ICO Response to DVLA complaint on GDPR compliance (After 4 years wait)

pinkelephant12

Continued

The case was heard at Chelmsford County Court in January 2025 before DJ Livesey.  DVLA was represented by Counsel (Dylan Jenkins of Civitas Law).  I was a litigant in person.

I only saw their skeleton argument on the morning of the hearing and didn’t have an opportunity to read a case they relied on (they didn’t provide a copy of it) - Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997.

The judge had read the papers and had a good grasp of the issues.  A weakness of my case that he focussed on was the fact that DVLA had shared my details with the PPC in 2020, 2 years before the Information Commissioner’s Opinion was published.  However, I was able to show that DVLA were aware of the Commissioner’s views in 2018/2019, although at that stage the Commissioner was open to considering DVLA’s viewpoint.

The defence case was that allowing objections would impose too high an administrative burden on DVLA as they could receive millions of objections.  Also, allowing objections would thwart the keeper liability provisions in PoFA 2012.  Therefore, they were correct to rely on Article 6(1)(c).

It was always going to be unlikely that a lowly district judge would decide against DVLA in a case such as this.

I lost the case. 

The judge said he didn’t want to get involved in politics and it was reasonable for DVLA to rely on Article 6(1)(c) because the ICO’s view was only an opinion, not the law.  The judge’s view was that it was for Parliament to clarify the situation.

However, he stated that if he had got it wrong and DVLA should have relied on Article 6(1)(e), he would have awarded me damages of £250 for distress.

I’m posting this because I believe a more senior judge might reach a different conclusion.   This information might be useful for anyone with a stronger case than mine which could be heard in the High Court rather than the small claims track of the County Court.

One consolation is that it has cost DVLA more than the value of my claim; even a relatively junior barrister would charge fairly hefty fees for research, drafting and advocacy.

Coupon-mad

Really interesting to read about this effort.

You make some really good points - with more relevant knowledge than any of us - and it is telling that he stated that if he had got it wrong and DVLA should have relied on Article 6(1)(e), he would have awarded damages of £250 for distress.

I've shared this in the BMPA group.