Article 13 GDPR (Data Protection Act 2018)

The_Deep

Indeed. Your driving licence also contains your dob. They are being wilfully obstructive, report them also to their ATA and your MP.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Le_Kirk

Have a look at this link, it seems that VCS are being deliberately obstructive. Page 23 is the relevant part.

Castle

RichieBoy56 wrote: »

I sent a SAR request to VCS attaching a copy of my drivers licence to confirm my identity.
They asked for further information to which I replied that my drivers licence is sufficient.
They replied saying my name was quite common and not unique!
I replied that my name living at the address shown on my drivers licence is a very unique person.
I seem to be getting nowhere. Should I report to the ICO?

Base on your thread here, it would appear that VCS have already confirmed your name and address:-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5721108

wrsw

Joining in here...
I tried to find the terms which I have granted by default the DVLA permission to share my data. I fully understand that the DVLA does not require consent to share my data with 3rd parties, however they must be governed by a set of rules ; my data can’t just be given to anyone.

The only official DVLA publication I could find was this one:
https.
/assets.publishing.service.
gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/710366/inf266-release-of-information-from-dvlas-registers.pdf[

On page 9, paragraph 6 it states:

“Companies that issue windscreen notices to drivers can only apply for keeper information, if the parking charge remains unpaid, after 28 days.”

I received a letter at my home address less than 7 days after the date of the windscreen notice.
The way I see this is that it is breach of contract, as well as, critically, the DVLA’s published terms for sharing my data with 3rd parties and by extension, my right to privacy

Until the 28 days had expired, the fee was not unpaid and my right to privacy is in line with the published policy of the DVLA, namely that keeper details can only be requested by a PPC if a fee has not been paid AFTER the 28 day period has elapsed. The DVLA document does not specify the type of notice, only that personal details cannot be acquired prior to the elapse of the first 28 days.

My angle is that the PPC has acquired my data by deception (or through failure of an automatic system at the DVLA with no failsafes to protect data from fraudulent acquisition) and someone whom I did not wish to acquire my home address, had at the time no contractual need to acquire my home address, and indeed with whom I was entitled to resolve the matter without their acquiring my home address, acquired my personal details from the DVLA without the just cause that PoFA etc states they must have.

Furthermore, this failure to afford me the 28 period during which I can resolve the matter without the PPC (undesirables/criminals/thugs/thieves) acquiring my home address is a breach of their end of the contract, which I am pretty sure implies that until the 28 days have elapsed and a fee remains unpaid, I am not in breach of contract, so their taking action against me (acquiring my details, sending letters to my home) constitutes material breach of contract for which I am entitled to terminate the contract between us, rendering any incomplete transactions void.

I may be wrong, but i’ve dragged my MP into this now, and the chief exec of the DVLA so in for a penny as they say....

If I get no sense out of the DVLA the. I’ll lodge something with the ICO. I’ll see if they take me to court over it too. I’ll play the breach of contract card in court and offer the original £40 if the PPC destroys all data they hold in relation to me...

The PPC is Excel by the way... I spoke to Mark Robinson this morning.... he’s a right ***t....

Redx

if a windscreen ticket was issued (and not the myparking charge warning notice rubbish that isnt an NTD according to the DVLA) then they cannot get keeper data under their KADOE contract until day 29 or later, preferably between day 29 and day 56 to adhere to POFA2012 (WHICH IS NOT MANDATORY)

they all say that a myparkingcharge notice is not a windscreen ticket , hence as its supposedly a warning notice only then they can get keeper data in the first 14 days (or later if they wish) because in theory they havent issued an acceptable windscreen pcn to the driver

yes we know its a sc@m they dreamed up , its been debated to death on here

so bear this in mind when checking or complaining about the KADOE contract

wrsw

It!!!8217;s the wording of the official DVLA published document I am interested in. The DVLA state that I have 28 days to resolve an alleged parking contravention before my details can be requested, which clearly means that my data will not be released to a third party unless I fail to resolve the matter within 28 days of the date of the contravention.
Irrespective of whether it!!!8217;s a proper ticket or the nonsense myparkingcharge flier, I was in possession of sufficient information to resolve the situation without their having contractual need to acquire my personal details, in accordance with the DVLA!!!8217;s official document.
I had 28 days to phone Excel, give them my registration number and the date, pay the fee and my personal data would have remained secure.

However, the Excel used their privileged access to the DVLA registers to acquire my data when they had no just cause to do so.
I like to keep things simple, KADOE and PoFA are not relevant, as we all know they!!!8217;re not for us, they!!!8217;re for the PPCs, but if the organisation which holds my data, publishes a set of strict terms under which my data can be protected, and then allows those parameters to be changed without giving me opportunity to adapt in order maintain my privacy, that I think is a pretty solid case against both the PPC and DVLA, without having to get into interpretation of their KADOE agreement or PoFA.... no?

