Private Car Parking charges/companies.

L.P.Gibson

The demands made by companies for overstays in private car parks draw authority from the inclusion of phrases such as "Your details have been provided by the DVLA". I thought DVLA had come under criticism a few years ago for selling such information. Certainly, as a government organisation that demands personal infomation if one is to drive or own a motor vehicle in this country, it is unacceptable that this information is sold on. I certainly do not recall being offered the choice of permitting my details to be passed to a third party. Without this complicity, private carparks would be forced to install parking meters in order to raise revenue, therby being forced out of the exhorbitant charges scam.

HO87

Correct. The DVLA, however, have very ably been provided with an escape route in the shape of Reg. 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 which allows them (or rather the Secretary of State) to, inter alia, disclose information to anyone who can show that have reasonable cause. This is backed up by virtue of s.35 Data Protection Act which permits the disclose of personal data (that it would otherwise be unlawful to disclose) to be released to persons engaged in legal proceedings (and even in contemplation of proceedings). They argue, of course, that they do not "sell" our data but merely levy an admin charge to supply it in accordance with the law.

Like it or not we are stuck with it for the moment. Write to your MP and complain about it and the proposed Protection of Freedoms Bill currently going through Parliament which, if made law, would render registered keepers liable for civil parking charges being imposed by private parking companies. A search here will give you far more information on that topic.

vax2002

You have given them your implied permission by not objecting .
Write and remove this implied permission to share your data with ANY third party other than required by law for the detection and prevention of crime, point out that this does not include private parking companies.

The_Slithy_Tove

L.P.Gibson wrote: »

The demands made by companies for overstays in private car parks draw authority from the inclusion of phrases such as "Your details have been provided by the DVLA". I thought DVLA had come under criticism a few years ago for selling such information. Certainly, as a government organisation that demands personal infomation if one is to drive or own a motor vehicle in this country, it is unacceptable that this information is sold on. I certainly do not recall being offered the choice of permitting my details to be passed to a third party. Without this complicity, private carparks would be forced to install parking meters in order to raise revenue, therby being forced out of the exhorbitant charges scam.

You'd have thought so, wouldn't you. And I made exactly that point to the DVLA after I'd been caught by one of the scammers*, knowing that they'd be after my details.

I said to them in a letter:

Considering that the DVLA holds personal information regarding me and my vehicle, I am assuming that you are bound by the same data protection legislation that any company or other organisation is. That is the data is mine and I can control how it is used. Therefore I am instructing you NOT to release my driver or vehicle details (registration [redacted]) to any organisation, except with regard to law enforcement, i.e. to police or local authority.
In the same way that I can tell Tesco not to pass on my details to other companies for any purpose, I would expect, even insist, that you are bound by the same protocols. In fact, this should be even more the case with the DVLA, as I have no choice but to have my details in your database, unlike Tesco, where I can choose not to have a Clubcard, and always use cash.
Please confirm to me that you have complied with my instruction and will not be passing any personal information to any private company, unless they are acting on behalf of a public authority in respect of an alleged offence or traffic violation.

Their response (excuse what seem like typos, this is the result of scanning and OCRing their letter):

Thank you for your letter of 04/05/2011 about the release of information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) vehicle register on the above registration mark.

DVLA takes very seriously its duty under the Data Protection Act to protect the privacy of the motorists whose details it holds for the purposes of registering and licensing vehicles, and to comply with the Act’s guiding principles. However, the Act exempts from its non disclosure provisions the release of personal data where the law allows it and DVLA is not in a position to refuse those who have a legitimate right to receive information.

Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 requires DVLA to release information from the vehicle register to the police, to local authorities for purposes associated with the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention, and to anyone who can demonstrate ‘reasonable cause’ to have it. ‘Reasonable cause’ is not defined in legislation and requests are considered on their merits.

These regulations consolidate legislation that has been in force and working efficiently for over 40 years. However, when the provisions were originally introduced they did not anticipate the introduction of electronic databases, the large number of vehicles on the roads, or the range of bodies now requesting access. Concerns have also recently been raised about the breadth of organisations that have access to the register. For these reasons, the Minister of State for Transport, has reviewed the regulations and announced tough new measures designed to protect vehicle keepers from misuse of their information, provide clear and robust complaint procedures where misuse is alleged while allowing those who do have reasonable cause to get the data they need.

New measures for all those making manual enquiries were introduced from 1 November 2006. Full details on the release of information, what constitutes ‘reasonable cause’, the complaints procedure and the new process for making enquiries are available at /I][/SIZE][/FONT]URL deleted, as I'm not allowed to and it's full of errors anyway[I. I can confirm that the Voluntary Code of Practice is no longer in operation between DVLA and car parking management companies.

Whilst seeking to ensure that vehicle keeper data is released only in appropriate circumstances, it is not a matter for the Agency to decide on the merits of individual cases. Representations about the display of signs or other circumstances relating to an incident
should be made directly to the company concerned. Ultimately, of course, an individual may choose to put his or her case to the courts.

I hope this explains the Agency’s position.
Yours sincerely
Greg Evans
Central Casework Group

So, not only have they expressly gone against my instructions, they've also given a complete load of baloney to boot.


[* Got caught out in a FREE car park for not displaying a ticket. Found this forum, so am not intimidated by their crap. As there is a typo in my address as registered with the DVLA for my car, I know the letters are related to the "ticket", so I just mark the unopened envelope "Return to Sender" and pop it back in the post.

I'm sure that if they made the charge more reasonable, say £25 rather than £75 or £100, more people would simply pay up without argument. As it was, the high charge is what prompted me to search the internet before doing anything else, and thanks to MSE, I haven't paid a penny, nor intend to.]

The_Slithy_Tove

vax2002 wrote: »

You have given them your implied permission by not objecting .
Write and remove this implied permission to share your data with ANY third party other than required by law for the detection and prevention of crime, point out that this does not include private parking companies.

Tried that - did't work (see my previous post).

HO87

vax2002 wrote: »

You have given them your implied permission by not objecting .
Write and remove this implied permission to share your data with ANY third party other than required by law for the detection and prevention of crime, point out that this does not include private parking companies.

As S_T points out unfortunately there is no provision for "implied permission" as reg. 27 says:

(1) The Secretary of State may make any particulars contained in the register available for use—(a) by a local authority for any purpose connected with the investigation of an offence or of a decriminalised parking contravention;.... or
(e) by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him.

vax2002

Never said it would work, but demanding and constant time consuming replies is how you get them to give up.

oldone_2

There are companies that for a fee allow you to use their name and address as the registered keeper of your vehicle. Any correspondence relating to the car is then passed on to you.
If a PPC served court papers on them, they could quite truthfully say they know nothing about it, were not driving, don't own the car so can't furnish them with any further information.

L.P.Gibson

I didn't expect such a quick and well informed response. Thanks everyone for your advice.:T

Hadeon

oldone wrote: »

There are companies that for a fee allow you to use their name and address as the registered keeper of your vehicle. Any correspondence relating to the car is then passed on to you.
If a PPC served court papers on them, they could quite truthfully say they know nothing about it, were not driving, don't own the car so can't furnish them with any further information.

Just wondering how receptive/agreeable insurance companies are/would be to this strategy should private individual owners of motor vehicles avail themselves of this service.

HO87

Hadeon wrote: »

Just wondering how receptive/agreeable insurance companies are/would be to this strategy should private individual owners of motor vehicles avail themselves of this service.

Why? There is a cost involved but it costs us nothing to ignore PPC's, and DCA's. I am not Scottish, for the record.