DVLA complaint

Umkomaas

The Department for Transport has made the statement that LJLA have themselves all but confirmed that these Byelaws do in fact still apply to the airport, in a FOI request from just 9 months ago.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/byelaws_john_lennon_airport

The DVLA's assertion that 'these byelaws are considered obsolete by the airport' is clearly contradicted by evidence from the DfT.

I think I'd be seriously asking whether the airport confirmed directly to the DVLA that they considered them obsolete, or was this something VCS told them (to say!).

Keep at this!

Ralph-y

Please don't worry I will keep at this ....

;-):cool:

Fergie76

Good luck. I banging my head against a brick wall with my case.

Ralph-y

I will await suggestions as to escalation choices..... Carry on at the DVLA ? Go straight to the ICO? Other?

But as with your good self, to ..... My MP will be getting a nice letter / request for a meeting :-) (glad it's an election year)

Ralph:cool:

SevenTowers

Umkomaas wrote: »

The DVLA's assertion that 'these byelaws are considered obsolete by the airport' is clearly contradicted by evidence from the DfT.

Isn't the UK a fantastic place, if any particular set of laws don't suit you, then you can just consider them to be "obsolete"........

I thing I'll consider the law that says I have to pay income tax to be obsolete, that would save me a few quid :beer:

Seriously, what are the DVA on? I can't believe they actually gave such a response in an FOI request, good on you for seeing this through.

ampersand

KADOE and other intricacies aside, I see this:

'Finally, whether a charge is a reasonable[not 'genuine'] pre-estimate of loss may only be determined by a Court, although parking management companies have also agreed to be bound[yes, we know what that deal was about, don't we ex-clampers?] by the decisions of the appropriate independent appeals service......it does not indicate those charges are illegal and it is the opinion of the adjudicator in the circumstances of the individual case.'
#
This is ludicrous, needs no further spelling out from me.

ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK, Ralph-y. Hope your MP's also keeping up with Robert Halfon MP
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/11376805/MPs-fury-over-motorists-fined-for-putting-their-parking-receipts-in-the-wrong-place-on-the-dashboard.html

Cross-bench issue, excluding only those who may have an associated fiduciary or pecuniary interest:-))))))))))))))))))0

Ralph-y

Hi, I am just about to send my reply ..... but as I am not he brightest kid on the block would people have a quick read through, in case I have missed something , or made factual mistakes..... Oh and the lay out , fonts mess up is all ok in the letter

Dear Jamie Pickering,
thank you for your letter of the 28th January. I would like to ask which letter you where replying to?
The one that I replied to Mr Dodge about his dismissal of my complaint, or the one to CEO Mr Morley, in which I was complaining that your procedures had not been followed.
If it is the first then I can reply now , if it is the latter then I have received no apologies or reasons why the said letter was never replied too. I am now at a loss to know what level am I at regards your complaints procedure? And what is your position in the Data Sharing Policy Strategy, Policy and Communications Directorate?

In your first paragraph
“Thank you for your letter of 12 January to Oliver Morley about the enforcement of restrictions for stopping at Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA). “
you acknowledge that this was not a parking issue, which is at least a start. However the rest of the letter appears to be missing the point yet again, with stock answers being given out.


In your second paragraph

“The letter you received from Brian Dodge on 4 December 2014 explained that DVLA can disclose vehicle information if ‘reasonable cause’ is shown. While reasonable cause is not defined in legislation, the Government’s policy is that it should relate to the vehicle or its use, following incidents where there may be liability on the part of the driver. Guidance on what constitutes reasonable cause is published on the motoring pages at

www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla.”



Having carefully read through the online guide I can find no mention of Private car park enforcement companies being empowered to request data for anything other than parking matters.



Paragraph three,

“In terms of the lawfulness of disclosing data for the purposes of ‘VCS’s operations at LJLA I am assured that the reasonable cause requirements in law are satisfied. lt is clear that vehicles stopped in unauthorised areas can present a risk to airport security and can prevent access by emergency vehicles. Drivers are adequately warned of the terms and conditions of the site and are able to use a free pick up/drop off facility. Merseyside Police are quoted as being supportive of the measures in place at the airport. A full copy of the press statement released when the ‘red route’ was introduced is available on the internet”

When you state that “you are assured” is that assurance your opinion, or where did the assurance come from?
It is reassuring that security at airports is being looked at, however I fail to see how a Private car park enforcement companies issuing tickets weeks after the event will affect such matters. Having been an officer the the fire service for over thirty years I am fully conversant with access problems and in my case this would have been no issue! Further drivers are not adequately warned of the terms and conditions of the site until they park or stop to read the signs. Plus the fact that the use of a free pick up/drop off facility, is now a twenty minute walk away, for a twenty minute free stop.



