Ticketed in space owned by me

LondonE5

As owner of the space I had previously stated to both the managing agent and emailed via the PPC’s complaints email (which they say is not for appeals and yet ultimately they cancelled the ticket due to contact through that address) that I was a named owner of the space.

Surely to then go on to retrieve data from the DVLA was against the rules?

But I suppose you are pointing out how the DVLA will exonerate itself, rather than the PPC (or MA).

fisherjim

LondonE5 said:

As owner of the space I had previously stated to both the managing agent and emailed via the PPC’s complaints email (which they say is not for appeals and yet ultimately they cancelled the ticket due to contact through that address) that I was a named owner of the space.

Surely to then go on to retrieve data from the DVLA was against the rules?

But I suppose you are pointing out how the DVLA will exonerate itself, rather than the PPC (or MA).

Exactly!

And the BPA will hide behind this COP clause:

12.4 It is entirely up to the DVLA whether they allow you
to request vehicle keeper information. Also, the DVLA
apply terms and conditions to that access, and these may
change. We will not get involved in disputes concerning
the availability of DVLA data or services

Chancers the lot of them in deep in an unregulated money making scam.

LondonE5

So is serving them (PPC & MA) an LBC not worth it then?

I’ll only do it if my case is pretty watertight.

UncleThomasCobley

There is no harm in issuing the PPC and MA an LBC. Make them squirm and see what the reposes is.

As for the DVLA, it may be worth trying to get your MP to submit a written question or request an oral question session in Parliament to inquire about the actions and policies of the DVLA. They may address these questions to the Department for Transport or the Secretary of State for Transport. The questions can be aimed at seeking information about the DVLA's data handling practices, the breach, and the steps being taken to rectify the situation.

If they submit a written question to a government minister, they are required to provide a written response. The questions can be used to seek information or clarification on specific issues, like the DVLA's data handling practices in your case.

Fruitcake

Yes it is worth issuing an LBC. It costs nothing, and after 30 days you have the option of issuing a claim any time in the next six years. Again it (initially) costs nothing to issue a claim. 

1505grandad

After all as stated by Lord Goschen at 13.52:-

https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/debate/2019-01-18/lords/lords-chamber/parking-code-of-practice-bill

"Among the worst of these practices are perpetrated by rogue elements of the private parking industry, a situation made far worse by the fact that it is facilitated by a government agency, the DVLA. Where government is involved in effectively doing the dirty work, we need to set the bar high for it."

Also Lord Bourne at 14.28 stated (not sure if this is of interest to C-m):-

"My noble friend Lord Goschen referred to county court judgments. There is certainly an issue there that we want to take care of. There have been instances of people having notices sent to their old addresses when they have made known their present address, and such cases should also be covered."

pinkelephant12

When you get a full response from the DVLA KADOE section it will probably just say the parking company made a mistake and they've been forgiven.  This seems to be DVLA's standard response.

Ask to see the full unredacted response from the parking company. 

When I finally got hold of their response in my case, I discovered that the parking company had told DVLA a pack of lies and I could prove it.  DVLA weren't interested but it helped my case when I sued the parking company and I used it as evidence of dishonesty to make a complaint to Action Fraud. 

Fruitcake

The complaint to the DVLA and the DVLA KADOE team is twofold.
One is to complain about the actions if the PPC, but the other is to complain about the actions of the DVLA.

It matters not what contract/agreement/arrangement the DVLA has with unregulated private parking companies. The OP has/had no such agreement. The DVLA are data handlers bound by the strict requirements of the DPA and GDPR. They are required to handle and process the personal data they hold in compliance with the law. This they failed to do.

The focus of the second part of the complaint is the DVLA's failure to comply with the law. They sold the OP's data when they had no right to do so. It doesn't matter who asked them for that data, or why, or what process they had for dealing with such a request.
They failed in their fundamental job of safeguarding the OP's personal data.
They failed to carry out due diligence to ensure the OP's personal data was not sold to a company that had no right to it.
They failed to check with the landowner that they had agreed for the DVLA to sell their personal data.

1505grandad

"The focus of the second part of the complaint is the DVLA's failure to comply with the law."

As above  -  the DVLA are absolutely rigid in using "The Law" to justify giving out motorists data to these unregulated ppc's as seen many times in their template replies.

They also are rigid in that they must belong to an ATA as a "Safeguard" (tough) -  and "All ATAs must have an enforceable code of practice governing the conduct and operations of their members."

One of the conditions adhering to the CoP is a contract with the landowner  -  it's been proved you are the landowner  -  where is their contract with you as stated in the CoP? (which is supposed to be "enforceable" according to the DVLA).

The usual splurge contained in their "Template Reply" (seen many times):-

"The Law

The law recognises that motorists have a responsibility to others when using a vehicle and allows for the release of vehicle keeper information to those who can demonstrate a reasonable cause for requiring it.

Reasonable cause is not defined in legislation but the Government’s policy is that it should relate to the vehicle or its use, following incidents where there may be liability on the part of the driver.

Guidance on what constitutes reasonable cause is published online at www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla.

Unauthorised or inconsiderate parking on private land is a widespread problem for many businesses, private landowners and other motorists.

If information were not released motorists would be able to park with disregard for the conditions applying, with no prospect of being held to account for their actions.

All data sharing undertaken by the DVLA is carried out in accordance with the principles of the Data Protection Act (DPA). The most recent audit by the Information Commissioner’s Office judged the DVLA’s procedures to offer high assurance that processes to mitigate the risks of non-compliance with the DPA are in place.

Safeguards

At DVLA we have tough safeguards in place to protect the privacy of information held on our records. One of those safeguards is that all unregulated organisations, such as private car parking management companies, requesting information from us must be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (ATA).

All ATAs must have an enforceable code of practice governing the conduct and operations of their members.

The code of practice has to be published on the ATA’s website along with contact details for enquiries and complaints.

The ATAs for the private parking industry are;

The British Parking Association (BPA) www.britishparking.co.uk

The Independent Parking Committee (IPC) theipc.info"

I have always maintained that the DVLA are on the side of the unregulated ppc's and do not make any attempt at practising "Duty of Care" or "Reasonable Cause" in favour of motorists  -  but always receive a similar template reply. 
I really hope that you are able to obtain a result and wish you good luck with your attempt.

LondonE5

Half_way said:

Earlier you said something about someone on a power trip refusing to help
 Some sites infested with unregulated PPCs operate something called self ticketing, this is where a busybody issues tickets themselves, and it has been reported that they can get a bonus for each ticket issued.

If you are going for a complaint to the management company you should also include this person on the power trip.
 If looking at GDPR that person should be reminded that there is an element of personal liability in  GDPR where an individual can be held liable as well as or instead of the company/ organisation they work for

I'm currently penning my LBC to the MA/PPC.

Regarding your point above - I note from P4P's website, they don't charge for their services, so clearly the MA is on a kick back from the service / there's some revenue share agreement going on there.

I always thought this would be the case - their business model stinks of this from the FAQ below!

https://p4parking.co.uk/faqs/