DVLA admit to Data Protection Act breach with regards to MIL collections

Half_way

latest form the Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/dvla-confirm-massive-data-protection.html

DVLA confirm massive data protection breach to MIL Collections


The DVLA has now confirmed a massive data breach has occurred with parking companies selling data to MIL Collections in contravention of the KADOE contract. Many thousands of parking charges are potentially affected.

Parking companies have been selling data to MIL since February 2015. However, the DVLA has only now confirmed that data which was obtained from them using the KADOE contract should not have been provided to MIL, and this therefore puts the operator in breach. Data obtained from other sources is not affected.

Half_way

Hopefully the press adn media will get hold of this, and also raise the question of just who are the DVLA selling our data to.
Do these parking companies employ suitable persons to handle private data? do PPC employees/management have any criminal convictions?

Surely some serious questions should be asked of the DVLA in particular the nature of their data link and how they provide information

twhitehousescat

"In the June 2016 Parkex brochure MIL claimed to take 70% of cases to court and to have spent over £100,000 in court fees. This would means somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 cases were taken to court,"

every case where the PPC obtained owners details is now a potential DPA claim

the IPC have been trying to claim that MIL were sub contractors , but mysteriously changed that statement in the last 24-48 hrs (post on pepipoo )

Just received this from the IPC following my complaint to them. Should be of interest to a few people :

Further to your complaint that Northwest Parking Enforcement is in breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA by engaging Mil Collections to enforce their parking charges under the terms of a debt-purchase arrangement.

We have made the necessary enquiries with the DVLA who have clarified there had been a misinterpretation of the terms of the contract and that subsequently Mil collections should not be considered a ‘sub-contractor’ under it. The company would therefore be required to obtain the prior consent of the DVLA in order to engage in such an arrangement irrespective of whether they retained a significant degree of control over the data in question.

Accordingly, the arrangement that was in place may have put the operator in breach of the KADOE contract but this is limited to cases where the data was requested under the terms of the KADOE contract. It should be noted that this does not apply where the information was obtained or confirmed through other means.

Since the point has been clarified, we have been informed that the company is no longer referring keeper data that has been obtained under the KADOE contract to Mil collections and, as such, this issue should not arise in the future.


the mucky stuff has just hit the extractor

fil_cad

Something else that will be classed minor misunderstanding and swept under the carpet.

Umkomaas

Where's BG when you need him? Missed out on a 'scoop' here! Snooze and you lose!

twhitehousescat

when the IPC spoke , it was obvious that the coverup had finished , the DVLA were being told by IPC members (instructions from where?) to say they were sub contractors

HO87

twhitehousescat wrote: »

"In the June 2016 Parkex brochure MIL claimed to take 70% of cases to court and to have spent over £100,000 in court fees. This would means somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 cases were taken to court,"

Bear in mind that the copy put together for that brochure was prepared some months in advance then those figures are likely to have been substantially out of date.

twhitehousescat wrote: »

every case where the PPC obtained owners details is now a potential DPA claim

Correct but let's not get too carried away - yet. The bulk of cases I've seen involved the use of V888/3's rather than KADOE applications. At the moment this appears to apply only to data obtained electronically.

twhitehousescat wrote: »

the IPC have been trying to claim that MIL were sub contractors , but mysteriously changed that statement in the last 24-48 hrs (post on pepipoo )

This may not be entirely down to the the IPC (not that I would want to be seen as an apologist for the RCYG). The DVLA have repeatedly explained away disclosures (when challenged) as being covered by a sub-contract agreement despite the fact that they have also been told repeatedly that MIL asserted that they had obtained data by way of assignment - which is most certainly not a sub-contract agreement. Unless, of course, the DVLA knew the truth and these were just sub-contract agreements and there never were any assignments. Now, that would be dynamite.

twhitehousescat wrote: »

Just received this from the IPC following my complaint to them. Should be of interest to a few people :

Further to your complaint that Northwest Parking Enforcement is in breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA by engaging Mil Collections to enforce their parking charges under the terms of a debt-purchase arrangement.

