seizure of correct vehicle by bailiff/debt collection agents under court order

person acting as an executor of a deceased’s estate to confirm vehicle assets

 

This is the application form used by parking companies and this the one for individuals. As you will see, the thresholds are different...

[danny_kiernan]

Ah but you have forgotten the £500k paid by the car manufacturers for all the drivers details :o)

[danny_kiernan]

Pat, please don't try to offer us a turd and try to pass it off as something else, by scattering a bit of glitter on it (via legalities).

 

Your employer...oops the DVLA is breaking the law and has been for quite some time and I mean to stop that in any way I can

[danny_kiernan]

No amount of disinformation will stop me

[danny_kiernan]

Lets not forget the deal, the DVLA did with the insurance companies, where they share data, sorry but I must have been asleep when a private company (insurance company) supplies details to the DVLA - have they not heard of the data protection act?

[buzby]

Sorry, but you've lost the plot here. Firstly, Pat provided the complete list of situations where the DVLA will provide data on request to third parties. You obviously don't like this, so instead of complaining about a system that has been in place (with some modifications) since the DVLC was originally set up (previously, it was the local councils). Take it up with central government.

 

As to the new supposed conspiracy about insurers, the only information provided is whether a Registration Number is flagged as covered. Not the type of policy, excess or anything else. Without this, online Road Fund renewal could not work. You haven't complained about VOSA telling the DVLA that your MoT has expired but I'm sure that won;t be long in coming.

 

Why not concentrate on things that are REALLY unfair? Like the fact you have to continuously declare a SORN for an unused vehicle and pay massive fines if you don't? That's the biggest assault on personal freedoms this decade? [scrub that, just saw your other thread!]

[PhantomReclaimer]

Sorry, but you've lost the plot here. Firstly, Pat provided the complete list of situations where the DVLA will provide data on request to third parties. You obviously don't like this, so instead of complaining about a system that has been in place (with some modifications) since the DVLC was originally set up (previously, it was the local councils). Take it up with central government.

 

No I think you are missing the point. It's irrelevant what policies the DVLA have relating to the provision of information to third parties - you can't automatically justify the release of information as being proper simply because internal DVLA policy says it is.

 

The Law is perfectly clear on this. DVLA can ONLY release information if the person requesting it has "reasonable cause" to have it. It is incumbant upon the DVLA to satisfy its self that each applicant does indeed have reasonable cause and if it fails to make proper enquiries as to the use that the information will be put to, and the information subsequently finds its way into the hands of someone who does not have reasonable cause, then DVLA has broken the law.

 

Like I said before. The issue of contractual penalties is one of settled case law streatching back the best part of a century and has been before the HoL on more than one occasion. If a parking company or individual says that the information they are requesting is to pursue a purported fine, penalty or similar charge resulting from a contract involving the use of a motor vehicle then DVLA should refuse access to the information on the grounds that the applicant has not shown reasonable cause for its release due to the charge in question being unlawful and unenforcible at Law. If they are aggrieved at this decision then the proper remedy should be an appeal to a Court.

 

Issues such as the provision of signage, land ownership and suchlike are irrelevant. The charge at the heart of the access request is unenforcible at Law and all the sings in the World cannot make it otherwise. The DVLA know this fine well yet persist in illegally providing information to parking companies.

 

P.

[buzby]

The charge at the heart of the access request is unenforcible at Law and all the sings in the World cannot make it otherwise. The DVLA know this fine well yet persist in illegally providing information to parking companies.

 

Which is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, you can be sure the Government are fully aware of what the DVLA do and approve (along with their interference with the banking industry to 'restrict' lending using more than the base rate). Since your definition of 'reasonable' does not accord with that of the DVLA, do let us all know the outcome of any challenge - but unless you plan to take it through the High Court track, the chance of setting any precedent is negligible.

 

I dislike their misuse of my data, but I work within the system to ensure I'm protected, not only is it cheaper but it gives these firms a harder time. I'm certainly not going to give them the satisfaction of causing my high blood pressure or wasting my (otherwise) valuable time trying to fight it.

