So Cross - Fine!!!

tigtag02

and another thing :rotfl:

LCC obviously got OH's details from the DVLA using the fact that littering is a criminal offence as a bypass to the Data Protection Act.

Bearing in mind that they have obtained this information by deception are they now in breech of this act - and if so what are the implications?

ZTD

tigtag02 wrote: »

and another thing :rotfl:

LCC obviously got OH's details from the DVLA using the fact that littering is a criminal offence as a bypass to the Data Protection Act.

Bearing in mind that they have obtained this information by deception are they now in breech of this act - and if so what are the implications?

From the DVLA...

Release of another vehicle’s keeper details

You can obtain the name and address of the registered keeper of another vehicle if you can demonstrate ‘reasonable cause’ for needing the information. Before information is released the DVLA must consider the reasons for your request and how the information will be used. Failure to provide the necessary evidence or incomplete application forms will result in your application being rejected.

More about ‘reasonable cause’ Note; it’s an offence to unlawfully obtain personal data that’s contrary to Section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998. Unlimited fines in the Crown Court (or to a maximum of £5,000 in the Magistrates Court) exist as penalties in respect of these offences.

So it is a criminal offence. Depending on how far you want to go, but it may be worth asking the DVLA as to what evidence they took when they decided to release your husband's details.

tigtag02

Thanks squillions for that Z - I interperate that the same as you, basically, as far as I can see they have unlawfully obtained that info on OH as they have not one iota of evidence to support their request.

Our plan thus far is to get the *conviction* overturned and then....

can....

worms....

bl00dy everywhere....

Gordon Brown's brave new world this is not

Snaggles

Oh, is that an Eddie Izzard quote?? Mmmmmm.....I LOVE Eddie.....

(Sorry, have had bit too muh JD after horrible day today)

tigtag02

Snaggles wrote: »

Oh, is that an Eddie Izzard quote?? Mmmmmm.....I LOVE Eddie.....

(Sorry, have had bit too muh JD after horrible day today)

Which quote Mrs S?

Sorry you had a bad day

(((HUGS)))

Snaggles

The 'can open, worms bloody everywhere...' bit.....

Sorry, just ignore me....I've only had three but I'm not used to drinking.

Hugs to yoiu too x

Edit - Or 'you' even

redrabbit29

Couple of things:

1. Really understand your frustrations. It's not nice getting a fine, especially if you were not guilty!

2. A couple of people seem to keep refering to those who have issued the fines as "jobworths", or along the lines of "haven't they got better things to do". They are trying to do a job, and the offence that is being fined for is minor, but it is still an offence. Yes I know it wasn't your OH that was guilty, but that is not the point.

Just wanted to vent that, as I know your angry, but just didn't think it was right.

Thank you!

ZTD

redrabbit29 wrote: »

2. A couple of people seem to keep refering to those who have issued the fines as "jobworths", or along the lines of "haven't they got better things to do". They are trying to do a job, and the offence that is being fined for is minor, but it is still an offence. Yes I know it wasn't your OH that was guilty, but that is not the point.

No, that is the point. They are accusing someone of a criminal act. They have not taken reasonable measures in properly identifying the person. This can be proven (in this instance) - because of his personal circumstances - but imagine if it couldn't be. From what someone else was saying, it looks like this has happened before (by the same council) - so either they aren't taking the fact it's a criminal offence seriously and being off-hand about it, or they've seen that accusing people needlessly is a nice little earner.

Is that doing their job? It one sense it is - earning money. Who cares about the nitty gritty like compliance with the law?

I (I think it was me) called them a "Jobsworth", because they would then go to court and swear he did it - making their jobs worth more than their integrity.

I think perjury is wrong. I think attempting to obtain money by deception is wrong.

Here endeth the sermon.

tigtag02

redrabbit29 wrote: »

Couple of things:

1. Really understand your frustrations. It's not nice getting a fine, especially if you were not guilty!

2. A couple of people seem to keep refering to those who have issued the fines as "jobworths", or along the lines of "haven't they got better things to do". They are trying to do a job, and the offence that is being fined for is minor, but it is still an offence. Yes I know it wasn't your OH that was guilty, but that is not the point.

Just wanted to vent that, as I know your angry, but just didn't think it was right.

Thank you!

I cant believe we managed to get to page three before a comment like this was made????

Have you read the thread? Its about being issued with a fine for something that you did not do!!

I am guilty of using the word jobsworth - because the person that issued this fine is one.
The *better things that they have to do* is thier job correctly.
If you think that issuing fines to random members of the public who have not commited an offence then maybe you should give them a call for an application form.

Not one person on this thread has said that a genuine litter-lout should not be fined.

edit to say: and I still couldn't say it better than Z

Burlesque_Babe

just caught up - what a cheek tigtag!

Definitely one for the local newspaper - if you want to contact them with a press release , PM me, I'll put something together for you to email - should give you even more clout.