We have made the necessary enquiries with the DVLA who have clarified there had been a misinterpretation of the terms of the contract and that subsequently Mil collections should not be considered a ‘sub-contractor’ under it. The company would therefore be required to obtain the prior consent of the DVLA in order to engage in such an arrangement irrespective of whether they retained a significant degree of control over the data in question.

Accordingly, the arrangement that was in place may have put the operator in breach of the KADOE contract but this is limited to cases where the data was requested under the terms of the KADOE contract. It should be noted that this does not apply where the information was obtained or confirmed through other means.

Since the point has been clarified, we have been informed that the company is no longer referring keeper data that has been obtained under the KADOE contract to Mil collections and, as such, this issue should not arise in the future.

the mucky stuff has just hit the extractor

Well that's alright then. Nothing to see here. Move along. BS. If this applies to NWPE then it must apply to other PPC's. What about the hundreds of victims of this set up?

Importantly I note that the IPC carefully use the phrase "debt-purchase arrangement" rather than the expression MIL have used for the last 2 years - "legal assignment" - and one they have adduced evidence of in court. A "debt-purchase arrangement" allows for a profit/loss share set-up whereas a "legal assignment" means that MIL carry everything and nothing can legally be kicked back to the PPC. Were there a secret profit-share then that would most certainly render the arrangements as champertous - long at the heart of our forum defence.

Potentially, it would also open up a world of hurt. I have knowledge of a bucket load of OP's who I am certain would be very interested to hear of this!

twhitehousescat

HO87 wrote: »

Bear in mind that the copy put together for that brochure was prepared some months in advance then those figures are likely to have been substantially out of date.


Correct but let's not get too carried away - yet. The bulk of cases I've seen involved the use of V888/3's rather than KADOE applications. At the moment this appears to apply only to data obtained electronically.

This may not be entirely down to the the IPC (not that I would want to be seen as an apologist for the RCYG). The DVLA have repeatedly explained away disclosures (when challenged) as being covered by a sub-contract agreement despite the fact that they have also been told repeatedly that MIL asserted that they had obtained data by way of assignment - which is most certainly not a sub-contract agreement. Unless, of course, the DVLA knew the truth and these were just sub-contract agreements and there never were any assignments. Now, that would be dynamite.


Well that's alright then. Nothing to see here. Move along. BS. If this applies to NWPE then it must apply to other PPC's. What about the hundreds of victims of this set up?

Importantly I note that the IPC carefully use the phrase "debt-purchase arrangement" rather than the expression MIL have used for the last 2 years - "legal assignment" - and one they have adduced evidence of in court. A "debt-purchase arrangement" allows for a profit/loss share set-up whereas a "legal assignment" means that MIL carry everything and nothing can legally be kicked back to the PPC. Were there a secret profit-share then that would most certainly render the arrangements as champertous - long at the heart of our forum defence.

Potentially, it would also open up a world of hurt. I have knowledge of a bucket load of OP's who I am certain would be very interested to hear of this!

Correct but let's not get too carried away - yet. The bulk of cases I've seen involved the use of V888/3's rather than KADOE applications. At the moment this appears to apply only to data obtained electronically.

would electronically be:

Date access granted to DVLA ANPR database: 28-02-2015

as per NWPE?

peter_the_piper

Could be interesting if a lot of DPA claims went through, bankruptcy?

twhitehousescat

most of the %!!! have back up names registered with companies house , and would just re apply for ATA membership

Half_way

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Could be interesting if a lot of DPA claims went through, bankruptcy?

Im sure that most companies will just fold, and then phoenix into a new entity if the going got tough, just like the clampers used to do when too may people came a knocking for a refund.

It would get interesting if the corporations/company's that took on the PPCs started to face multiple DPA breach claims