Mil Collections - Letter Before action

spook104

pappa_golf wrote: »

they were in contravention of the act when obtaining it


NO they are in contravention after being TOLD that it was illegally assigned to them (KODOE agreement)

at any point after being informed they continue , they are then breaching DPA

I appreciate you probably get lots but can I DM you about this point. I have quite a narrow focused question but I don't think it should be in thread to be seen.

pappa_golf

no , ask your question in public to get a few answers , my answer "could" be wrong

Coupon-mad

pappa_golf wrote: »

they were in contravention of the act when obtaining it

NO they are in contravention after being TOLD that it was illegally assigned to them (KADOE agreement)

at any point after being informed they continue , they are then breaching DPA

I think they were in breach at the outset, as their data controller should have carried out a thorough enquiry/been more diligent before they advertised that they could purchase 'parking debts' at £1 a pop.

IMHO, data can't be assumed to be a commodity to be bought & sold, when MIL knew perfectly well that in most cases that data started with the DVLA, they should have carried out due diligence. Granted they were already buying up other (ordinary) debts but there is a huge difference. DVLA data is very obviously going to have rules around its sharing & processing. MIL were negligent IMHO in just assuming or taking insufficient steps to ensure that buying up such data was allowed.

But we will see what the ICO say in all the complaints about MIL.

pappa_golf

the data controller at the time of the incident did not hold a ICO certificate at the time he (sole trader) sold on the alleged debt

beamerguy

spook104 wrote: »

I have in an effort to narrow the issues as the court advised to discuss this with Mil Collections. I've included Mr Dunsford on all the emails and I've had no response from him.

Seems to me that this is beyond Mr Dunsford remit and you should ask him ...... if he cannot respond, who will

Coupon-mad

pappa_golf wrote: »

the data controller at the time of the incident did not hold a ICO certificate at the time he (sole trader) sold on the alleged debt

Did he not? I was talking about MIL's data controller though. All in this chain are arguably negligent; a case of data misuse by all parties.

spook104

pappa_golf wrote: »

no , ask your question in public to get a few answers , my answer "could" be wrong

My details were not obtained by KADOE (I believe because of One Parkings various in/out of membership of trade body) but instead via v888/2

So the KADOE argument doesn't apply but I believe it does still break the DVLA rules and DPA as the V888/2 states it can only be used for stated purpose. Mil purchased it not to pursue a PCN but to pursue an alleged and unproven debt.

pappa_golf

mil will pass the buck back to the PPC for breaking the kodoe and say they bought in good faith

in other cases the PPCs have simply said "sorry guv , wont do it again" to the DVLA , and had there hands slapped

in the case of UK parking (non ltd) the were not registered with the IPC at the date of the sale LTD (as a company) were , therefore the owner Steven Paul CHEETHAM is guilty of an ICO offence

Coupon-mad

mil will pass the buck back to the PPC

They will try but the ICO has to decide!

pappa_golf

spook104 wrote: »

My details were not obtained by KADOE (I believe because of One Parkings various in/out of membership of trade body) but instead via v888/2

So the KADOE argument doesn't apply but I believe it does still break the DVLA rules and DPA as the V888/2 states it can only be used for stated purpose. Mil purchased it not to pursue a PCN but to pursue an alleged and unproven debt.

but instead via v888/2

please elaberate , ?

the company was in a ATA , how did they get details using v888/2 for a parking offence?

on the garbage from the DVLA , WHO asked for your info?