DVLA and Data Protection Complaints?

gazhob

Morning All,

I have a current issue running with CE, who have just sent their standard 14 day response following their confirmation of my letter before action response.

In haven't raised in here previously as I've been comfortable following the newbies threads, so I am now waiting for the claims forms to arrive.

In essence my issue with them is that the NTK arrived well outside of the 14 days as required by POFA. I just wanted to query and be a nuisance back to them and wondered if any complaints had been raised to DVLA around the misuse and continued retention of the personal data in these circumstances. (If the 14 day period has elapsed then surely they cannot retain personal data beyond that, as per DPA), also if these matters had been escalated further to the ICO?

Thanks

Gr1pr

Stop going down a dead end, there is no 14 day deadline because Pofa2012 is not mandatory, its optional

The default is 6 months to obtain keeper details and one month to get the pcn to the keeper, so 7 months under their KADOE contract with the DVLA

They can retain the data until after a resolution, or 6 or 7 years

Ignore them, waiting for a Money Claim N1SDT pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL

Coupon-mad

NTK arrived well outside of the 14 days as required by POFA. I just wanted to query and be a nuisance back to them and wondered if any complaints had been raised to DVLA around the misuse and continued retention of the personal data in these circumstances. (If the 14 day period has elapsed then surely they cannot retain personal data beyond that, as per DPA), also if these matters had been escalated further to the ICO?

No, because they are allowed to issue a non-POFA NTK. It's not void and it isn't unlawful data use. Nobody said it was! Not sure why people make that leap. Forget that.

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81899588#Comment_81899588

Because people add 2 and 2. Then make 5

gazhob

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81899605#Comment_81899605

Why do you have to be such an arrogant !!!!!! in all your replies... people come here for guidance, as they might not have the expertise in these areas.

Absolutely no need

gazhob

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81899588#Comment_81899588

Let me explore this please.... so they have been informed that the keeper was not the driver and therefore, as Non POFA, not obligated to disclose driver details. Why is there a need then to retain the data, if only to harass and bully the keeper into eventually paying!

Coupon-mad

I agree wholeheartedly. But nobody is going to stop them. You could sue them you know, if you collect the threatograms and reply every time telling them you were not driving, and warning the debt crawlers that you plan to sue their client.

Set the scene. Then sue.

Here's how:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6516522/claim-against-ukpc-for-their-unreasonable-behaviour-and-misuse-of-data-update-i-won

You can use that judgment and cite claim no. L6QZ0K0Q judgment by DDJ Ramsden sitting at the County Court at Canterbury - 17/4/2025 - Charlton v UKPC.

Also see Simon Clay v CEL (lots about that case on the forum).

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81899855#Comment_81899855

Both interesting cases, and prove that as a general rule if there is a breach, it is actionable, but I think both are distinguishable on the facts.

In very brief summary, in Simon Clay v CEL:

It was alleged that the DPA 1998 was breached because Civil Enforcement Ltd were not able to establish that they had the requisite authority to act from the owner of the land on which the carpark was situated.

CEL was ordered to provide such proof, and they provided a document which redacted amongst other things signatures and the date on which the contract was concluded.

The Court was therefore satisfied on balance that there was no written agreement at the time, that there was therefore no authority to operate at the time, and that there was therefore a breach of the DPA in obtaining the personal information.

In very brief summary, in the MSE thread:

Again, it appears (although it's unclear because @dxbcc has not yet clarified) that the alleged breach was the unlawful obtaining of personal data, because an agreement had been made-pre parking to allow the vehicles on-site and therefore there was no reasonable reason for requesting the data in the first place.

In the instant case, yes the PPC cannot pursue the OP as keeper under POFA (and so cannot request DVLA details via KADOE for this purpose), but they are undoubtedly entitled to request them for purposes other than for pursuing the keeper under POFA.

Therefore, on the face of it, there is no breach.

That said, I can't see a copy of their KADOE contract on WDTK so it's not clear exactly what purposes they are entitled to request details under.

Coupon-mad

There was no breach at the outset but in a non-POFA case like this, once the PPC knows the keeper wasn't driving then the DPA 2018 breach kicks in.

There is thereafter, no reasonable cause to continue to process the keeper's data, especially if DR Plus send their usual letter/text saying 'it is your responsibility to pay'. Which it isn't.

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81900479#Comment_81900479

Is there any indication that this case is a case like that?

As a broad contention, I would agree that with you if they know that the keeper wasn't the driver, then processing (and specifically, in order to send further demands for example) would be unlawful.

But in most cases, they are not going to know for a fact the keeper wasn't driving.

gazhob

@cooldude255220 - can I ask where it is suggestive I was driving?... I wasn't and have made no reference to that being the case - curious in case my terminology can be used back against me.