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

Grizebeck

Coupon-mad said:

Interesting update.  I'm not surprised. Thanks!

Agreed i never really thought it had any legs

patient_dream

I am not surprised either. great thought but taking on the establishment where money is involved ?

On the other hand, the JR will fail ? far too many motorists V a scam

Remember that Rishi approved Sir Greg Knight's private bill, what Liz will do who knows but this is the time to kill off this scam forever  OR KILL OFF THE GOVERNMENT

Let's face it, these scammers will have to down grade from Luxury Yachts in Marbella, luxory cars and properties that will end up as Air B&B

We will see what happens in the next two years before a general election

vegansaver

Thanks for the update,

I have a case where my details were given by the DVLA for driving in a 'bus lane' in a City hundreds of miles away I'd never visited. They had the wrong car and had misread the registration, 

Wonder if it's worth me raising this, i'm sure I still have all the paperwork. 

Coupon-mad

Can but ask!

hullensien

@Cardriver45
Hi
Good to see we are still pressing ahead
Maybe you could add drivers receiving PCN’s where PPC has no authority to operate - ie no landowner contract, breach of local planning regulations etc

1505grandad

"This claim involves instances where parking tickets ought not to have been issued, but DVLA shared driver details regardless; some examples of this are: "

Perhaps "double dip" should be included?

Castle

hullensien said:

@Cardriver45
Hi
Good to see we are still pressing ahead
Maybe you could add drivers receiving PCN’s where PPC has no authority to operate - ie no landowner contract, breach of local planning regulations etc

In fact; anytime the PPC is acting outside the Code of Practice for either the BPA or the IPC should be included.

Beano456

I don't see how this new claim from the solicitors will have any legs either. Won't the DVLA simply argue that they act on the info provided by the PPC and if there's been any wrongdoings then any case should be made against the ppc.

pinkelephant12

I agree with @Beano456.  I can't see this being successful.  Much as we all want DVLA's wings to be clipped, there needs to be a sound legal basis.  

Fruitcake

The argument is that the DVLA are required to do more checks on why data is being requested than, "are they a member of an ATA?"

They are supposed to check that the "victim" is not a vulnerable adult amongst other things.

The ICO have stated effectively that data request from a PPC must now be shown to be for the benefit of the motorist, not the PPC nor the DVLA.

I suppose if a court case against the DVLA ever happens, it will be a mighty battle between barristers to determine the meaning of reasonable cause, and what constitutes a KADOE breach.