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.

emcwill

I’m coming back to this thread because it was one of the ones I read when researching ahead of complaining to the DVLA about my details being requested. I received their template response (posted on another thread) and just have to find time now to escalate. 

I have recently had 2 PCNs cancelled after a lot of back and forth. I am the Keeper but was not in the car when the driver, on 2 days, paid to park but entered the reg of their vehicle rather than mine.

The first items received were 2 NTKs. They began: ‘This notice is given to you in line with [PoFA], in relation to a parking contravention [date detail]. Records from the DVLA show that you were the registered keeper at the time of the contravention and as we do not know the name and current address for service of the driver, this notice is served to you.’

A lot further on after details of the alleged contravention and charge etc, they offer that I can either pay or provide driver details so notice can be served. They go on to say that if I don’t do either, they have the right to recover charges from me as keeper.

But the land was council owned (National Watersports Centre) and hence, subject to byelaws, under statutory control, and therefore not relevant land. So of course they knew they could never hold me liable. So, as the OP states, they could only have requested my data in order to ask me who the driver was and never to have held me liable.

So surely they have breached the KADOE contract by relying on both these conditions rather than just the first? At the point I told them I would not be naming the driver they certainly became in breach of GDPR by continuing to store and process my details in order to wrongfully pursue me, but I can see how the DVLA can try to make out that behaviour isn’t their fault. But surely the DVLA issued it wrongly in first place in order for PCM to attempt to serve notice of their charge to me?

I’m not in a financial position to test this case, I wish I were. But I do at least want to push the DVLA on this point. Any helpful text appreciated!

(ETA: presumably, the DVLA will insist they could not have known that PCM would write to hold me liable, as opposed to simply asking me who the driver was?)

Le_Kirk

I would suggest you start a  new thread rather than piggyback on one from early last year. It can become confusing trying to answer two different issues on one thread.