Paragraph four

“The DVLA does not agree that there has been a breach of Data Protection Act or KADOE contract. There is no evidence that VCS has breached any of statutory provisions, legislation or other legal requirement affecting the KADOE Service. Further to this, if the necessary conditions are met, Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act could be applicable at this site, as the enforcement scheme at LJLA is not operated under airport byelaws. The byelaws were issued in 1982 and relate to the old airport site Consequently, these byelaws are regarded by the airport as obsolete.”



Yet again you, and I, presume the DVLA deliberately missed the point



KADOE contract B2
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



Further, The Department for Transport has made the statement that LJLA have themselves confirmed that these Byelaws do in fact still apply to the airport, as in a FOI request from just 9 months ago.
Quote from an FOI request:-
“Dean Muir
Airports Policy Division
Department for Transport 1/22
Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London
Mr P Johnson SW1P 4DR
by email
DIRECT LINE: 020 79445413 GTNNO:35233 5413

Our Ref: F0011123
Dear Mr Johnson
14 March 2014

Freedom of Information request-Liverpool John Lennon Airport Byelaws

Thank you for your recent Freedom of Information request in regard to the byelaws for Liverpool John Lennon Airport. The Airport has provided a copy of the current byelaws, so I am pleased to confirm that the Department is able to release this information in full, as enclosed with this letter. The Secretary of State confirmed these byelaws on the 2 June 1982 and they came into operation on 1 July 1982.
If you are unhappy with the way the Department has handled your request or with the decisions made in relation to your request you may complain within two calendar months.

Ashdown House, Sedlescombe Road North, Hastings East Sussex TN37 7GA“






which an be found at the link below.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...lennon_airport

Therefore your assertion that the DVLA's opinion that 'these byelaws are considered obsolete by the airport' is clearly contradicted by evidence from the DfT.

I now am asking whether the airport confirmed directly to the DVLA that they considered them obsolete, or was this something VCS told them? Please let me know if you can answer this question, or will I need to make an FOI request?


Ralph:cool:

pustit

Couple of typos

Dear Jamie Pickering,
thank you for your letter of the 28th January. I would like to ask which letter you where (were) replying to?
The one that I replied to Mr Dodge about his dismissal of my complaint, or the one to CEO Mr Morley, in which I was complaining that your procedures had not been followed.
If it is the first then I can reply now , if it is the latter then I have received no apologies or reasons why the said letter was never replied too(to). I am now at a loss to know what level am I at regards your complaints procedure? And what is your position in the Data Sharing Policy Strategy, Policy and Communications Directorate?

Ralph-y

cheers ....

Ralph:cool:

Ralph-y

I finally settled on ......

Dear Jamie Pickering,
thank you for your letter of the 28th January. I would like to ask which letter you were replying to?
The one that I replied to Mr Dodge about his dismissal of my complaint, or the one to CEO Mr Morley, in which I was complaining that your procedures had not been followed.

If it is the first then I can reply now , if it is the latter then I have received no apologies or reasons why the said letter was never replied to. I am now at a loss to know what level am I at regards your complaints procedure? And what is your position in the Data Sharing Policy Strategy, Policy and Communications Directorate?

For the sake of expediency I would like to make the following comments.


In your first paragraph
“Thank you for your letter of 12 January to Oliver Morley about the enforcement of restrictions for stopping at Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA). “
you acknowledge that this was not a parking issue, which is at least a start. However the rest of the letter appears to be missing the point yet again, with apparently, stock answers being given out.

In your second paragraph
“The letter you received from Brian Dodge on 4 December 2014 explained that DVLA can disclose vehicle information if ‘reasonable cause’ is shown. While reasonable cause is not defined in legislation, the Government’s policy is that it should relate to the vehicle or its use, following incidents where there may be liability on the part of the driver. Guidance on what constitutes reasonable cause is published on the motoring pages at
www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla.”

