DVLA GDPR Breach

Johno100

Umkomaas wrote: »

The DVLA won't want anyone or anything threatening the interruption of their £17.5million gravy train income from those data releases to the PPC network (7million x £2.50 a pop).

Such easy money. I can't see even the highest flying of entrepreneurs making that amount with such little effort.

Not again! They charge on a cost recovery basis and like every other charge levied by government bodies on that basis it is regularly audited by the NAO.

This whole thread reminds me of the Brexit debate and votes last night, namely only very vaguely connected to reality.

beamerguy

twhitehousescat wrote: »

manual checking would close down ANPR /POFa cases within a matter of days , this in effect would kill off 50-75% of all BPA members and close down the BPA , POPLa could not cope ,

the end , or a saving grace for the IPC

And that is the best one on the bucket list so far this year

Umkomaas

Johno100 wrote: »

Not again! They charge on a cost recovery basis and like every other charge levied by government bodies on that basis it is regularly audited by the NAO.

This whole thread reminds me of the Brexit debate and votes last night, namely only very vaguely connected to reality.

Are you being serious, or tongue-in-cheek? An almost wholly electronic process, interrogation via computer to computer, spewing ~19,000 motorists' details per day at £2.50 per drop is only breaking even?

It doesn't help matters that when questioned a few years ago, the DVLA came up with two different stories. One that they were losing money, then a second (possibly when the proverbial was about to hit the fan) they were managing to cost recover. And that was on much smaller numbers of accesses. Economies of scale have to be factored in as a result of the huge increases in the numbers over the past couple of years.

steve1500

What it will require is someone to put in a formal complaint to the ICO against the DVLA.

The ICO does not have an issue doing public sector bodies

https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/enforcement/london-borough-of-islington/

In that the DVLA released their personal information to Scum bags R'US without taking the necessary steps to ensure that the PPC was compliant with GDPR / DPA 2018

We all know that the PPC are not complying with Article 13 & as such are obtaining peoples information illegally.

The DVLA will be complicit in that they know or at best should know. Sure their will an Aldi in Swansea - just go and look at PE's signs

beamerguy

Umkomaas wrote: »

Are you being serious, or tongue-in-cheek? An almost wholly electronic process, interrogation via computer to computer, spewing ~19,000 motorists' details per day at £2.50 per drop is only breaking even?

The DVLA would miss these £2.50 payments .... they have over
800 staff to pay from these profits

Umkomaas

beamerguy wrote: »

The DVLA would miss these £2.50 payments .... they have over
800 staff to pay from these profits

The 'Cost Recovery' argument is on thin ice when the DVLA charges the same £2.50 for paper-based enquiries that need human intervention and input, and all enquiries (paper and electronic) from police and local authorities (who request even greater numbers than the PPC network) get them free of charge.

Doesn't compute to me!

nosferatu1001

Johno100 wrote: »

Not again! They charge on a cost recovery basis and like every other charge levied by government bodies on that basis it is regularly audited by the NAO.

This whole thread reminds me of the Brexit debate and votes last night, namely only very vaguely connected to reality.

This fee includes the cost to provide look ups to the police for free, in essence.
The £2.50 charge to the PPCs DOES generate profit, when taken alone.
I know the NAO audits, and I know how the calculations are performed. I have this direclty.

twhitehousescat

funny how they made a profit , supplying police / counsils , before private mob turned up

Half_way

If you are looking at a serious complaint then you need to look at the so called double dip cases .
ANPR is notoriously inaccurate, so if the system is fully automatic with no human checking then it could be argued that there has been no due care taken in accessing/processing and then using that personal data.
The DVLA is at one end of the chain, and at the other you will find the car park owners, such as the supermarkets for example.


If the supermarkets are liable for the actions of their agents, then a GDPR breach lodged against the supermarket would be a nice result in the battle with PPCs.


Especially as now under the GDPR legislation the person responsible for the site can be held individually liable, not the corporate supermarket, but the individual who allows the PPc to operate, weather that eb the manager/area manager/head of estates

BiliousGreen

The chap from the ICO said it would be the DVLA at fault as anyone can ask for the data for any reason, it is for them to do due diligence and ensure grounds exist before disclosing, so essentially it would be them committing the breach not the companies.

What we need is for people to watch on the forums and the next time one comes up where grounds dont exist ie prohibitive signage or signage so poor it doesnt create a contract, and that person wins an appeal on those grounds, they are directed to send the complaint first to the DVLA, and then upoon an unsatisfatory response from them, to the ICO as a complaint.