Indigo / Saba / ITAL erase data request

Itsascam

Good idea - have done. Just thought someone might have had the same excuse before.

Itsascam

Update: I did ask the DVLA and they said they did not require the PC to keep personal data. I forwarded this to the PC but they again said they did not need to comply because they had a business need to keep the information due to the money owed.
So I complained to the ICO and after some time they have agreed with the PC. Here is their reply:

"Dear XXXXXXX


Thank you for raising your concern with us about Saba Parking and their handling of personal data.

Your case has now been assigned the following reference number RFA0851296 and allocated to me, a Case Officer at the ICO. My details can be found at the bottom of this letter.

We apologise for the delay in our response; we are currently receiving large volumes of concerns which have meant that we have been unable to deal with incoming correspondence as promptly as we would like.

Our role

Our role is to ensure that organisations follow the data protection legislation properly. If things go wrong we will provide advice and ask the organisation to try to put things right. Our overall aim is to improve the way organisations handle personal information.

Concern raised with us

Your concern related to Saba retaining your personal data following a request for erasure which you submitted for a Penalty Notice.

Our view

In this case we have decided that it appears likely that Saba has complied with the requirements of the DPA.

This is because they require your personal data as a result of outstanding amounts owed to Saba. Upon review of the emails that you have provided us, a Ms Caroline Theobald had explained that they are required to keep your data for a legal obligation to comply with DVLA and HMRC. We are satisfied with the reasoning which Saba has provided to you.

In addition, please be aware that the right of erasure is not absolute, as such under circumstances, it can be refused. Please see the following link for further details:

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-erasure/


In light of the above, we do not consider that further action will be necessary from Saba at this time.

Please note that the concerns you have raised will be kept on file. This will help us over time to build up a picture of Saba’s information right’s practices.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

If you are responding via email, you can forward your response to our casework@ico.org.uk email address with the above case reference in this format [Ref. XXXXXXXXX] in the subject line."

So it looks like complaining to the ICO does not always work. It didn't work in this case anyway.

NB I did point out to the ICO in my complaint that the 6 months to take action had passed. Meanwhile we are still getting letters from QDR threatening CC proceedings the latest only a few weeks ago.

It is now over 9 months since the original incident. I have complained to the ICO. How else do I get them to stop sending letters? Can they ever take this to CC or do I continue just to ignore the letters? Has anyone else ever got to this stage where they are still getting these letters 9 months afterwards?

Thanks in advance for any advice

twhitehousescat

I suspect that the ICO think this is s normal parking ticket and the 6 yr timeout , and not a criminal prosecution

in fact do the ICO deal with cases that are criminal prosecution? , those are normally police type matters

"Can they ever take this to CC or do I continue just to ignore the letters?"

all letters so far have stated bylaws and you have been refused a POPLa appeal , if they did try CC , then they themselves have broken UK law

Fruitcake

I would complain again to the ICO that the DVLA do not require the scammers to keep data, therefore that part of SABA's comment about a legal obligation is a lie.

Did you ask HMRC about the scammers keeping your personal data? If they say the same thing then surely that completely shoots down SABA's statement about it being a legal obligation.

twhitehousescat

I suspect that the ICO think this is s normal parking ticket and the 6 yr timeout , and not a criminal prosecution

there are VERY few private companies that instigate criminal charges in mags court

Itsascam

Got a further reply from the ICO:



"Thank you for your email.

Saba Parking have stated that as the amount is still outstanding as such their purpose for processing the information has not ended.

Please be aware that the dispute over a Parking Charge Notice does not fall within the remit of the ICO. Nor does the ICO regulate the Magistrates Court Act. As such we cannot comment on the application of the Magistrates Court Act in your circumstances.

Likewise the right to erasure is not an absolute right and under circumstances it does not have to be complied with, please see the following link for further information:

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-erasure/

Therefore, Saba Parking’s legal obligation of an audit trail applies and data will be held in accordance with their retention policy."



I think from the ICO's point of view they are not a court and cannot rule whether a debt exists any more or not (or if it existed in the first place!).

I think I am going to give up on this now and hope that QDR/SABA etc get bored and stop sending letters as I don't want to start my own legal action.

I do think that (at least as far as this case which is the only one I am personally aware of) complaining to the ICO is not necessarily going to get a desired outcome and future posters should be made aware of this.

KeithP

Itsascam wrote: »

I do think that (at least as far as this case which is the only one I am personally aware of) complaining to the ICO is not necessarily going to get a desired outcome and future posters should be made aware of this.

You are probably right, but another point of view might be that the more people that complain about a particular company's behaviour, then the more likely that the ICO will delve deeper.