[patdavies]

Pat, please don't try to offer us a turd and try to pass it off as something else, by scattering a bit of glitter on it (via legalities).

 

Your employer...oops the DVLA is breaking the law and has been for quite some time and I mean to stop that in any way I can

 

Thank you for your polite response - not. I was pointing out for members reading the DVLA's point of view.

 

I certainly do not work for the DVLA, nor have I ever done so.

 

If this false deduction si an example the standard of proof you are using, all I can say is good luck.

 

Anyway, I do not intend to enter into a slanging match with you despite my annoyance at the attitude you display above.

 

I suggest that you lose some of that attitude if this ever goes before a judge.

[patdavies]

 

As to the new supposed conspiracy about insurers, the only information provided is whether a Registration Number is flagged as covered. Not the type of policy, excess or anything else. Without this, online Road Fund renewal could not work. You haven't complained about VOSA telling the DVLA that your MoT has expired but I'm sure that won;t be long in coming.

 

 

I would add that a VRM is not personal information. In this context, it used solely to identify a vehicle. A vehicle is not person (despite some people's instance on giving their car a name:p) and therefore has no protection under the DPA

[buzby]

Agreed, although it is interesting that depending on the purpose, the view changes. I've always contended that a Registration Number in itself is not an identifier of an individual (friends and family could also drive it). However, a telephone number is in exactly the same position/status, it does not directly identify the user (mobiles might, but to a different extent), yet the ICO are happy to take this as personal information - yet the number doesn't belong to them (it is owned by OFCOM) and they have no proprietary interest, yet they say this IS personal info. Confusing, or what!

[danny_kiernan]

Hi Pat,

Thank you for your polite response - not. I was pointing out for members reading the DVLA's point of view.{/quote]

 

Sorry - it just seemed to come across that you were advocating their practices and defending the DVLA, so that wound me up.

 

I have just reread your post and it still seems to come across that way - perhaps you may want to add something like - if taken from the DVLA's perspective beforehand, so it leads to less confusion.

 

Everyone is always entitled to their own opinion

 

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

[scrub that, just saw your other thread!]

Lol buzby,

 

Yes I believe SORN is ridiculous, it is tantamount to walking into a police station and stating that you are planning on doing no crimes this year.

 

Plus the buggers at the DVLA make you pay postage etc for sending in an SORN declaration.

 

Can you imagine what would happen if a supermarket did the same as the DVLA (I know it's a ridiculous example, but it is a ridiculous law - which is totally unenforcible), Mr X if you aren't going to shop at our store, you will need to send in a NSO (Non Shopping Order) so we will have your face pasted up by the security desk and no-one on security will let you in.

 

The DVLA are supposed to provide a service to us as the consumers, but they appear to be out to get everyone for as much cash as possible - and where does all of the cash go, not on roads, thats been proved before, it probably just fills the government kitty. Maybe its spent on those complete wastes of space in the Civil Service - under secretary/under under secretary etc.

 

Funnily enough, the DVLA has solicitors and Barristers on Retainer, maybe thats where all the money goes, who knows?

 

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

Agreed, although it is interesting that depending on the purpose, the view changes. I've always contended that a Registration Number in itself is not an identifier of an individual (friends and family could also drive it). However, a telephone number is in exactly the same position/status, it does not directly identify the user (mobiles might, but to a different extent), yet the Information Commissioners Office are happy to take this as personal information - yet the number doesn't belong to them (it is owned by OFCOM) and they have no proprietary interest, yet they say this IS personal info. Confusing, or what!

 

Watch out buzby/raymond,

The biometric ID card argument has surfaced again (which I am against btw). Whatever happened to freedom? This country is slowly turning into 1982, am I going to be beaten up and raped with a giant dildo a la clockwork orange (based on 1982)?

 

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

The 500+ thousand paid yearly to the dvla by the car manufacturers, does not give the driver details, merely their habits/ convictions - which is still a breach in my opinion