Indigo / Saba / ITAL erase data request

Itsascam

Hi

I was one of the first to get the new ITAL process and unfortunately appealed before the forum had worked out collectively that it was probably not worth doing so.

As expected the apeal was rejected so then I sat on my hands waiting for the 6 months to time out since the alleged parking incident.

Following advice on this forum I then requested that both SABA and ITAL erase all personal data as the case was now statute barred. One has emailed back saying they don't have to:

"Having looked into your case, the penalty notice is still outstanding, awaiting payment, having been rejected by ITAL on 19th February 2019. This means that whilst you have the right to request to have your information erased, we do not have to comply. In this situation, our legal obligations require we are unable to erase anything which is needed to comply with the DVLA, HMRC and auditing purposes."

My first question is just to check that the statute barred 6 month clock does not re-start somehow because of the appeal.

Assuming not I'm seeking some advice for next steps.

I found some references to the 6 months time limit here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5909666/penalty-notice-railway-land&page=5&highlight=indigo+erase+data

Should I email back to them with this information?
Should I go straight to the ICO?
Should I wait until it is 6 months past the date of the sham appeal rejection - and possibly beyond?

Many thanks for any sage advice in advance.

waamo

The Magistrates Act makes it clear proceedings have to commence within 6 months of the offence. There is no provision in law to reset the clock.

twhitehousescat

which one of the 2 companies is this , saba or ital

waamo

I would complain to the BPA and ICO.

twhitehousescat

in the past saba have complied, which lead me to my question above

now why would a prosecution company , that is not in a ATA wish to retain a persons /cars details ?

The_Deep

IMO, PE signs leave much to be desired. I doubt that many judges would agree that they are capable of forming a contract, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

and enlist the support of your MP as they are obviously trying to scam you.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

twhitehousescat

The_Deep wrote: »

IMO, PE signs leave much to be desired. I doubt that many judges would agree that they are capable of forming a contract, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

and enlist the support of your MP as they are obviously trying to scam you.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

this was railway land , no PE were involved and it was not a parking ticket

Itsascam

Just checked. The email was from Saba.

Think I will write back once with the links to the magistrate's act and threaten the ICO/BPA etc.

Thanks

Itsascam

Have received a reply from SABA:

"Good morning XXXX,

Thank you for your email.

Whilst the penalty notice is still outstanding we are required to retain your information. As far as the DVLA are concerned, when we request information from them we have to keep for a minimum of a year so that if they need to audit us we have a record of the request.

Therefore, I am unable to comply with your request and as stated you have the right to make a complaint to the ICO."

NB In the last email to them I mentioned that I could not see the relevance of HMRC and the DVLA.

I assume they must have requested the keeper's address from the DVLA at the start of this process. But this must pretty much always happen so has anyone come accross this before - an audit requirement to keep the information for a year?

The first point about having to keep the information while the penalty charge is outstanding might this be so they can right off this "revenue" for tax purposes? If not it is simply their own requirement and as such is bogus IMO either way.

So unless someone thinks the DVLA point is valid I will complain to the ICO....

Umkomaas

So unless someone thinks the DVLA point is valid I will complain to the ICO....

Why not ask the DVLA the question first?

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk or KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

Coupon-mad

The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 makes it clear proceedings must commence and be 'laid before magistrates' within 6 months. There can be no lawful reason to keep your data when an alleged byelaws penalty is over 6 months old and statute barred.

Certainly ask the DVLA if SABA are lying, first, then complain to the ICO.