Coupon-mad

No.

Because they see the real PCN as the postal notice, and PPCs can get data straight away for a postal notice.

Redx

I too say no, you are incorrect

I have already told you that they CAN access the data from the date of the contravention, and tens of thousands are done this way in order to comply with POFA2012 and the majority of the Parking Eye tickets are issued by post so that they reach the recipient keeper by day 15 following the contravention

this is provided they have not issued a windscreen pcn , a notice to driver , on the day

recently companies like Excel have started to comply with POFA2012 and issue a postal notice within 13 days , whereas for several years they didnt bother

so I am afraid you are incorrect , Excel can access keeper data under their kadoe contract asap, providing they did NOT issue a notice to driver on the windscreen , by a parking chimp and are issuing a postal notice

they issued you the KEEPER with a postal notice within 7 days because they issued it to the KEEPER, not to the driver , also because they did NOT issue a windscreen notice to the driver on the day in question they do not have to follow the paragraph you quoted because it does not apply in your case because they are making the KEEPER liable if they fail to subsequenly disclose the drivers details under POFA2012

this is known as reasonable cause in trying to ascertain who was driving , or alternatively to hold the keeper liable by invoking POFA2012 in England and Wales


if you wish to argue this point , then I wont bother replying again , its your loss and misinformation on your part wont help your case , you asked for help and got it , so deal with it

I am right , you are wrong - end of story

wrsw

Redx you!!!8217;re missing the point I am making - and being a bit of a !!!!! about it too if you don!!!8217;t mind my saying. I!!!8217;m not sure if you have read the DVLA document or were aware of its existence. And i don!!!8217;t recall asking for your help ether now I think of it.

Either way, it is the wording of the DVLA document I am interested in, if you have no knowledge of it then perhaps allow someone who has some to comment, or someone with legal training.

So again, the only official DVLA published document I have found which tells data subjects how their data will be released in relation to PoFA / DPA is the one i posted the link to and extract from.

My question is, if that is the only document the DVLA makes available which sets out the parameters for the protection and release of our data, and it is contrary to the KADOE contract (which is not primarily for the consumer) then surely any data obtained by the PPCs which does not comply with this statement goes against the DPA, which gives us the right to know how a data controller (the DVLA) releases our information....?

So if:
- The DVLA state in their published document which addresses these issues for the benefit of the data subject (which they do) that a PPC cannot acquire our data before 28 days have elapsed (and that statement implies that a subject has 28 days before their details will be released to a PPC, irrespective of notice type - but it HAS to be a screen notice, no matter how vague, because they need keeper details to issue anything else, so the baseline date is that of the alleged contravention because they can!!!8217;t send their NTK until they have acquired the keepers details 28 days later - chicken and egg?)

- And we work within these parameters to both comply with a PPCs rights under PoFA to at the same time as protecting our personal data from parties we do not wish to hold it nor have any just cause to do so,

- But, a PPC requests our data within 28 days and we receive correspondence at our home address before the 28 days following which the fee remains unpaid for the DVLA states must elapse before a PPC can request keeper details,

- Then surely this is a valid point to raise with the DVLA and ICO...?

I would also argue, as no doubt many have done before, that if the warning notice is inadequate and, importantly, if it does not give a driver sufficient information to enable them to resolve the contravention within the 28 day period prior to their details being released by the DVLA, that is a breach of contract and any subsequent claims should be void...

I wasn!!!8217;t asking for Redx!!!8217;s opinion on KADOE and PoFA and types of notice, or even their own considerable forum XP, I was asking if anyone else was aware of the DVLA document, had picked up this section, or was aware of any other freely available DVLA document which contradicts it which would shoot my point down in flames.
So, is there anything else I can read, other than PoFA, KADOE and the DPA...?

Coupon-mad

So if:
- The DVLA state in their published document which addresses these issues for the benefit of the data subject (which they do) that a PPC cannot acquire our data before 28 days have elapsed (and that statement implies that a subject has 28 days before their details will be released to a PPC, irrespective of notice type - but it HAS to be a screen notice, no matter how vague, because they need keeper details to issue anything else, so the baseline date is that of the alleged contravention because they can't send their NTK until they have acquired the keepers details 28 days later - chicken and egg?)

No.

You understand the KADOE wrong. PPCs, like ParkingEye and plenty of others, get DVLA data straight away and within the rules.

- Then surely this is a valid point to raise with the DVLA and ICO...?

No it's not. Much as I encourage ICO complaits they must be ones that have a valid point and the whole premise of this argument is incorrect.

Sorry I am not legally trained, maybe a real solicitor (or someone who pretends they are legally trained - ignore them) will be along soon.