MIL Collections !!

Coupon-mad

pappa_golf wrote: »

CM , do you know something? , you thanked the posting?

I thank almost every post - a throwback to being on the vouchers and comps boards!

Ash I am enjoying reading your updates, shout if you want help at any stage.

AshleyKent

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I thank almost every post - a throwback to being on the vouchers and comps boards!

Ash I am enjoying reading your updates, shout if you want help at any stage.

Its coming! Ive been sat in a van all day amusing myself with these clowns!

Im going to need some help wording a letter for both MIL and UKPPO.

MIL can settle my costs to date! UKPPO can settle the data breach!

The s35 doesn't apply, they couldn't bring the court claim without a data breach first!!!

spook104

AshleyKent wrote: »

The s35 doesn't apply, they couldn't bring the court claim without a data breach first!!!

That was my thought exactly. Even if they process the data 'correctly' once they have it, how they got it trumps that.

pappa_golf

as I keep saying , due to the date , which PPC ? , make sure you go after the correct party , and challenge who sold the claim on , they were (as a company) dormant at the time of your ticket

AshleyKent

So it's 2 lots of breaches, one from Ukppo to Ukppo Ltd then Ltd to mil!

See I'm getting there!

I will be fair tho and list the sole trader and the Ltd on one claim form! Save them some money on costs won't it ��

System

I have just been informed, the only thing UKPPO should have provided was the registration, it is down to MIL to obtain the data from the DVLA using their own request.... which can be declined I'm told

If this is true, that's a whole can of worms there to go at. If C-M is helping, he should drop me a line and I'll see what I have.

pappa_golf

yup , but you need clarification "who" asked the DVLA for info , and the company number USED at the time , plus the ICO number , and which form , not the number (s) presently assigned to them , if they fire back with LTD , they were dormant at the time !!!!!!??

pappa_golf

IamEmanresu wrote: »

If this is true, that's a whole can of worms there to go at. If C-M is helping, he should drop me a line and I'll see what I have.

are NIL not supposed to use v888/3 to get info for PARKING offences?

pappa_golf

AshleyKent wrote: »

Mr Dunford.

I have just got off the phone to MIL and a gentleman called Ryan Adams, who appears to think they have received an apology from the DVLA regarding a DPA breach?

Is this correct?

Many Thanks.


......

That was an interesting call. They seem to think everything is above board now!

I was chasing my paperwork/images, so I can see what they have!

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/dvla-to-remove-motorist-protection-from.html

HO87

beamerguy wrote: »

I know, sounds like the DVLA are now well over their heads with what's going on

They may well be but that remains to be seen.

I am aware of an update from David Dunford yesterday with regard to the MIL situation that has not been discussed so far in this thread. The update is that there is no update. The DVLA is "considering its position" and until such time as it has arrived at a decision there is nothing more to report.

I am also aware that MIL are refusing to discontinue cases when defendants are pointing out the apparent undertaking they provided to the DVLA to cease processing. Much as has been said in this thread already they are attempting to claim that they are exempt by virtue of s.35(2) DPA but this only applies to the disclosure of data and is by no means a get out of jail free card.

The question they will need to address as far as that is concerned is what proceedings or even potential proceedings were being contemplated at the point they obtained the data from the PPC's? In order for any assignment to be completed - and it would have to be before they could contemplate proceedings (no completed assignment - no proceedings at all) - they used the data to write to the keepers. That would seem on the face of it to suggest that they were already processing the data before they could contemplate proceedings.

MIL's provision of the undertaking to the DVLA not to process data (which means using it as well) seems to hang in tatters and their about face hardly paints them in a good light. This alleged nonsense of the apology just adds to that image - if that is how to describe it.

That all said I do urge caution on the keyboard warriors here. Enthusiasm is great but much dust is being thrown into the air some of which is incorrect and ill-informed and at some point OP's might be misled - albeit well-intentioned. This is a developing situation that - with the greatest of respect guys (I do mean that) - is not going to be resolved on the forums. Let's keep people informed but let's also make sure that no one goes off half-cocked. As with other civil matters OP's have 6 years in which to bring proceedings. There is no need to rush to MCOL now. If blows are going to be exchanged then let's ensure that they land.