Having carefully read through the online guide I can find no mention of Private Car Park Enforcement Companies being empowered to request data for anything other than parking matters.

Paragraph three,
“In terms of the lawfulness of disclosing data for the purposes of ‘VCS’s operations at LJLA I am assured that the reasonable cause requirements in law are satisfied. lt is clear that vehicles stopped in unauthorised areas can present a risk to airport security and can prevent access by emergency vehicles. Drivers are adequately warned of the terms and conditions of the site and are able to use a free pick up/drop off facility. Merseyside Police are quoted as being supportive of the measures in place at the airport. A full copy of the press statement released when the ‘red route’ was introduced is available on the internet”

When you state that “you are assured” is that assurance your opinion, or where did the assurance come from?

It is reassuring that security at airports is being looked at, however I fail to see how a Private Car Park Enforcement Company issuing tickets weeks after the event will affect such matters. Having been an officer the the Fire Service for over thirty years, I am fully conversant with access problems and in my case this would have been no issue! Further, drivers are not adequately warned of the terms and conditions of the site until they park or stop to read the signs. Plus the fact that the use of a free pick up/drop off facility, is now a twenty minute walk away, for a twenty minute free stop.

Paragraph four
“The DVLA does not agree that there has been a breach of Data Protection Act or KADOE contract. There is no evidence that VCS has breached any of statutory provisions, legislation or other legal requirement affecting the KADOE Service. Further to this, if the necessary conditions are met, Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act could be applicable at this site, as the enforcement scheme at LJLA is not operated under airport byelaws. The byelaws were issued in 1982 and relate to the old airport site Consequently, these byelaws are regarded by the airport as obsolete.”

Yet again you, and, I presume the DVLA deliberately missed the point.

KADOE contract B2
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

Please therefore note: This paragraph in no way applies to the alleged contravention which is ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’. The Parking Charge Notice does not apply to the driver of the vehicle having entered a car park were charges apply nor does it refer to any specified period of parking were parking charges apply.
The photographs on the parking charge notice clearly show the car stopped on a road and not in a car park. There was no parking contravention at all. VCS are not able to refer to a regulation that applies to stopping on the road.
No contravention applicable to POFA actually took place. Secondly the regulations state that ANPR cameras should only be used in said car parks, this camera is on a roadway , a distance from any car park.

This is a direct quote from the BPA “code of practice” showing non compliance

''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce
parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on
the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal
data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, the secret camera van does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner and I contend that VCS have failed to meet the requirements of all of the above points in the BPA Code of Practice. BPA have been made aware of this and have taken no action.


Further, with regards to ' relevant land' The Department for Transport has made the statement that LJLA have themselves confirmed that these Byelaws do in fact still apply to the airport, as in a FOI request from just 9 months ago.
Quote from an FOI request:-
“Dean Muir
Airports Policy Division
Department for Transport 1/22
Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London
Mr P Johnson SW1P 4DR
by email
DIRECT LINE: 020 79445413 GTNNO:35233 5413
Our Ref: F0011123
Dear Mr Johnson
14 March 2014

Freedom of Information request-Liverpool John Lennon Airport Byelaws

Thank you for your recent Freedom of Information request in regard to the byelaws for Liverpool John Lennon Airport. The Airport has provided a copy of the current byelaws, so I am pleased to confirm that the Department is able to release this information in full, as enclosed with this letter. The Secretary of State confirmed these byelaws on the 2 June 1982 and they came into operation on 1 July 1982.
If you are unhappy with the way the Department has handled your request or with the decisions made in relation to your request you may complain within two calendar months.

Ashdown House, Sedlescombe Road North, Hastings East Sussex TN37 7GA“
which an be found at the link below.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...lennon_airport


Therefore your assertion that the DVLA's opinion that 'these byelaws are considered obsolete by the airport' is clearly contradicted by evidence from the DfT.

I now ask whether the airport confirmed directly to the DVLA that they considered them obsolete, or was this something VCS told them? Please let me know if you can answer this question, or will I need to make an FOI request?

Finally I reiterate that I would like to be made aware as to what level my complaint is now at, and if after further consideration and reflection that the DVLA will take action against this ongoing abuse of data. Due to the confusion listed above I have enclosed the letter sent to Mr Dodge as it has not been made clear as to its confirmed receipt, as not all points where commented on.


Yours sincerely,

Ralph:cool: