DVLA MISUSE OF PERSONAL DATA UNDER GDPR - GROUP ACTION - NO WIN, NO FEE

Jenni_D

Cardriver45 said:

They just phoned me up and asked if the driver could be identified in the photos on the NTKs.

Assuming that the keeper wasn't the driver anyway, why would that matter? A keeper has no legal liability to name the driver.

Beano456

Jenni_D said:

Cardriver45 said:

They just phoned me up and asked if the driver could be identified in the photos on the NTKs.

Assuming that the keeper wasn't the driver anyway, why would that matter? A keeper has no legal liability to name the driver.

That is confussing why do they need to know that when the action is against the dvla sharing your data to ppc's and charging a fee - against GDPR regulations. According to their web:

This case is not about a data breach. Although in 2020, a Freedom of Information Request revealed that the DVLA had reported almost 200 breach notifications to the ICO in just 12 months. So the sheer number of reports being made by the DVLA is cause for concern.

Instead, this action is being made because, under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), your data can only be processed for “specified, explicit and legitimate” purposes. We do not believe that sharing your personal data with private parking companies squares with why the data was collected in the first place.

In addition, the sale of personal data is prohibited under UK data protection law. But in 2018, according to an article in the Sunday Times, the DVLA generated £16.3 million from the transfer of vehicle holders’ data. The DVLA claims that it does not profit from the release of this information, but that it charges a fee to cover the cost of providing the information. However, under the GDPR the DVLA is prohibited from charging a fee and effectively selling personal data.

Voyeurmse

patient_dream said:

"In total, around 16 million people may be affected by this illegal handling of data.

If you have received a private parking fine between 2019 and 2021, the DVLA could have breached your data and you could be due thousands of pounds in compensation."

As per the solictors.  ^^

I think we all consider this as a data breach

My PCN was issued 2018. Remains unpaid.  They still accepted my claim.  So I’d say anyone who has been issued a PCN you’ve nothing to lose, just fill the initial form out. 

Voyeurmse

bargepole said:

This is the link for anyone wishing to register for the group litigation: DVLA data protection breach - Keller Lenkner UK Data Breach (kellerlenkner-databreach.co.uk)

There is no upfront cost, and motorists will keep 75% of any sum awarded.

Only those whose PCN was issued from October 2018 onwards should register, and only those where the keeper data was obtained by the PPC from the DVLA.

They still accepted my PCN (issued jun 2018) so I’d advise still fill a form in and they will let you know. 

Voyeurmse

Coupon-mad said:

Also, this week I got an FOI back from the DVLA, admitting that they sold eight keeper data records to Wing Parking after they left the BPA on 31.10.20, because they "didn't know" that Wing had left until the end of January 2021. Well, I know that's true because I already knew that the BPA forgot to tell the DVLA. 

Oh, and Robert Toft of the DVLA wouldn't confirm or deny in the FOI whether they'd also leaked keeper data to CMS (another firm whose AOS membership was suspended and yet they got data, according to a pepipoo thread) because there is an 'ongoing investigation'.  Interesting.

The FOI has been sent to these Group Action solicitors as it might prove useful if they are seeking to show a pattern of data protection failure since GDPR.

Well I hope Keller Lenkner put that evidence together with this reply from DVLA to my MP...
“ I would like to start by saying that the DVLA takes the protection and security of its data very seriously and has procedures in place to ensure data is disclosed only where it is lawful and fair to do so and where the provisions of the Data Protection Law are met.

The DVLA requires private car parking operators to be members of a relevant Accredited Trade Association (ATA) before providing vehicle keeper information. The purpose of requiring a company to be a member of an ATA is to ensure that those who request DVLA information are legitimate companies that operate within a code of practice that promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures that there is a clear set of standards for operators that cover, among other things, signage, appeals processes, and methods of contacting drivers.

In response to your query as to whether or not Autosec Ltd are a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), I can confirm that as of 17th March 2021, Autosec Ltd no longer have BPA membership and so therefore, are unable to obtain DVLA data.

You advise that it appears that Autosec Ltd are still using information gained from the DVLA I understand that this may be the case for offences that have occurred prior to their membership lapsing in March, but no data has or will be obtained since this date.”

Voyeurmse

Cardriver45 said:

Jenni_D said:

Umkomaas said:

This claim will go nowhere and the only people that will benefit will be the lawyers as their bank balances swell. This is not about being just and lawful but about money as most of these things are.

The lawyers are offering their services on a no win, no fee basis. Successful claims will be charged at 25%. To me it's a no brainer for an affected motorist who would have no chance suing the DVLA on their own. 

What about costs for the other side in the event that the group action fails? Are they covered via an insurance scheme? (NWNF does not necessarily mean No Cost).

It says on the agreement that they take out insurance to cover this that they cover. Then if they win they claim it from the defendent. If they lose, they bare the cost

On the claimant form it explains for each individual they take out an insurance policy to cover this possibility.  They aren’t likely to take on anyone so big without a pretty strong case. 

The more of us that can supply evidence the stronger it will be. 

Castle

Voyeurmse said:

Well I hope Keller Lenkner put that evidence together with this reply from DVLA to my MP...

“ I would like to start by saying that the DVLA takes the protection and security of its data very seriously and has procedures in place to ensure data is disclosed only where it is lawful and fair to do so and where the provisions of the Data Protection Law are met.

The DVLA requires private car parking operators to be members of a relevant Accredited Trade Association (ATA) before providing vehicle keeper information. The purpose of requiring a company to be a member of an ATA is to ensure that those who request DVLA information are legitimate companies that operate within a code of practice that promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures that there is a clear set of standards for operators that cover, among other things, signage, appeals processes, and methods of contacting drivers.

In response to your query as to whether or not Autosec Ltd are a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), I can confirm that as of 17th March 2021, Autosec Ltd no longer have BPA membership and so therefore, are unable to obtain DVLA data.

You advise that it appears that Autosec Ltd are still using information gained from the DVLA I understand that this may be the case for offences that have occurred prior to their membership lapsing in March, but no data has or will be obtained since this date.”

Given that Autosec Ltd and Auto Security Ltd are two different and unrelated companies they clearly didn't bother to check their copy & paste reply. (Nice to see the mention of "Offences"!).

patient_dream

I think the DVLA are very embarrassed that just like the DFT who were duped by the BPA ? 

95Rollers

patient_dream said:

I think the DVLA are very embarrassed that just like the DFT who were duped by the BPA ? 

They have performed abysmally!  They gave up our personal details on the Scouts Honour of some smooth talking Snake Oil Salesmen like Will Hurley and Co!  Now people are being longterm hounded for the most trivial of matters and it needs to stop. The DVLA must be held accountable for their dishonesty, recklessness,  incompetence and contempt fir the members they should be protecting the information and rights of!  Heads need to roll.

Ed2000

You might find this interesting, the date may be 5 June 2019, "We would invite you to seek the view of Counsel".   What an odd thing for a 'Regulator' to say. It's almost as if the ICO is worried that it will be held responsible when the house of cards  collapses. 

David Coker =	DfT	Data Protection Officer