There's an election coming.

bazster

The_Deep wrote: »

My advice would be to tone it down a bit, nay, a lot. It makes you sound unhinged.

It's complicated, there is nothing illegal about the DVLA selling RK information to anyone with reasonable cause, so far, most of these companies are adduced to have it. The problem is not with them getting it, but what they do with it.

I wasn't asking for advice. And it's forceful because it's going to the local paper too as an open letter, they love a bit of hyperbole.

These companies don't have reasonable cause. Intending to levy charges with no lawful basis is not reasonable cause. Hence, the supply of the data is illegal.

bazster

bargepole wrote: »

Baz, I don't think any of the three main parties are likely to include this in their manifesto.

The only party I could see making that sort of commitment would be UKIP.

I know, but if everyone made the same points to their prospective MP's then they would listen. So what do you do? Give up and do nothing because your lone voice will not change anything, or continue to make your point as forcefully as possible in the hope that eventually enough lone voices will have an effect?

(Sorry, that's a generic "you", not a personal "you". I am well aware that you are not a "do nothing" person!)

bazster

nicechap wrote: »

If you're going after the UKIP vote, what about mentioning PPCs only pursue british registered cars and EU immigrant cars can park with impunity.

LOL! Normally I would stick needles in my eyes in preference to voting UKIP, but anyone who comes up with something positive on this racket gets my vote this time!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Personally i dont think this will be an issue come voting time

But i think UKIP will do very well...

The_Deep

Well Baster, whether you asked for advice or not, you are sorely in need of it. You say

These companies don't have reasonable cause. Intending to levy charges with no lawful basis is not reasonable cause. Hence, the supply of the data is illegal.

That is a logical fallacy, post hoc, ergo procter hoc

bazster

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Personally i dont think this will be an issue come voting time

Nor do I in all honesty, but in a three-way marginal constituency I should be able to grab the attention of all the serious candidates and hence finish up with an MP who is informed on the matter (and has hopefully donated me some hostages to fortune in an attempt to get my vote).

bazster

The_Deep wrote: »

Well Baster, whether you asked for advice or not, you are sorely in need of it. You say

These companies don't have reasonable cause. Intending to levy charges with no lawful basis is not reasonable cause. Hence, the supply of the data is illegal.

That is a logical fallacy, post hoc, procter hoc

Rubbish. You can't even get the name of the fallacy correct, and it's not remotely relevant anyway.

Principle 2 of Data Protection:

Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.


Levying charges where you have no locus standi and where the charge is in any case an unlawful contractual penalty is not a lawful purpose, hence there is no reasonable cause and the data supply is illegal. The intention pre-dates the supply, you can't legally request, or be given, data on the basis that you haven't decided yet what to do with it.

bargepole

bazster wrote: »

... Levying charges where you have no locus standi and where the charge is in any case an unlawful contractual penalty is not a lawful purpose, hence there is no reasonable cause and the data supply is illegal. The intention pre-dates the supply, you can't legally request, or be given, data on the basis that you haven't decided yet what to do with it.

Exactly right.

And, with well over 100 POPLA adjudications allowing appeals against PE on GPEOL (which they've ceased even contesting now), there is overwhelming evidence that they have no reasonable cause for requesting keeper data, and the DVLA are breaching the DPA by releasing it.

These facts have been highlighted at the highest levels of the DVLA, and it is rumoured they are running around like headless chickens behind the scenes.

Guys_Dad

I think you have a good cause and by all means get it in the newpaper.

But I do think that if the main purpose is to get people to agree with you as opposed to having a good old rant, then you need to reconsider your wording.

Get one of your objective friends to give you an honest appraisal of the wording in your message - not the message itself. Regrettably, you are coming over as a fanatic rather than a reasoned person simply by 15% of the language used in your post.

I am not trying to knock you or cause unnecessary criticism, simply improve your case and, hopefully, glean you some support.

The_Deep

Rubbish. You can't even get the name of the fallacy correct, and it's not remotely relevant anyway.

Whatever happened to reasoned and civilised debate? Does not anyone else see the faults in Bazster's argument?

If someone parks on your land, of course you have just cause to find out who they are. Whether you then send them a polite note asking them to stop, a strongly worded Cease and Desist letter from your solicitor, or a cheeky speculative invoice is up to you, the DVLA have fulfilled their obligation.

How do I know this? I spent months arguing the very same point with the DVLA and the ICO and got nowhere. Finally I asked my MP to go to the Ombudsman but he declined as he also though that the DVLA we within their rights.

You are right Bazster, I did make a mistake in the name of the fallacy,and for that I humbly apologise, thank you for pointing it out to me so graciously.

Have you thought about a career in the Diplomatic Service?