UKPC - Aylesbury Shopping Centre

Received reply as follows sent by someone from complaints team even though I sent it to [EMAIL="chief.executive@dvla.gsi.gov.uk"]chief.executive@dvla.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]:-



Thank you for your email of 31 August, about the release of information to UK Parking Control (UKPC) Ltd, following an Information Commissioners Office (ICO) Review.

I have reviewed your case and can confirm that there is nothing further the DVLA can advise you, other than what was provided in our letter of 9 August.

Our letter of 9 August advised that a full consideration of the points you had made, was undertaken. It is considered that following the ICOs review and subsequent recommendations, the DVLA will not take any action, such as those you have suggested. Recommendations made by the ICO and to be undertaken by UKPC will look to address the concerns you have.

As advised, should your Daughter wish for no information to be provided to third parties, she will need to follow the steps detailed in our letter of 9 August.

I trust this clarifies matters.
　
Yours sincerely
Joseph Cooper
DVLA Complaints Team
Find out about DVLA’s online services
Visit: www.gov.uk/dvla
　
　
Don't think I will bother to continue with the DVLA complaints review but will send my emails and

As I have been re-instated for access to the forum only a few days ago I am reluctant to post again in case, for the third time, I receive the dreaded notice:-


Sorry. The Administrator has banned your IP address.


However, I will attempt to post my proposed response to the last DVLA fob off email (#42). Any comments/add to/amendments will be most appreciated:-


FOR THE ATTENTION OF MR OLIVER MORLEY - CEO OF DVLA
I have received a reply in response to my complaint email dated 31st August which, I thought, was going to the Chief Executives Office (stage 2), but the reply seems to have been sent from the complaints team (stage 1).


I am of course shocked by the negative contents of the reply but I do thank the DVLA for confirming, by not rebutting or finding any flaws in my reasoning, that you accept and agree that UKPC have indeed breached the KADOE contract.


So to summarise:-


1) UKPC have used data obtained from the DVLA, for one event only, to inform a third party about another entirely different event, even though UKPC had no details of registered keeper at the time of the different event.


2) The ICO have confirmed that UKPC have breached THREE Principles of the DPA


3) UKPC have breached the BPA CoP by breaching the DPA which attracts a (classed as serious) LEVEL 5 AOS CoP sanction (there are only SIX levels!!)


It is reasonable to asume that any one of the above breaches of the KADOE contract would have incurred some sort of sanction, but taking no action of any kind when ALL THREE of the above mentioned breaches have ocurred is disrespectful and insulting to the motoring public.


The general public might wonder why the DVLA, an agency of the Government, would rather continue to provide the personal data of millions of motorists, a large proportion of whom have voted for the said Government, to an entity that admits to fraudulent activities and has previously been banned by the DVLA. As well as committing the above breaches, which you accept have taken place.


It is evident from postings on the internet that UKPC have recently been making an increasing number of proposed court cases against motorists for an alleged private parking invoice.


Also on the internet there have been reports of CCJ's obtained against motorists, by private parking companies, when the motorist has not responded to court papers, because they have moved house (i.e. not received the court papers and knew nothing about the court case).


In fact, it is reported that Teresa May, the Prime Minister, and Sir Oliver Heald, Courts Minister, are not happy with this situation.


So it is appalling that the DVLA seem to be aiding and abetting these unethical companies by not taking any action against one of these companies that has so obviously breached all sorts of rules and regulations.


The more cynical amongst the general public might conclude that the DVLA is only interested in maintaining the current £10million income received by revealing personal data, to the detriment of the motorist.


I am sure that this could not possibly be the case.


You may or may not wish to respond to this email. Either way I will be sending these recent emails and the replies from the DVLA to my MP, and other Government departments/officials within the next 14 days. I will also be sending letters to Teresa May and Sir Oliver Heald expressing my disappointment at the unfairness of the DVLA.


Kind regards,
1505grandad

Received the following email from DVLA in response to my email in my previous post:-


This message was sent with high importance.

Dear xxxxxxxxxx

We hope to respond fully to complaints within 10 working days. However, as this case is quite complex, in order to fully address the issues you have raised, it has been necessary to contact
other colleagues within the DVLA and they are currently investigating the matter.

Please be assured that we are working as quickly as possible to resolve this issue for you. We will send you either a full response or a further update within 5 working days.


Yours sincerely

Mr Paul Timms
DVLA Complaints Team


Not sure what the significance is of the statement "sent with high importance" at the beginning of their email. Nor "the case is quite complex". The DVLA have never taken much notice of any of my previous correspondence which basically said the same as in my last email they are now replying to.


Surely it is a coincidence that a week ago (too soon?) I sent letters (in A4 envelopes) in my daughter's name, as per the forum campaign, to :-


Theresa May, my MP, Jeremy Corbyn, Sajid Javid (Secretary of State - DCLG), and, with a covering letter in my name, to Chris Grayling (Secretary of State - Transport).


With thanks to Carthesis I used his version of the BMPA letter because a paragraph concerning the DVLA was included. I added the following after the DVLA paragraph:-


I attach recent correspondence with the DVLA where my father proved conclusively that a PPC, UK Parking Control Ltd. (UKPC), have breached the following:-

1) DVLA KADOE Contract
2) Data Protection Act
3) BPA Code of Practice

Yet as you can see from the DVLA replies, they refuse to take any action whatsoever against UKPC for these very serious breaches.

BUT THE DVLA ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO DIVULGE MINE AND EVERY OTHER
MOTORIST'S REGISTERED KEEPER DETAILS SO THAT THE PPC CAN CHARGE US UP TO £100 FOR A VERY MINOR ERROR, MADE BY THE DRIVER AT THE TIME, WHILE PARKING AT THE INVITE OF THE LANDOWNER."


I headed the letters in C-Ms words:-


WHY DOES YOUR GOVERNMENT ALLOW THIS SCAM


The reason I sent a letter Chris Grayling is because my daughter's husband appeared with Chris Grayling, in his previous Minister's job, in several local and national tv news broadcasts. He also spoke at a recent Conference while on-stage with Chris Grayling. Every little helps?


Look forward to the next DVLA fob off.

Sincere apologies - it seems that I have failed even more dismally than I predicted at the end of my last post.


Despite tweaking my underwhelming expectations by stating phrases such as "high importance" and "the case is quite complex" all the DVLA can come up with, in answer to my quite clearly proven serious breaches by UKPC, is the following stupid meaningless reply:-

Thank you for your e-mail of 3 October to our Chief Executive, Mr Oliver Morley, about the release of information by the Agency. Mr Morley has asked me to reply on his behalf.

As a full explanation has been given, there is nothing more that I can do to help you further.
I now consider that it is time to draw your case, and correspondence on it, to a close. We will, of course, consider with care any further correspondence you may send us about your complaint, but if we conclude that it does not raise any new issues of substance we may only acknowledge it.


Should your Daughter wish to place a suppression marker on her driver/vehicle record please ensure she follows the steps previously described and the Agency will consider her case.
I trust this explains matters for you.

In other words, "go away little plebs, we can't be bothered to justify our non-actions to the likes of you".


Wonder what possible further information can be sent to them that would allow the DVLA to be fair to the tens of millions of cash cow motorists.

My understanding is that the DVLA defend revealing our personal data by making sure that the PPC adheres to various rules and regulations.


As I have proved conclusively to the DVLA that UKPC have breached laws, CoP and contract stipulations, I must draw my own conclusions as to why the DVLA are so keen to appease their benefactor PPC's.


The motoring population have therefore been duped by the Defender Of Our PErsonal Data (DOOPED - rhymes with stupid).


I was hoping that after judiciously reading the letters I sent to our fearless elected leaders that some replies might have been received by now, to see if it would be any use sending to them the latest drivel from the DVLA. Not holding my breath.


On second thoughts, perhaps it would be more appropriate if the first word of the above acronym was Protector, because I certainly feel that my daughter and I have been well and truly shat upon.


Still smiling though.


Especially after an uplifting appointment today enabling me to look forward, positively, so that hopefully in a few weeks time I will be able to devote more time to continue with Aviva's
(the landholder) invitation to "bring it on". This will include a claim against them/UKPC for DPA breaches, as confirmed by the ICO, their defamation regarding my daughter, and
my considerable time spent appealing, researching, jumping through all the hoops required, and trying to make them understand what has been a complete farce.


When I am ready, perhaps it will be OK if I can pick the brains of the forum as to the best way to achieve this?.

Once again, apologies for not getting anywhere with the disputed DOOPED (rhymes with ................).