DVLA complaint

fil_cad

The jockstraps will just wiggle and fart and ignore your points, as there all in it together to scam the motorists for as much as they can and bank.

Fergie76

When are the DVLA gonna grow a pair and start taking responsibility for the information they hold and who accesses it?

To simply say, it's not our problem, we have passed it on the BPA is disgraceful and is one of the points I will be bringing up with my MP when we meet later this month.

Everytime the DVLA breach the DPA by allowing PPCs access to the database, it should be reported to the ICO. The ICO will soon get fed up and might actually force DVLA to do something about.

Ralph-y

OK thanks for all the advice, I have decided to send the following ...... is any one wants to make any amendments the please suggest away :-)

Dear Mr Dodge,
thank for the reply, however I was not at all happy with it's contents. Therefore could I please ask you for an actual, individual reply to the points I made and not as what looks like a stock answer:

You did not appear to grasp the fact that this was not a parking issue. I did not park, I did not even enter the parking area!
Quote – my original letter :
“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, “


I specifically would like to comment on sections of your reply :
“Thank you for your letter concerning a parking charge being pursued by Vehicle Control” Services Ltd and the release of your data.
There was no parking offence


DVLA takes very seriously its duty under the Data Protection Act to protect the privacy of the motorists whose details it holds on its record.
Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 allows the DVLA to release information from the vehicle register to anyone who can demonstrate ‘reasonable cause’ to have it.


[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]The following appears to be missing: “data is only released where it is fair and lawful. Private parking companies requesting vehicle keeper data must be members of an appropriate Accredited trade Association and abide by its code of practice”[/FONT]

Parking on private land is governed by civil law and in particular, the law of contract. Drivers choosing to park a vehicle on private land do so subject to the terms and conditions set out on signage at the entrance and around the car park.
I fully understand the above, but please note I did not park, I did not enter any car park!


The need to contact individuals who may have failed to comply with these conditions is, in most circumstances, considered a reasonable cause. Data is provided by the DVLA to enable landowners or their agents to pursue their legal rights and to address disputes between parties.


Again what contract / terms and conditions did I allegedly agree to ? What reasonable cause was there?


While seeking to ensure that vehicle keeper data is released only in appropriate
circumstances, it is not a matter for the Agency to decide on the merits of individual cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between motorists and private car park enforcement companies. The DVLA cannot regulate any aspect of a company's business. Any representations should be made to the landowner or his agent. DVLA releases information on the basis that reasonable cause is demonstrated. Ultimately, it may be for the courts to decide the merits of a case.
Please note that I did not ask you to “decide on the merits of individual cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between motorists and private car park enforcement companies. “ As it happensI 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.
What reasonable cause was demonstrated. ?


There are robust safeguards in place to help ensure that motorists are treated fairly when any parking charge is pursued.
No parking took place!
Vehicle keeper information is disclosed only to companies that are members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association (ATA). The purpose of requiring a company to be a member of an ATA is to ensure that those who request DVLA information are legitimate companies that operate within a code of practice that promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures that there is a clear set of standards for operators.
The company in question, Vehicle Control Services Ltd, is a member of the Independent Parking Committee Ltd (IPC) which is an Accredited Trade Association for the parking industry. The lPC’s code of practice is published on its website at www.theipc.info under the heading Accredited Operators Scheme. If a member of this AOS does not ‘comply with the code of practice, it may be suspended or expelled, during which time no data will be provided to it by the DVLA.
If you feel that any of the practices used by the company do not comply with the lPC’s code of practice, you may wish to contact the IPC at 4 The Stables, Red Cow Yard, Knutsford, WA166DG.


What the above has to do with my complaint is beyond me, I was aware that VCS where members of an accredited operators scheme. At the time they where with the BPA not IPC . I won my appeal, which proved that VCS had obtained details under POFA which therefore went against their trade run accredited operators scheme's COP.
I trust my response clarifies the Agency’s position on this matter.
Yours sincerely,


Further :


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.
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 to the BPA


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 is that an acceptable position for the DVLA?


In conclusion I ask if you would reconsider my complaint. If you again decide to refer back to me stock answers then I will escalate my complaint to your CEO Mr Morley and the ICO






Yours sincerely,

eddy1

Hi Ralphy


I made similar complaints to the DVLA regarding SIP parking limited
I believe they obtained details when they did not fully comply with their IPC guidelines
I also escalated the complaint when it became apparent that SIP had provided the DVLA with copies of NTK with different times on them than the one sent to us.
additionally SIP had quoted a code of conduct in a letter that does not exist, as their ATA, IPC operate a code of practice.
Sip had also omitted a paragraph sent to DVLA as a copy of a rejection letter that they supplied to us


In all circumstances DVLA merely accepted the explanation given by SIP, with no further investigation. IPC insist that full compliance is required with their code of practice. SIP couldn't even get the name correct of this document
however DVLA accepted excuses such as oversights, spelling errors, human error in times entries and assurances that these incidents would not happen again.


if you escalate this to CEO, E Symons will deal with it on his behalf, he will not get involved.


Good luck with this mate, but with our experience, don't hold your breath


eddy

Ralph-y

I fully appreciate that I might not win this war ...

But the more that people .... ordinary members of the public .... take on small battles .... then the war may still yet be won.

feels like I now should quote Shakespeare ....

I don't want to be one of the .... I was helped and don't give things back posters;)

The letter will go off and I will report back

Ralph:cool:

Ralph-y

Sill not had a reply from those nice people at the DVLA ....

Opinions please as to wait a little longer , due to the festive season , or progress and complain about the lack of reply?

Ralph:cool:

Fight_the_good_fight

I will be making a similar complaint to DVLA,BPA and my LA in the near future re Care Parking re their mis use of POFA at metrolink car parks. Firstly Byelaws are in place and trump PCN's but primarily the land is owned by the 10 LA's of Greater Manchester thus meaning the land is not private land.
The legislation was solely designed for car parking disputes on privately owned land so the use of POFA is not applicable and continuing use of such legislation to obtain RK details would be a breach of DPA and knowingly continuing to do so would make them all equally complicit

Ralph-y

so..... after writing to the DVLA CEO to complain that they had not replied to my last letter I finally received the letters below.

Some interesting definitions!






Ralph:cool:

ezerscrooge

I wouldn't think it is much of a defence for LJLA to simply regard the 1982 bye laws as being obsolete.

The bye laws would need to be formally repealed. And they have not been, so still stand.

bazster

KADOE contract B2 (my bold):

B2.1. The DVLA shall provide each requested item of Data to the Customer
via the KADOE Service for the Reasonable Cause of enabling the
Customer to:
a) seek recovery of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the
Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice, and using the
procedure in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(where the vehicle was parked on private land in England or Wales on
a particular date); and
b) otherwise seek recovery from a driver of unpaid Parking Charges in
accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice
(where the vehicle was parked on private land in Scotland or Northern
Ireland by that driver on a particular date, or where the Customer has
chosen not to pursue, or is not in a position to pursue the vehicle
keeper by utilising conditions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012).
B2.2. The Customer shall use each item of the Data only for the Reasonable
Cause for which it was provided.

POFA 2012 Schedule 4 1(1):

1(1)This Schedule applies where—
(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land

Yet again the DVLA deliberately misses the point. Escalate your complaint is my advice.