DVLA & Data Protection

Coblcris

vax2002 wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if you wrote to DVLA removing any implied right to sell your data to third party private companies. Discuss ?

It is not an implied right. When completing the V5 you give your specific agreement.
One should always study any document before signing it.

Laughingbear

But the DVLA are only supposed to operate within the law, not become judge, jury and executioner.

Sirdan

Coblcris wrote: »

It is not an implied right. When completing the V5 you give your specific agreement.
One should always study any document before signing it.

Someone somewhere should challenge that ..I think I'm right in saying that as the vehicle keeper you are obliged to complete the V5, therefore your consent is being forced in effect. Perhaps keepers should annotate the V5 with a comment that they do not consent before signing.

However it seems clear that under the DPA the Data Controller can release the data without the Data Subject's consent ( in some circumstances) , so maybe its a moot point.

Sirdan

Laughingbear wrote: »

But the DVLA are only supposed to operate within the law, not become judge, jury and executioner.

They are operating within the law ..it's the law that is flawed ..

davidjwest

I agree with the OP but we'd only know for sure if someone took the DVLA to court over it - my money is on the DVLA losing but I've never had cause to take them to court - who is brave/rich enough to try it?

Sirdan

davidjwest wrote: »

I agree with the OP but we'd only know for sure if someone took the DVLA to court over it - my money is on the DVLA losing but I've never had cause to take them to court - who is brave/rich enough to try it?

I believe the DVLA would win..there is no legal definition of "reasonable cause" and as the DVLA quite rightly point out if they withold the data then the only option at present that landowners have is towing or clamping.
Once towing/clamping is forbidden then what recourse would a landowner have ..none? I don't think the Government or more importantly the courts are going to allow that situation to arise.

If the keeper liability clause of the Protection of Freedoms Bill Schedule 4 is enacted then the PPC's and DVLA position re "reasonable cause" will be further strengthened.

mustrum_ridcully

Sirdan wrote: »

I believe the DVLA would win..there is no legal definition of "reasonable cause" and as the DVLA quite rightly point out if they withold the data then the only option at present that landowners have is towing or clamping.
Once towing/clamping is forbidden then what recourse would a landowner have ..none? I don't think the Government or more importantly the courts are going to allow that situation to arise.

If the keeper liability clause of the Protection of Freedoms Bill Schedule 4 is enacted then the PPC's and DVLA position re "reasonable cause" will be further strengthened.

The government might ban clamping/towing but they might also fully legalise fines (my gut feeling is they will do this) and once again "reasonable cause" is there.

Sirdan

The government might ban clamping/towing but they might also fully legalise fines (my gut feeling is they will do this) and once again "reasonable cause" is there.

In it's present format Schedule 4 confirms that the applicable law is that of contract. Therefore penalties or fines are not allowed.
I don't see even this Government allowing private companies and individuals to "fine" people.
If that was their intent it would have been in the Bill from the start.

As it stands the bill makes provision for a claim to be made against the keeper if the driver is unknown and various other conditions are met.

It is still uncertain how this can be won in a County Court if the applicable law is that of contract ..after all if the keeper was not the driver then they are not a party to the contract are they ???

Watch this space..

mustrum_ridcully

Sirdan wrote: »

In it's present format Schedule 4 confirms that the applicable law is that of contract. Therefore penalties or fines are not allowed.
I don't see even this Government allowing private companies and individuals to "fine" people.
If that was their intent it would have been in the Bill from the start.

As it stands the bill makes provision for a claim to be made against the keeper if the driver is unknown and various other conditions are met.

It is still uncertain how this can be won in a County Court if the applicable law is that of contract ..after all if the keeper was not the driver then they are not a party to the contract are they ???

Watch this space..

Well it's been government policy for the probably the past decade (longer actually, it started with the Criminal Justice Act 2 decades ago) to write bad laws and let the courts decide.

Then when the courts do something unpopular they tut and wag their fingers at the courts and judges.

Sirdan

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

Well it's been government policy for the probably the past decade (longer actually, it started with the Criminal Justice Act 2 decades ago) to write bad laws and let the courts decide.

Then when the courts do something unpopular they tut and wag their fingers at the courts and judges.

I suspect the real reason for this legislation is an attempt to exert pressure on keepers who were actually driving but use the defence "you can't prove who was driving and I won't tell you".

It is one thing to assert such in a letter or phone call with a private parking company , it is quite another to sit in a court and tell it to a judge knowing it to be untrue.

How this will all pan out when keeper liability claims start to be lodged by the Parking Companies remains to be seen..particularly as a judgement either way in a County Court does not set a precedence for future claims in that or any other County Court.