DVLA GDPR breaches where the PPC operates on non-relevant land

GrannyKate

I was also looking at para B2 which addresses non-POFA cases in the vaguest manner.  I wondered about FOI to DVLA around compliance with D8-12 of the KADOE contract.  All those complaints to companies about misuse of data should have been reported to DVLA. 

Debszzzz2

FYI, I have managed to crack open the spreadsheet with the number of KADOE requests the DVLA receive and process every year...

For unregulated private parking companies alone, the DVLA issued over 11 million KADOE requests in FY 2022/2023. Of course there is no breakdown of how many of those were for alleged contraventions on non-relevant land. However, looking at just three of the main culprits who do operate at stations and airports, APCOA, NCP and VCS, the numbers are: 773,596; 360,932 and 107,523 respectively.

Anyway, in the last financial year, the DVLA raked in over £25 million from unregulated private parking companies alone. That's a lot of income for processing our data, unlawfully in many cases!

Umkomaas

Anyway, in the last financial year, the DVLA raked in over £25 million from unregulated private parking companies alone. That's a lot of income for processing our data, unlawfully in many cases! 

But they continually state that £25million only covers costs (they said the same when they were taking 'just' £10m). They make no surplus. Someone in Govt clearly swallows that codswallop!

If a surplus can't be turned from a £25m income, the outfit's management must be utterly useless!

Fruitcake

Umkomaas said:

Perhaps a nice, polite new style NtK should be issued for such cases ... like ...

'We are writing to you as the RK of vehicle (VRM) which was involved in a possible contravention of terms at (location). We are only able to hold the driver of the vehicle potentially liable for this as (location) is deemed to be 'not relevant land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) to enable us to hold you, the RK, liable for the contravention. We would be most grateful if you could provide us with the name and address of the driver and hand this letter to them. This is entirely voluntary.  If you do not provide us with these details by (date), we will close our file.'

🤓

This was one of my suggestions during the mandatory CoP consultation process for all cases (not just non-relevant land) where the keeper could not be held liable.

Castle

Umkomaas said:

Perhaps a nice, polite new style NtK should be issued for such cases ... like ...

'We are writing to you as the RK of vehicle (VRM) which was involved in a possible contravention of terms at (location). We are only able to hold the driver of the vehicle potentially liable for this as (location) is deemed to be 'not relevant land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) to enable us to hold you, the RK, liable for the contravention. We would be most grateful if you could provide us with the name and address of the driver and hand this letter to them. This is entirely voluntary.  If you do not provide us with these details by (date), we will close our file.'

🤓

Instead of calling it a "NTK", I would suggest calling it a "LTK"-Letter to Keeper.

Debszzzz2

In FY22/23 there were a total of 30,535,738 KADOE requests. This includes local authorities, finance companies, courts, TfL, insurance companies, solicitors, toll roads, traffic warrants, HPI checks and "other".

DVLA earned over £76 million just from KADOE requests alone.