We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
DVLA forced to remove lie from website
bargepole
Posts: 3,236 Forumite
Following a long campaign by Martin Cutts, of the Plain Language Commission, the DVLA have now removed from their website the lie that they "carefully evaluate every request for information".
Link here: http://www.clearest.co.uk/news/2013/3/10/dvla_retracts_lie_after_plain_language_commission_campaign
The fact is that BPA AOS members mostly submit their requests for RK details using the electronic link (EDI), and the data is returned with no intervention from any DVLA staff, even though many of those requests are in breach of the code of practice, amongst other naughties.
Link here: http://www.clearest.co.uk/news/2013/3/10/dvla_retracts_lie_after_plain_language_commission_campaign
The fact is that BPA AOS members mostly submit their requests for RK details using the electronic link (EDI), and the data is returned with no intervention from any DVLA staff, even though many of those requests are in breach of the code of practice, amongst other naughties.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
0
Comments
-
Yes it's taken long enough to remove their blatant lie
now onto the others I guess When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
We don't need the following to help you.
Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
:beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:0 -
I'd rather they kept the wording................................and then did what it said!0
-
It looks as though the DVLA needs every penny it can get from PPCs. According to an article I was reading today, many of its IT projects are running over time and way over budget.What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0
-
Maybe the DVLA should raise the cost from £2,50 to maybe £10.0
-
Maybe the DVLA should raise the cost from £2,50 to maybe £10.
Or £6 if paid within 14 days Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Your next task Jim is to go to the POPLA website and get them to remove the text saying "if you lose you must pay the PPC" As usual this post will delete itself in the next 3 weeks.I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
-
I would venture to suggest that the reasoning behind the DVLA's terminalogical inexactitude here is a product of the requirement of the Data Protection Act that the grounds for disclosure must be ascertained (bearing in mind that disclosures are, arguably, required by statute in the shape of reg.27) and are defined there. How can you know that s.35 DPA has been satisfied without examining the application? That section contains not provisions as to guesswork or assumptions. Allowing data to simply flow out electronically (for those PPC's that use the EDI directly or indirectly) without the individual grounds being satisfied and in response to an untested and unproven application doesn't seem to fulfil the spirit of the act.
This has been raised with the ICO previously and their reaction was not positive. However, it seems that with the advent of the time limits imposed by POFA as to when checks can be done that the ICO now has something to take PPC's to task over.
The ICO is now working with the DVLA and, guess who? The BPA to prevent any potential misuse/abuse of this situation.
Read this thread - particularly Broadsword's information at #40My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016).
For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.1K Spending & Discounts
- 243K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 255.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards