Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • steve1500
    • By steve1500 21st May 18, 2:15 PM
    • 1,127Posts
    • 751Thanks
    steve1500
    Article 13 GDPR (Data Protection Act 2018)
    • #1
    • 21st May 18, 2:15 PM
    Article 13 GDPR (Data Protection Act 2018) 21st May 18 at 2:15 PM
    As well as the contractual side, their signage is what they are reliant on for currently obtaining the keeper details from the DVLA. It is known as the Fair Processing Notice / Privacy Policy

    This Friday GDPR comes into force Most of you will have received emails or letters about it.

    As far as our friends at the PPC's are concerned this is going to give them a right royal & expensive headache.

    Their current signage clearly will not meet GDPR.

    Article 13 requires them to provide you with the following information

    http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-13-information-to-be-provided-where-personal-data-are-collected-from-the-data-subject-GDPR.htm

    For clarity the Data Controller is the PPC & the Data subject is you and me

    1. Where personal data relating to a data subject are collected from the data subject, the controller shall, at the time when personal data are obtained, provide the data subject with all of the following information:

    (a) the identity and the contact details of the controller and, where applicable, of the controller's representative;

    (b) the contact details of the data protection officer, where applicable;

    (c) the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the processing;

    (d) where the processing is based on point (f) of Article 6(1), the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party;

    (e) the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data, if any;

    (f) where applicable, the fact that the controller intends to transfer personal data to a third country or international organisation and the existence or absence of an adequacy decision by the Commission, or in the case of transfers referred to in Article 46 or 47, or the second subparagraph of Article 49(1), reference to the appropriate or suitable safeguards and the means by which to obtain a copy of them or where they have been made available.


    2. In addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1, the controller shall, at the time when personal data are obtained, provide the data subject with the following further information necessary to ensure fair and transparent processing:

    (a) the period for which the personal data will be stored, or if that is not possible, the criteria used to determine that period;

    (b) the existence of the right to request from the controller access to and rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing concerning the data subject or to object to processing as well as the right to data portability;

    (c) where the processing is based on point (a) of Article 6(1) or point (a) of Article 9(2), the existence of the right to withdraw consent at any time, without affecting the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal;

    (d) the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority;

    (e) whether the provision of personal data is a statutory or contractual requirement, or a requirement necessary to enter into a contract, as well as whether the data subject is obliged to provide the personal data and of the possible consequences of failure to provide such data;

    (f) the existence of automated decision-making, including profiling, referred to in Article 22(1) and (4) and, at least in those cases, meaningful information about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject.

    3. Where the controller intends to further process the personal data for a purpose other than that for which the personal data were collected, the controller shall provide the data subject prior to that further processing with information on that other purpose and with any relevant further information as referred to in paragraph 2.
    Last edited by steve1500; 21-05-2018 at 2:22 PM.
    Private Parking Tickets - Make sure you put your Subject Access Request in after 25th May - It's free & ask for everything, don't forget the DVLA
Page 7
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Jul 18, 11:56 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So if:
    - The DVLA state in their published document which addresses these issues for the benefit of the data subject (which they do) that a PPC cannot acquire our data before 28 days have elapsed (and that statement implies that a subject has 28 days before their details will be released to a PPC, irrespective of notice type - but it HAS to be a screen notice, no matter how vague, because they need keeper details to issue anything else, so the baseline date is that of the alleged contravention because they can't send their NTK until they have acquired the keepers details 28 days later - chicken and egg?)
    No.

    You understand the KADOE wrong. PPCs, like ParkingEye and plenty of others, get DVLA data straight away and within the rules.

    - Then surely this is a valid point to raise with the DVLA and ICO...?
    No it's not. Much as I encourage ICO complaits they must be ones that have a valid point and the whole premise of this argument is incorrect.

    Sorry I am not legally trained, maybe a real solicitor (or someone who pretends they are legally trained - ignore them) will be along soon.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Jul 18, 12:02 AM
    • 20,410 Posts
    • 25,768 Thanks
    Redx
    I do mind you saying , because you are wrong and not turning off smart punctuation also makes your posts gobbledegook and hard to read for disabled people like me


    here is what the PDF says


    The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)


    PoFA came into force in England and Wales on 1 October 2012 and made a number of changes to the law on parking on private land. It bans vehicle immobilisation (wheelclamping) without lawful authority, and provides private landholders with additional powers to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking or trespass charges providing certain conditions, in Schedule 4 of the Act, are met. This is known as !!!8220;keeper liability!!!8221;.


    The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only to private land in England and Wales. Public highways and parking places on public land provided or controlled by a local authority is excluded.
    Any land which already has statutory controls on the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.



    Before PoFA a landholder would make a request to DVLA for details of the registered keeper but there was no need for a registered keeper either to say who was driving the vehicle or to accept liability.


    Schedule 4 of the PoFA addresses this situation. It does not provide a route to claim parking or trespass charges which were not lawfully due in the first place.


    One of the conditions for keeper liability is the parking or trespass company, using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems, must issue the notice to keeper within 14 days of the alleged contravention.


    Companies that issue windscreen notices to drivers can only apply for keeper information, if the parking charge remains unpaid, after 28 days. Companies have a further 28 days to contact the keeper.


    If these timescale are not met, the keeper liability powers do not apply; however, the company can still pursue payment of the charge through means open to them prior to the introduction of POFA.


    The government made it a condition of bringing Schedule 4 into force that an independent appeal service is established for motorists. All tickets issued under POFA in England and Wales are covered by the relevant ATAs independent appeal service.
    if you think I am decoding the rubbish in your post above , you are mistaken

    I have highlighted their relevant paragraph for ANPR systems in red above

    the windscreen caveat is below it highlighted in blue

    any ICO complaint will fail as they will see what we are seeing and saying , plus people like myself and CM have been advising people on this for 6 years ro more , especially since POFA2012 came in

    learn the difference between KEEPER and DRIVER , like we have done , plus YES I have read that document on previous occasions, hence the cut and paste above, with the whole section included for clarity
    Last edited by Redx; 27-07-2018 at 12:07 AM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • wrsw
    • By wrsw 27th Jul 18, 12:09 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    wrsw
    I get that, but again, you!!!8217;ve missed my point.
    The DVLA have published a document which in its most basic concept is a set of instructions for us for protecting our data; it tells us that they don!!!8217;t need consent, how they share it with 3rd parties, all that.
    What I want to know is, is there any other document published by the DVLA which contradicts it?
    If the DVLA tell me that they will release my data after 28 days, that says to me that I have 28 days to resolve something before my data is released. If that is the case, which we all know it isn!!!8217;t them the DVLA are misleading the public regarding the security of our sensitive data.
    If the DVLA document said 2 hours, I would have phoned straight away and sorted it, because I don!!!8217;t want scam artists knowing where I live. But the DVLA (and Excel) said 28 days, so I was surprised to receive a letter after 6.
    You follow?
    So, are there any other published documents which anyone is aware of which specify the terms on which our data is shared by the DVLA?
    • wrsw
    • By wrsw 27th Jul 18, 12:13 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    wrsw
    The ANPR section is irrelevant, I had a screen notice. The blue paragraph applies to my scenario. That is the point I am making.
    I had a screen notice, the DVLA state that they will not release my details until 28 days later, but they did. So is that not a legitimate complaint? Or is there another DVLA published document which states that my details can be released immediately?
    • waamo
    • By waamo 27th Jul 18, 12:14 AM
    • 4,911 Posts
    • 6,350 Thanks
    waamo
    I get that, but again, you!!!8217;ve missed my point.
    The DVLA have published a document which in its most basic concept is a set of instructions for us for protecting our data; it tells us that they don!!!8217;t need consent, how they share it with 3rd parties, all that.
    What I want to know is, is there any other document published by the DVLA which contradicts it?
    If the DVLA tell me that they will release my data after 28 days, that says to me that I have 28 days to resolve something before my data is released. If that is the case, which we all know it isn!!!8217;t them the DVLA are misleading the public regarding the security of our sensitive data.
    If the DVLA document said 2 hours, I would have phoned straight away and sorted it, because I don!!!8217;t want scam artists knowing where I live. But the DVLA (and Excel) said 28 days, so I was surprised to receive a letter after 6.
    You follow?
    So, are there any other published documents which anyone is aware of which specify the terms on which our data is shared by the DVLA?
    Originally posted by wrsw
    Why not send an FOI request to the DVLA and ask them?
    Last edited by waamo; 27-07-2018 at 12:23 AM.
    This space for hire.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Jul 18, 12:19 AM
    • 20,410 Posts
    • 25,768 Thanks
    Redx
    ask the DVLA and the ICO , but I believe you have missed my point, even though I highlighted the relevant paragraphs , because you dont seem to know the difference between KEEPER and DRIVER

    if EXCEL issued a true Notice To Driver on the windshield , like they USED to do , then you would be correct as the blue paragraph would be true , job done , I have seen those notices when Excel/VCS were BPA members , so back then you would have been correct

    if they choose to use ANPR technology , and not issue an NTD on the windscreen , then the red paragraph becomes true, they get keeper details under reasonable cause in their KADOE contract , then they give that KEEPER the choice of either naming the driver or taking the pcn on themselves

    if the KEEPER names the driver , they issue a new NTD by post to the driver , then the cycle starts again, because the driver deals with it and POFA2012 does not apply and the keeper is no longer liable under POFA2012 (I have seen those as well, when they were BPA members)

    the excel/vcs myparkingcharge is not an official NTD , its a warning sc@m they dreamed up as a halfway house which fails the NTD tests according to the DVLA

    perhaps when the bill by Sir Greg Knight becomes law, we may see legal documents provided by the government to use in each scenario and then the warning notices may become defunct as they wont apply in the government CoP (hopefully)

    if we could get those myparkingcharge warnings banned , then it would be either an NTD on a windscreen or a postal notice to the keeper under reasonable cause asking them to disclose the driver, which some companies do follow correctly

    so if you had a screen notice (to the DRIVER) , one that doesnt neet the DVLA definition of an NTD (WHICH THEY DONT) , then the default position for the DVLA is that no official NTD was served and they default to the postal notice to the keeper as reasonable cause and ask for the name of the DRIVER


    if you can get the DVLA to admit that the notice you received was a notice to driver, an official notice to the driver by their own definition of what that notice should be and should contain, then you would be correct
    Last edited by Redx; 27-07-2018 at 12:26 AM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • wrsw
    • By wrsw 27th Jul 18, 12:22 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    wrsw
    Waamo I probably will, I thought i!!!8217;d ask the !!!8216;experts!!!8217; here for some first hand experience to start with but i!!!8217;ve been distinctly underwhelmed....
    • wrsw
    • By wrsw 27th Jul 18, 12:29 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    wrsw
    Redx I will stand by my point to them that the screen notice, despite being nonsense, does give sufficient information to resolve the matter, in that it directs the driver to the organisation operating the parking, as well as starting the 28 day clock. According the the DVLA document in its most basic interpretation, they shouldn!!!8217;t be releasing our data until 28 days have passed, either that or they shouldn!!!8217;t be making statements such as the one you highlighted in blue, in official publications.
    Either way, the principle remains the same, the PCCs are con artists and the DVLA is releasing information when it shouldn!!!8217;t be.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Jul 18, 12:31 AM
    • 20,410 Posts
    • 25,768 Thanks
    Redx
    perhaps that is because all this was discussed on here a couple of years ago by the regulars when EXCEL/VCS dreamed this up and the dvla went along with it, we already are aware of this sc@m and I remember it being discussed and we all wondered how they get away with it

    I am sure those MP,s talking it out last week are fully aware of these issues and others

    the trick is convincing the DVLA and the ICO that what you received WAS an NTD, whereas the dvla say they are not because they do not contain various bits of information on them , whereas the postal NTK does (or should do)

    so I definitely get your point and strangely enough , I agree with you, plus your point used to be correct when they followed those rules as BPA members a few years ago

    its not us you have to convince, its the DVLA and the ICO that what you received was an official NTD and therefore that a breach occurred , get them to admit it and your point of view is correct. as I said , we have all talked about this some years ago when this weird notice started to appear on vehicle windscreens and it seems peculiar to EXCEL and VCS only (sister companies) - nobody else tries it AFAIK


    ps:- you need to turn off SMART PUNCTUATION on your apple device if you want the punctuation and emoji errors to disappear , otherwise those spurious characters will continue in your posts, making them hard to read
    Last edited by Redx; 27-07-2018 at 12:40 AM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • wrsw
    • By wrsw 27th Jul 18, 12:39 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    wrsw
    I think the acid test is !!!8216;could the fee be paid with no further correspondence other than the screen notice?!!!8217;.
    If it could, and from what I saw, a person of limited intellect could use the information to clear the fee, then no further documentation is required until the 28 days have elapsed with the fee remaining unpaid.
    I!!!8217;m just going to keep arguing with them.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 27th Jul 18, 12:39 AM
    • 11,362 Posts
    • 11,890 Thanks
    KeithP
    This thread forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5589636 may help you better understand the myparkingcharge fiasco.

    In particular, posts #11 and #13 on that thread.
    .
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Jul 18, 12:47 AM
    • 20,410 Posts
    • 25,768 Thanks
    Redx
    This thread forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5589636 may help you better understand the myparkingcharge fiasco.

    In particular, posts #11 and #13 on that thread.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    yep, that thread says it all and also says why the dvla took their stance as the IPC told them these notices were not an official NTD and they swallowed it

    now that you know that we know all about it and have done for over 18 months, maybe you can take it up where that thread left off, as the OP in that thread didnt take it further , neither has anyone else it seems , although its been discussed a lot on here and on pepipoo too

    so prove them wrong and then , and only then , are you correct, because you will have made the wordings I highlighted be correct once more

    if the government actually lists what an NTK and an NTD should look like and should contain in the 2019 Parking CoP, and if they then state that only these official notices need to be dealt with and nothing else (which is what came up in the MP committee room discussion last week) ,then this sc@m should die out


    have you watched that committee meeting and/or the 02 feb 2018 house of commons debate yet ?


    PS:- David Dunford is no longer in charge of that DVLA section, he has moved on , no doubt due to burnout
    Last edited by Redx; 27-07-2018 at 1:10 AM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • abedegno
    • By abedegno 7th Aug 18, 9:10 AM
    • 118 Posts
    • 179 Thanks
    abedegno
    Actually my example was wrong (I was rushing).

    I'm not sure your example would be valid.
    Is a decision about the data subject being made? I don't think it is. Automated decisions are not the same as an automated process. You could argue "well a machine is automatically deciding to send me a notice" and yes that is what is happening. Is that machine making a decision about the data subject though, or is it simply match records.
    Originally posted by spook104
    I've still been pursuing this and haven't stopped trying. What I did come across was the guidance notes from the EU here:
    http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/item-detail.cfm?item_id=612053

    What is interesting, is they give some examples of what constitutes automated decision making - examples which lean more towards automated processing rather than decision making, such as the issuance of speeding tickets from a camera or a mobile contract being cancelled due to late payment.

    I've probably collected enough information for a complaint to the ICO about the DVLA.
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 7th Aug 18, 9:12 AM
    • 1,036 Posts
    • 809 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    I've probably collected enough information for a complaint to the ICO about the DVLA.
    Originally posted by abedegno


    Lol good luck with that!!!


    My crystal ball tells me ...it'll be months before you get a reply and it'll basically say...Go away and stop bothering us.
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • abedegno
    • By abedegno 7th Aug 18, 9:13 AM
    • 118 Posts
    • 179 Thanks
    abedegno
    Lol good luck with that!!!


    My crystal ball tells me ...it'll be months before you get a reply and it'll basically say...Go away and stop bothering us.
    Originally posted by Computersaysno
    On top of the dozen or so complaints I have outstanding with the ICO about various other organisations - you're probably right
    • abedegno
    • By abedegno 7th Aug 18, 9:22 AM
    • 118 Posts
    • 179 Thanks
    abedegno
    Rather excitingly the ICO have published a new PDF complaints form:
    https://ico.org.uk/media/report-a-concern/forms/2259547/personal-information-complaints-form-new-final-2307.pdf
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 9th Aug 18, 10:11 AM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Rather excitingly the ICO have published a new PDF complaints form
    I must be a sad git as I found that exciting.....

    Anyway how about an annual event celebrating the DVLA's willingness to pass out personal data to all and sundry. We could call it #RogerToftDay or even #PatrickTroyDay.

    About a month before, Keepers throughout the UK ask the DVLA for a list of parking companies that accessed their data. Then on say 25th May or 1st April (#RogerToftDay) everyone sends out a SAR to the parking companies that were on the DVLA reply plus a few more just in case they have the data but didn't ask the DVLA.

    So 6mn SAR's on one day would make a nice SAR bomb.

    Happy #RogerToftDay to all when it comes,
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Aug 18, 10:17 AM
    • 20,677 Posts
    • 32,582 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    #RogerToftDay
    Or even Robert Toft.

    Poor guy, being unceremoniously Rogered on a public forum! Ouch
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 09-08-2018 at 10:31 AM.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • spook104
    • By spook104 29th Aug 18, 4:03 PM
    • 58 Posts
    • 42 Thanks
    spook104
    After giving the PPC the required time to complete the SAR and the erasure request I complained to the ICO. I got a response today saying they have given the PPC 14 days to complete my SAR correctly and then to erase my data.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Aug 18, 4:16 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Good stuff, more people need to do that!

    Did you just email the ICO online and send them copies?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,344Posts Today

6,055Users online

Martin's Twitter