PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE HELP - WRONG VRM READ BY ANPR SYSTEM.

Umkomaas

The offending vehicle is the same make and model (a Vauxhall Mokka) however it is BLACK in colour. Our vehicle is SILVER in colour. The vehicles both have a different style of alloy wheel.

If they were undertaking their mandatory human checks, once they received the DVLA data, the difference in the vehicles would be obvious. Follow the advice re complaints as outlined above by @Coupon-mad. 

h2g2

Is there value in cases like this demanding compensation from the DVLA for a data breach?

It seems to me there is a difficulty relying on the KADOE contract because we motorists are not a party to it. Fundamentally the DVLA holds our data and is responsible for it. They put that clause in the KADOE contract to try to avoid cases like this one, but should we not hold the DVLA responsible for this kind thing, if we can?

Should we demanding they pay Google v Halliday compensation for supplying the details of a silver vehicle with registration XX 00 XXX when the vehicle in question is a black one with registration XX 00 XXY? And don't accept "but they're a private parking company and we have a different policy for them" (who they gave the information to is not your concern - they gave your information away without proper cause); "the PPC shouldn't pursue this once they realise / is a member of an ATA" (that's an agreement between the DVLA and the ATA and its members that we motorists are not party to).

I feel one good result on this topic (and it's pretty black and white silver in this case) and the DVLA could end up under real pressure if they end up having to pay out every time keeper data is obtained without good cause.

EDIT: And to be clear, when pursuing the DVLA don't even wait for the PPC's response. The very fact they had your data at all is the problem.

James_Poisson

Moreover both of the numbers exist and both coincidentally are on the same Vauxhall model just different colours proof enough:

 

Nellymoser

James_Poisson said:

As for the image of the VRN it looks to me as if there might be a black screw cover on the middle of the D and it clearly is not a B as the line across is too high it should be in the middle like this:

Not like this:

Oh dear, seems many can see the problem here apart from the private parking management experts !!! 

Umkomaas

h2g2 said:

Is there value in cases like this demanding compensation from the DVLA for a data breach?

It seems to me there is a difficulty relying on the KADOE contract because we motorists are not a party to it. Fundamentally the DVLA holds our data and is responsible for it. They put that clause in the KADOE contract to try to avoid cases like this one, but should we not hold the DVLA responsible for this kind thing, if we can?

Should we demanding they pay Google v Halliday compensation for supplying the details of a silver vehicle with registration XX 00 XXX when the vehicle in question is a black one with registration XX 00 XXY? And don't accept "but they're a private parking company and we have a different policy for them" (who they gave the information to is not your concern - they gave your information away without proper cause); "the PPC shouldn't pursue this once they realise / is a member of an ATA" (that's an agreement between the DVLA and the ATA and its members that we motorists are not party to).

I feel one good result on this topic (and it's pretty black and white silver in this case) and the DVLA could end up under real pressure if they end up having to pay out every time keeper data is obtained without good cause.

EDIT: And to be clear, when pursuing the DVLA don't even wait for the PPC's response. The very fact they had your data at all is the problem.

Not being an apologist for the DVLA, but at the time of the KADOE request, there is no way the DVLA would know that the vehicle black/silver colour was an issue. The request only offers the DVLA a VRM (albeit incorrectly recorded by the PPC) against which the DVLA provided the RK data.  

I think the point where the DVLA should get involved would be in enforcing a requirement on the PPC to notify them that there is a data breach (once the ‘human check - yeah right - spotted the black/silver issue).  Of course, there’s no such requirement, so the PPC knowingly pursues, relentlessly, the wrong party.

h2g2

Umkomaas said:

Not being an apologist for the DVLA, but at the time of the KADOE request, there is no way the DVLA would know that the vehicle black/silver colour was an issue. The request only offers the DVLA a VRM (albeit incorrectly recorded by the PPC) against which the DVLA provided the RK data.  

I think the point where the DVLA should get involved would be in enforcing a requirement on the PPC to notify them that there is a data breach (once the ‘human check - yeah right - spotted the black/silver issue).  Of course, there’s no such requirement, so the PPC knowingly pursues, relentlessly, the wrong party.

The PPC knowingly pursues the wrong party because very little will come of it. Even if they have to pay out a counter-claim. Meanwhile complaints to the DVLA typically get responses along the lines of "that PPC is a member of an ATA and therefore must follow these procedures. It's not our problem if they don't."

Bringing the DVLA into a DRA claim will make it their problem, and force them to do something about it. They can likely use the KADOE contract with PPCs to recover any losses, but it will draw scrutiny onto who they are allowing to access the database.

> at the time of the KADOE request, there is no way the DVLA would know that the vehicle black/silver colour was an issue

On this point specifically, for anyone other than a PPC an unaltered photograph of the vehicle stationary in-situ is required. They warn not even crop the photograph. Even if they don't want to review photos for every single request from a bulk user (and, in fairness, it would be unwieldy for them to do so) it would be entirely within their remit to ask for the vehicle's make and colour, and then reject the request if they don't match.