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

bergkamp

January Update;

We write with an update in relation to your DVLA data breach claim.

 

We are continuing to develop our "Bad Processing" or DVLA2 claim which enhances the main DVLA claim for "Unlawful Processing".

 Shortly, you can visit our website and see the work we are doing in this area and the examples of "Bad Processing" claims which we will run as part of this overall action. We aim to send the Letter of Claim to the DVLA in February.  

 

cupid07

I was interested in being part of this but things aren't making much sense.

Where it is appropriate we also take out an ATE policy on the clients behalf which will cover them against the other side's legal costs, should they claim them back if the case is unsuccessful. The cost of this policy falls within the success fee.

So if the case is unsuccessful, there is no success fee. If there is no success fee, there is no ATE policy and then what happens to the other sides costs should they wish to claim them back? that doesn't sit right with me. Anyone shed any light on this? 

Coupon-mad

I think, email and ask them.

Jenni_D

I think what it basically means is - the lawyers take out the ATE policy anyway. If the claim is successful then they recover the cost of the policy as part of their success fee; if the claim fails then the policy pays out and the lawyers bear the cost of the policy.

In other words, they're taking a gamble on being successful but minimising their exposure to the cost of the policy rather than the full costs of the other side.

cupid07

Jenni_D said:

I think what it basically means is - the lawyers take out the ATE policy anyway. If the claim is successful then they recover the cost of the policy as part of their success fee; if the claim fails then the policy pays out and the lawyers bear the cost of the policy.

In other words, they're taking a gamble on being successful but minimising their exposure to the cost of the policy rather than the full costs of the other side.

In theory thats what it should mean but thats not what it says. It says insurance is taken out on a case by case/"where appropriate". I would assume its appropriate for every client to have insurance and not just where appropriate. So say they believe it wasn't appropriate for you and the case is lost. You'd still have their fees to pay AND the other sides legal costs. Theres also a cap on these ATE policies - the enitre policy won't cover all the costs - the amount covered will be a capped cost. 

Jenni_D

And that's why you should follow @Coupon-mad's advice. No Win No Fee doesn't necessarily mean No Win No Cost.

bergkamp

May update;

We write with an update in relation to your DVLA data breach claim. We have now received a substantive response to the group Letter of Claim from DVLA. The main points from DVLA's letter:-

1. DVLA denies liability and alleges they have not unlawfully disclosed private information.

2. DVLA's main argument is that Regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 allows DVLA to release information to third parties who can show, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State, that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars made available to him. In this case the third parties are Parking Companies with DVLA maintaining it only discloses vehicle keeper information to Parking Companies who are members of Accredited Trade Associations ("ATAs").

3. DVLA denies profiting from disclosing information by charging £2.50 to cover administrative costs.

4. DVLA denies responsibility for "bad processing" claiming it has no remit to determine if a parking infringement has occurred.

5. The breach of confidence claim is denied since DVLA allege that when you provide information to DVLA you are notified that disclosure may be made to third parties.

6. The misuse of private information claim will be contested.

7. DVLA deny it is liable to pay the Claimants damages under Article 82 GDPR.

We dispute all these arguments as per the group Letter of Claim.

We will have a conference with leading counsel this week and report back his advice and our proposals for next steps. 

patient_dream

Thanks for the update.

POINT 2
The DVLA rely on a 20 year old regulation. Does it say that they can supply personal data to a fast growing scam industry ?  or indeed any industry that scams the public ?
The answer is NO

Back on 2002, it was never forseen that these so called ATA's would have an ever increasing membership of rogue traders as members or even that each ATA could lose total control as has happened.

The current Data Protection Act must supercede the regulation the DVLA refer to. 

POINT 3  .... DVLA denies profiting
That is another lie ...... The Daily Express quotes that 4.4 million private parking tickets were issued in 20/21 ?   At £2.50 a pop that is a whopping £11 MILLION which is a cash cow on an automated system with mega profits to be earned

Maybe the DVLA will be happy to provide accounts and name those who received big bonuses from this huge input of money

Umkomaas

POINT 3  .... DVLA denies profiting
That is another lie ...... The Daily Express quotes that 4.4 million private parking tickets were issued in 20/21 ?   At £2.50 a pop that is a whopping £11 MILLION which is a cash cow on an automated system with mega profits to be earned

In the full year prior to the pandemic there were over 8 million DVLA accesses by PPCs. My calculator says that that comes to over £20 million income. Now if the DVLA can't return a profit from a turnover of £20 million, they have no control over their costs, and whoever is in charge should be sacked for gross incompetence!

Coupon-mad

Dunno about any of you, but when my data was provided to the DVLA when I bought my current motor, it was done by the car trader online in front of us as we took the keys, and off we went.

There was no opportunity for the DVLA to tell me when accepting and storing my data as the new keeper (on the date of sale) that my data would be handed to third parties.  I certainly saw nothing to tell me this nor agreed.

If it arrived in due course in a cover letter with the new logbook, not only was that not prominently drawn to my attention but it comes too late and gives new keepers no option. New logbooks take months to arrive these days.

Advising this in small print too late (after the event of storing my data) if they did ever advise me, isn't good enough.

Wonder if @bargepole has had this update and thinks the same as me, that it is utter rubbish that new keepers are told in a timely fashion how their data will be shared and who with.  Despite doing what I do here, I can honestly say I've never read any such thing from the DVLA.