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).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
DVLA unfairly processing data ?
Options
Stroma
Posts: 7,971 Forumite
Interesting turn of events from pepipoo
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80268
The DVLA has now been advised of the following PPCs who issue Notices to Keeper (usually having used ANPR) and which do not meet the conditions in the POFA and so they cannot lawfully pursue keeper liability
Observices; Premier Parking Servcies; Park Direct UK Ltd; UKPC; Civil Enforcement Limited; G24; Proserve Enforcement Enforcement Solutions.
In each case, although the notice fails to meet the conditions in the POFA, the notices advise the registered keeper that the PPC has the right to pursue recovery from that registered keeper.
Having failed to meet the conditions in the POFA such a statement is misleading. Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 makes it a criminal offence to give misleading information in certain circumstances. In fact a number of these PPCs have been reported to Trading Standards.
So if you receive a Notice to Keeper from any of these PPCs check whether its notice fails to meet any of the conditions in the POFA and claims to be able to exercise the right to pursue keeper liability if the alleged parking charge is not paid or the name and address of the driver is not disclosed. If it is
1. Contact the DVLA (Kevin.Watts@dvla.gsi.gov.uk) and ask why it made your data available when the DVLA had been put on notice that the PPC used POFA to pursue recovery even though its notices are in contravention of the POFA.
2. Ask the DVLA why it made your Data available knowing that there was the possibility of it then being processed in a manner contrary to law and in a way which could be a criminal offence.
3. Ask the DVLA if their processing of your data, knowing that it was being made available in these circumstances, was fair processing in accordance with the First Data Protection Principle
4. Then remind the DVLA that
"On the 14th June 2012 the DVLA wrote to the BPA as follows:- "Can the BPA send out a message to all members of private parking schemes (contract law basis) that if the DVLA is advised and provided with evidence of any company making any reference to liability by anyone other than the driver we will immediately suspend access to our data for a minimum of three months. This applies to tickets, signage and any correspondence with a keeper."
Where a Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act then keeper liability may not be pursued. The Notice from this parking company makes it clear that the parking company claims the right to pursue keeper liability. As your direction of the 14th June 2012, to the BPA Members, including this parking company, concerned non Protection of Freedoms Act cases, then the DVLA should follow its own guidance and suspend this parking company for a period of three months with immediate effect."
5. If you do not get an admission from the DVLA that it has acted incorrectly then lodge a formal complaint with the DVLA.
6. Copy the Information Commissioner's Office into your correspondance (casework@ico.org.uk) requesting that it investigates the conduct of the DVLA
7. Notify your local Trading Standards office of the conduct of the PPC. Trading Standards may very well just put your letter on a file and take no action, but once the number of complaints reaches a certain level then it moves into action. We just need patience to get there.
The important issue here is that the DVLA knows that these PPCs process data in contravention of the POFA and, as far as I know, it has done nothing about it. It is the fact that the DVLA has this knowledge which, potentially, puts it in breach of the DPA and for which it may not transfer liability to the BPA.
The BPA was asked to investigate Observcies and it concluded that its notices were POFA compliant, so the DVLA went along with that! However, by way of a contrast, Trading Standards considered that the evidence was such that it should have a word with Observcies. I have been advised that Observices notices are now POFA compliant but I have yet to see the evidence.
In due course other PPCs, whose notices are not POFA complaint, will also be referred to the DVLA with details of just where their notices fall short of the conditions. Should the DVLA continue to make data available to such non compliant companies, but who continue to pursue keeper liability contrary to the law, the DVLA should be held to account for knowingly assisting PPCs in such unlawful activity.
We all know that the DVLA claims to have robust procedures in place to ensure that our data is processed fairly and lawfully. If you look here http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...-about-ppc.html you will see that the DVLA has, once again, been found out to have misled the public. In this case under a Freedom of Information request so their failure is very serious. The DVLA needs to not only be made to have robust procedures in place, but to enforce them as well. A number of findings of breaches of the DPA will assist.
In the alternative the DVLA is invited to put its own house in order and to clamp down on PPCs who do not show strict adherence to the law.
