KADOE - a simplified version of the contract between car park operators and DVLA

doubledotcom

The problem is that the DVLA will try to fob off any complaints about them still being the data controller once they have provided the Keeper data to the operator. They will insist that they are no longer the data controller, especially if the operator made the request under the "reasonable cause" criteria.

However, I have been getting recipients of PCNs that breach the PPSCoP after the "reasonable cause" request was made. For example, MET parking issuing NtKs claiming Keeper liability for alleged contraventions that occurred on non-relevant land, which is a breach of the the PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d).

Whilst the request to the DVLA was lawful, the issue of an NtK in breach of PPSCoP 8.1.1(d) is also a breach of the KADOE contract and therefore the data is now being used unlawfully. The DVLA, as the data controller, is liable, even if they insist they are not because once they have passed the data to the operator, the operator then becomes the data controller.

Anyway, I have been getting many recipients of PCNs that  subsequently breach the PPSCoP after receiving the Keepers data, to submit formal complaints to the DVLA. Each complaint is always fobbed off with the pathetic excuse that it was lawfully requested under the reasonable cause criteria. I then get them to submit a Step 2 complaint which highlights the fat that the Step 1 complaint ignored the fact that it was not about the original request under reasonable cause but the subsequent unlawful use because of the PPSCoP/KADOE breach.

Again, the Step 2 complaints are fobbed off and the substantive point that the DVLA remains the data controller is always obfuscated. As such, I have been getting the recipients to then raise the issue with the ICA. Whilst the ICA will not investigate the actual issues of each complaint, they will investigate the DVLA for any failures to deal properly or lawfully with any complaints received.

I am happy to say that the ICA have finally agreed that there is an issue that needs investigation and further evidence has beeb provided to show the systemic nature of the DVLA fob offs. Unfortunately, this will be a very slow process as the ICA have admitted they are severely understaffed and resourced However, they have promised to complete any investigation but it will likely take many months before anything can be announced.

The only other advantage to a ll these formal complaints to the DVLA means that there is now a greater chance that in the future, FoI requests about how many formal complaints they have received and about which operators, may reveal trends that the DVLA will not be able to try and brush under the carpet.

ParkingMad

Umkomaas said:

Does anyone know what the general criteria are for a 'Red' rating, and what the consequences are?  Over the years we've seen repeat 'offenders', some of them our favourite 'big beasts', but seemingly no follow on information. 

These are some of GIAA’s general criteria for the ratings-

Umkomaas

Thanks @ParkingMad. There needs to be major weaknesses for a 'Red' assessment. And there are so many operators falling below an acceptable threshold.  The distribution of 'Reds' doesn't seem to be getting any better.  Makes you wonder what the DVLA are doing about this, or are they going through the motions of box ticking 'Annual Assessments Carried Out'. ☑️

Coupon-mad

The MHCLG have been shown this evidence - thanks @ParkingMad

I'm now away for a week (in the morning).

LoneStarState

Umkomaas said:

Does anyone know what the general criteria are for a 'Red' rating, and what the consequences are?  Over the years we've seen repeat 'offenders', some of them our favourite 'big beasts', but seemingly no follow on information. 

Coupon-mad said:

You'd have to do a DVLA FOI re each and every one to expose the reasons.

Sometimes it's something major like telling a recipient they are liable under POFA when they can't be. Sometimes it's that some records are incomplete (i.e. unclear what action was taken).

You can request the in depth audit results from the GIAA that is provided to the DVLA.  Specifically, the forms you would want to look at and request are the GIAA's "External Data Users Programme Audit Findings". 

Requesting that quoted phrase should get what you want. It's the audit report sent to the DVLA's Data Sharing Strategy and Compliance Team and will include the RAG rating along with a summary of why that score was reached (eg premature KADOE request post NTD would lead to a Red and what the operator is going to do to address the issue). 

It will also include the auditor questionnaire based on responses from the PPC about certain conduct regarding data (will be heavily redacted) as well as a large pro forma spreadsheet that contains a (presumably random and therefore representative) sample of tickets issued by the PPC documenting the following:

Vehicle registration number (redacted)
Date of Event (redacted)
Date of Enquiry (redacted)
Notice Date (redacted)
Enquiry Reference No 
Reason code used (if applicable)
What was the reason for the enquiry?
Was the correct reason code used?
Was a ticket attached to vehicle or was ANPR/CCTV used to issue a postal parking charge notice?
Has the PCN/NTK been checked?
Was POFA used on the notices?
Has the signage been checked?
Have the photographs or images been checked?
Was the correct vehicle enquired upon?
Please note any comments or issues relating to this enquiry

If the GIAA refuse to publish this on first request, push for an internal review citing that it is important to know more detail on RAG ratings given the GIAA being the only real independent organisation publishing such info for the benefit of the motoring public who are subject to such requests and that redaction is an easy tool for protecting personal info in the documents.  You can refer to FOI152 where they had provided this information to help bolster your case against an initial refusal to provide.

ParkingMad

FOI148 also has details of VCS audits between 2014 and 2024.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/audit_results_for_vehicle_contro