DVLA complaint

Ralph-y

Earlier this year I had the good fortune to receive a nice letter from VCA for stopping at Liverpool JLA. With the kind help from forum members I won the appeal at POPLA ( as reported here)

As a result of such I have become far better acquainted with rules regarding these scams.

In early November I complained to the DVLA :

Mr XXXXX XXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXX
Lancs
WNXXXX
Mobile: 07XXXXXX
email- [EMAIL="XXXX@XXX.XXX"]XXXX@XXX.XXX[/EMAIL]
Date:11/11/2041
Dear customer complaint resolution team.


I wish to formally complain to your good selves (as it is part of your remit) that PPC Vehicle Control Services are breaching its KADOE contract.
Namely that requesting keeper details from the DVLA for something other than pursuing parking charges is a breach of the KADOE contract, VCS have breached the KADOE contract by requesting keeper details over an airport stopping "offence", not a parking offence.
It is also a breach of the Data Protection Act for using data for a purpose other than that for which it was obtained .
In August this year I stopped for a total of six seconds to pick up my daughter.
VCS sent me a charge for this, there was NO parking offence. And yet they still applied to your selves , knowingly breaking KADOE and DPA rules.
I request acknowledgement of this complaint, as I have also written to my MP, who has asked to be kept informed.


Yours sincerely,
Ralphy

after them asking for details, as in car reg / type ect ......

I today received this reply

and

so ..........Brian Dodge didn't or chose not to fully read my complaint, or may be just did not understand it!

My question is ,

should I bother replying to to this nice gentleman or can my reply be sent to a higher minion?

Where I point out their errors ...

Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

Dear Brian,
Thankyou very much for your template reply, seen before on forums. Could I trouble you for an actual, individual reply to the points I made:

- about this not being a parking matter?

- also Airport Land is not 'relevant land' under the POFA due to byelaws applying instead, so VCS cannot obtain my data for the purposes of pursuing me as keeper, only for the purpose of asking me who was driving. They didn't, they pursued me to POPLA.

- also I won my POPLA case as it was found that the charge is not a GPEOL. At the time the BPA Code of Practice insisted that all AOS members' charges had to be based on a GPEOL, yet VCS have never won a POPLA appeal where an appellant stated that as an appeal point (in common with Excel, ParkingEye, MET, Highview, APCOA, you name it they all lose all POPLA appeals on that basis, where the appellant raises it).

Your KADOE rules require that an AOS member must comply with the applicable Code of Practice, yet data has continued to be given out to these despicable private firms who were routinely not basing their charges on a GPEOL. Why was that an acceptable position for the DVLA?

bargepole

That letter is just a set of template paragraphs which we've seen a squillion times before.


The DVLA get £10m annually from selling our data to criminals, spivs, chancers and bully-boys. They won't do anything to jeopardize that income stream.

The_Deep

Keep the ball in play, you did not park. They will reply with more anodyne tosh when you can escalate this to the ICO. With a bit of effort you can cost them £100s.

polyplastic

Perhaps - my amendments in italics


Dear Brian,
Thankyou very much for your template reply, seen before on forums. Sadly you have omitted the part which reads
data is only releasedwhere it is fair and lawful. Private parking companies requesting vehiclekeeper data must be members of an appropriate Accredited trade Association andabide by its code of practice
Could Itrouble you for an actual, individual reply to the points I made:

- about this not being a parking matter?

- also Airport Land is not 'relevant land' under the POFA due to byelawsapplying instead, so VCS cannot obtain my data for the purposes of pursuing meas keeper, only for the purpose of asking me who was driving. They didn't, theypursued me to POPLA.

- also I won my POPLA case as it was found that the charge is not a GPEOL. Atthe time the BPA Code of Practice insisted that all AOS members' charges had tobe based on a GPEOL, yet VCS have never won a POPLA appeal where an appellantstated that as an appeal point (in common with Excel, ParkingEye, MET,Highview, APCOA, you name it they all lose all POPLA appeals on that basis,where the appellant raises it).

As the DVLA has made a commitment to making data available only when the PPC is compliant with the COP it is clearly an obligation on the DVLA to check COP compliance before making data available.
Your KADOE rules require that an AOS member must comply with the applicableCode of Practice, yet data has continued to be given out to these despicableprivate firms who were routinely not basing their charges on a GPEOL. Why wasthat an acceptable position for the DVLA?
Your Bosses at the DfT in September of this year said " vehiclekeeper information is disclosed only tocompanies that are members of an ATA and adhere to its code of practice”."
Why do you not comply with the very clear instructions given to you by the Government
Thermoplastic -

sinizterguy

Of course, reply and ask for a reply to your query rather than a cut'n'paste and request he forwards it to a responsible adult if he in incapable of comprehending what was requested.

TDA

Can his name really be Brian Dodge... it's just too perfect

Fruitcake

sinizterguy wrote: »

Of course, reply and ask for a reply to your query rather than a cut'n'paste and request he forwards it to a responsible adult if he in incapable of comprehending what was requested.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::T

Marktheshark

Thats all you need, I would contact the parking prankster about how to complain up the chain and get your free £75 cheque

polyplastic

It's best to complain to the CEO Mr Morley [EMAIL="oliver.morley@dvla.gsi.gov.uk"]oliver.morley@dvla.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

The DVLA has a three stage compliants procedure which takes about 3 months or so. If you go straight to the CEO that is counted by the DVLA as completion of all three stages so you can get to the ICA quicker. (Independent Complaints Assessor).

If you go through the DVLA three stage process, after the second stage its the CEO and he passes it back to the guy who turned you down at stage two for him to consider whether his earlier reply was correct. Why waste your own time and intelligence with that kind of service?

When you complain you may like to ask the CEO what happened to the Assurance given to the EU Commissioner in 2010 when that august body was investigating how the British Government satisfied its obligations under the EU Data Directive when making personal data available. That is to say, to process data fairly. The Government's submission, backed by the cabinet office, assured the EU that the DVLA makes sure that a PPC is COP compliant before it makes data available.


"The gateway provided by Regulation 27does not override the safeguards for the protection of personal dataalready in place in UK law, instead it must and can only be exercised withinthat framework. In exercising his or her discretion under regulation 27 theSecretary of State (acting through his or her staff at the DVLA) must thereforeact (and does act) in compliance with the requirements of the DPA and theDirective. ....................“This means that theyall have to adhere to a Code of Practice in order to obtain DVLA data.”

It is stunningly obvious from this extract from the Cabinet Office's public assurance to the EU that there are two factors to be satisfied to get data.
1. reasonable cause, and
2. COP compliant

otherwise you don't get data.

The DVLA clearly does not bother to live up to its international promises..........unless of course Mr Cameron et al were lying to the EU Commissioner

Polyplastic

The_Deep

Very good stuff, but is not going straight to the head honcho immediately less time consuming and expensive that a three stage complaint? In other words you cost them less money.

You are going to lose anyway, so why not make them work for their victory