Drove partner's car to work car park, numberplate didn't update in system, NTKs to wrong address

Le_Kirk

Deletion just removes the ability to find the data, erasure is as if the data was never there in the first place.  For more information ask Auntie Google.

Coupon-mad

I use words from the DPA about SAR and data rights; always use DPA words like 'rectification' and 'erasure' not alternatives that give a PPC wriggle room.

shgtsk

Coupon-mad said:

They can't revert liability back tot he keeper but like I said, it is important that the driver then responds when they get their own letter which will be soon.  THEN the keeper can ask that their data be erased (use that word, not deleted).

Thanks, the driver will respond when they get the letter. Can confirm the word erased was used multiple times in the initial email and that the keeper will follow up once the driver has responded. Thanks for all your help!

shgtsk

Update:

Hi everyone. So, the driver has now received a letter, embedded below, which appears to just be the same boilerplate NTK which the registered keeper received. As the driver has already been identified, I'm not quite sure what the best way to respond is, please can you advise? To remind, the driver has a parking permit for that car park, but it seems a technical error (I believe) prevented the numberplate of the vehicle driven being added to the permit - hence the PCN. Pictures of the signage are earlier in the thread and it was suggested appealing based on that signage only talking about a permit being required, and no mention of it being numberplate specific?

I'm not sure what would be most effective, your advice appreciated!

Fruitcake

The driver should now admit liability and appeal as if it is the first document received. You could use the blue template minus the comments about being the keeper and not naming the driver.

Once it has been rejected, the scammers will have accepted by action that the keeper no longer has liability. The keeper can then instruct the scammers to erase their data. They should refer to the rejection notice to the driver in this instruction and a comment that a complaint will be made to the ICO and DVLA if they fail or refuse to do so..
If the scammers fail to erase the keeper's data, a complaint should be made to the ICO and the DVLA.

Umkomaas

@shgtsk - any chance you might update this thread given all the help you received here a couple of years ago?  Newbies coming along looking at similar cases for ideas/outcomes are left disappointed when there's nothing but a big hole at the end of an unfinished thread. 

I note that you have a new thread requiring more forum help. 

shgtsk

Umkomaas thank you for the reminder! On this occasion, TPS accepted my appeal as "a gesture of good faith", I think likely because I made a bit of a stink about complaining to the landowner.  Thanks again all for your advice.