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

pinkelephant12

Thanks to forumites for alerting me to this action.

I filled in the initial expression of interest form but didn't sign up due to concerns about costs.  While there's clearly a strong case against the DVLA, I'm not sure that this is the best firm to be handling it, but better them than no one.

I received an email from them which states:

"Once  you join the action, we will progress your case on a no win, no fee agreement. This means you won't have to pay a penny if we lose your case  (providing you have not misled us in any way)."

Can anyone advise, would this statement be deemed part of the terms and conditions of the contract?

There is the usual jargon about success fees if they win.  I've had a couple of telephone calls with them, including with one of their legal team regarding issues specific to my case and the person I spoke to seemed very competent.

Personally I'm not concerned about winning any money.  I just want DVLA to be held to account and I don't want to lose money. 

patient_dream

(providing you have not misled us in any way)

This needs to be clarified. From what I see is that you provide them with proof that you were contacted by a parking company with info given by the DVLA. 
It is on this information they will act.  How could that mislead them ?

In a real world, it should be the ICO taking such action but we have a "tale of two" government departments in protection mode.

With the amount of money the DVLA receive, "£MILLIONS" .. to which they claim they make no profit which is rubbish ....... they need to change their broadband provider if that is the case 

All that money could be given to councils to repair our roads. It's like driving in a third world country at the moment ?    

Beano456

patient_dream said:

(providing you have not misled us in any way)

This needs to be clarified. From what I see is that you provide them with proof that you were contacted by a parking company with info given by the DVLA. 
It is on this information they will act.  How could that mislead them ?

In a real world, it should be the ICO taking such action but we have a "tale of two" government departments in protection mode.

With the amount of money the DVLA receive, "£MILLIONS" .. to which they claim they make no profit which is rubbish ....... they need to change their broadband provider if that is the case 

All that money could be given to councils to repair our roads. It's like driving in a third world country at the moment ?    

I read that to mean you don't pay if case is lost so long as you have complied with their terms, i.e: you haven't been talking to DVLA or agreeing any settlement deals behind solicitors back. Or not agreeing to accept an out of court settlement offer if solicitor advises you should.

Sandtree

pinkelephant12 said:

Can anyone advise, would this statement be deemed part of the terms and conditions of the contract?

Depends on the exact wording of the contract and the sequence of events. Contracts will at times have initial terms that state it supersedes any previous agreements etc.

Also remember there is the other path not covered... if you want to discontinue the case, often with conditional funding agreements like this if you withdraw/dont support them fully whilst they still think there is a case then that will result in you paying their fees.

Cardriver45

This was a letter I received in reply about a complaint I had made to the DVLA about the release of my data to a PPC. They say that it is not up to them to decide on the merits of releasing data on an individual basis.
To me that is saying that the DVLA doesn't check or care if the PPC is complying with regulations when releasing your data to the  PPC.

Coupon-mad

Indeed, which is why a legal firm is taking the DVLA to the High Court.  The DVLA make no checks as far as we know, it is merely a question of:

”are you a member of an old boys’ club?  Fine then, we’ll give you any rk data you ask for and we don’t even ask you for the address, nor evidence of any parking breach, we just believe you.  That’ll be £2.50 please, do come back...”

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

Indeed, which is why a legal firm is taking the DVLA to the High Court.  The DVLA make no checks as far as we know, it is merely a question of:

”are you a member of an old boys’ club?  Fine then, we’ll give you any rk data you ask for and we don’t even ask you for the address, nor evidence of any parking breach, we just believe you.  That’ll be £2.50 please, do come back...”

Sad that the DVLA come across as being, or pretending to be ignorant.
It's obvious that it is an old boys club coupled to the BPA.

In their reply to you they suggest you/we make representations to the DCLG ?
Don't the DVLA know what is happening already ?  A FOB OFF LETTER by a government agency ... 

Maybe they should use the BPA eerk .. "Driving up standards" or "PROFITS"

Beano456

Apart from the confirmation email, has anyone who's signed up to this received any contact back yet. I did email to ask if they want a copy of the ntk but they said they'll be in touch in due course.

95Rollers

The fact that aren't diligently gatekeeping or can't be bothered is enough evidence of incompetence.  I  recieved a PCN which I got after driving in and out of a caroark with poor/ No external entrance signage which contravenes BPA guidelines thus making me a victim of the entrapment zone. So who and when audited the carpark and its signs?!? So many cases like mine slipping through the net where PPCs are buying details because they ate in am ATA where they flout and manipulate the rules of with total impunity.  So basically many are fraudulently getting our details because they are running carparks which they are supposed to adhere to and comply with BPA/ ATA rules in regards to signage, grace periods,  data protection laws - but clearly don't. Sadly nobody is checking or regulating this. 

 The only way is arguing in court 

patient_dream

95Rollers said:

 So basically many are fraudulently getting our details because they are running carparks which they are supposed to adhere to and comply with BPA/ ATA rules in regards to signage, grace periods,  data protection laws - but clearly don't. Sadly nobody is checking or regulating this. 

 The only way is arguing in court 

Agreed.  When judges dismiss cases for poor signage, it reflects badly on the BPA and their so called audits ?

I guess the new code of practice will wake them up