Charge Notice - Ace Securities

enfield_freddy

the statement from the DVLA is a load of cobblers , in the case of the Judicial Review (preserve) the judge told them to continue giving info TO PROSERVE until the outcome , not every tom !!!!!! or harry


and remind them "It is DVLA’s policy that companies like Ace Security, who pursue motorists for alleged trespass damages using DVLA data, should be a member of an ATA. Such membership would ensure that a code of practice was followed that contained requirements on matters such as signage, charges and access to an independent appeals service.

betterthanyours

I replied to DVLA:

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]In response to your letter - [/FONT][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]It is DVLA’s policy that companies like Ace Security, who pursue motorists for alleged trespass damages using DVLA data, should be a member of an ATA[/FONT][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif].[/FONT][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]
Such membership would ensure that a code of practice was followed that contained requirements on matters such as signage, charges and access to an independent appeals service. [/FONT][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]
As far as I am aware - in the case of the Judicial Review (preserve) the judge stated to continue giving info TO PROSERVE until the outcome. So again, I fail to understand why my details are being disclosed to parties that are not members of an ATA. Moreover, when clearly this is parking control/enforcement and not trespass.

DVLA's response: [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Thank you for your further email of 19 June regarding the recent judicial review.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]As part of the oral hearing in December the DVLA were ordered by the Judge not to reject requests from Proserve Ltd purely on the basis that they were not members of an ATA – pending the outcome of the Judicial Review. The DVLA decided to also apply this decision to requests from Ace Securities Services, as they request information under the same basis as Proserve, and it would not be reasonable to refuse their requests in the circumstance. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]While the DVLA’s position that these two companies should be members of a relevant ATA, we have a duty to act consistently and fairly, which we feel we did in making this decision.

[/FONT][/FONT]

ManxRed

The DVLA decided...

Well, they were wrong in my opinion.

Tell them you'd like to escalate, as you disagree with this 'decision'. Go to the ICO if necessary.

The Judicial Review (albeit after the event) seems to agree that this 'decision' was incorrect.