It is up to you whether you wish to fight back
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80268
The DVLA has now been advised of the following PPCs who issue Notices to Keeper (usually having used ANPR) and which do not meet the conditions in the POFA and so they cannot lawfully pursue keeper liability
Observices; Premier Parking Servcies; Park Direct UK Ltd; UKPC; Civil Enforcement Limited; G24; Proserve Enforcement Enforcement Solutions.
In each case, although the notice fails to meet the conditions in the POFA, the notices advise the registered keeper that the PPC has the right to pursue recovery from that registered keeper.
Having failed to meet the conditions in the POFA such a statement is misleading. Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 makes it a criminal offence to give misleading information in certain circumstances. In fact a number of these PPCs have been reported to Trading Standards.
So if you receive a Notice to Keeper from any of these PPCs check whether its notice fails to meet any of the conditions in the POFA and claims to be able to exercise the right to pursue keeper liability if the alleged parking charge is not paid or the name and address of the driver is not disclosed. If it is
1. Contact the DVLA (Kevin.Watts@dvla.gsi.gov.uk) and ask why it made your data available when the DVLA had been put on notice that the PPC used POFA to pursue recovery even though its notices are in contravention of the POFA.
2. Ask the DVLA why it made your Data available knowing that there was the possibility of it then being processed in a manner contrary to law and in a way which could be a criminal offence.
3. Ask the DVLA if their processing of your data, knowing that it was being made available in these circumstances, was fair processing in accordance with the First Data Protection Principle
4. Then remind the DVLA that
"On the 14th June 2012 the DVLA wrote to the BPA as follows:- "Can the BPA send out a message to all members of private parking schemes (contract law basis) that if the DVLA is advised and provided with evidence of any company making any reference to liability by anyone other than the driver we will immediately suspend access to our data for a minimum of three months. This applies to tickets, signage and any correspondence with a keeper."
Where a Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act then keeper liability may not be pursued. The Notice from this parking company makes it clear that the parking company claims the right to pursue keeper liability. As your direction of the 14th June 2012, to the BPA Members, including this parking company, concerned non Protection of Freedoms Act cases, then the DVLA should follow its own guidance and suspend this parking company for a period of three months with immediate effect."
5. If you do not get an admission from the DVLA that it has acted incorrectly then lodge a formal complaint with the DVLA.
6. Copy the Information Commissioner's Office into your correspondance (casework@ico.org.uk) requesting that it investigates the conduct of the DVLA
7. Notify your local Trading Standards office of the conduct of the PPC. Trading Standards may very well just put your letter on a file and take no action, but once the number of complaints reaches a certain level then it moves into action. We just need patience to get there.
The important issue here is that the DVLA knows that these PPCs process data in contravention of the POFA and, as far as I know, it has done nothing about it. It is the fact that the DVLA has this knowledge which, potentially, puts it in breach of the DPA and for which it may not transfer liability to the BPA.
The BPA was asked to investigate Observcies and it concluded that its notices were POFA compliant, so the DVLA went along with that! However, by way of a contrast, Trading Standards considered that the evidence was such that it should have a word with Observcies. I have been advised that Observices notices are now POFA compliant but I have yet to see the evidence.
In due course other PPCs, whose notices are not POFA complaint, will also be referred to the DVLA with details of just where their notices fall short of the conditions. Should the DVLA continue to make data available to such non compliant companies, but who continue to pursue keeper liability contrary to the law, the DVLA should be held to account for knowingly assisting PPCs in such unlawful activity.
We all know that the DVLA claims to have robust procedures in place to ensure that our data is processed fairly and lawfully. If you look here http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...-about-ppc.html you will see that the DVLA has, once again, been found out to have misled the public. In this case under a Freedom of Information request so their failure is very serious. The DVLA needs to not only be made to have robust procedures in place, but to enforce them as well. A number of findings of breaches of the DPA will assist.
In the alternative the DVLA is invited to put its own house in order and to clamp down on PPCs who do not show strict adherence to the law.
It is up to you whether you wish to fight back
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:
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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards