PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

DVLA 'Standard letter.'
cabbyman
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 18:32
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



My current battle appears here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=121114

As an aside, in case Met had used previous details, I made enquiry of DVLA on Monday, 30/7/18:

Dear sirs,

Would you please advise if any enquiry has been made for Registered Keeper’s information on my above vehicle and, if so, the identity of the enquirer, between 15/06/2018 and 30/07/2018.

This information is required in support of a dispute with a private parking company.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks and kind regards,


They're automated response was:

Thank you for your data subject access enquiry to the DVLA about your vehicle, or a vehicle previously registered to you. You will receive a response either by post or email within 1 month. This email address does not deal with enquiries requesting any information other than your own details.

Imagine my shock when I opened the [2nd Class!] post today, 2/2/18:





Given the speed of it, I'm wondering if this is a standard missive and if the Information Commissioner really is 'keen to follow up any such incidents?'

Although I fully expect Met to collapse at POPLA, so they won't be much fun, it may be useful if all OPs were encouraged to make an enquiry of DVLA which will be of use further down the line in the event of court action?

Is this response useable in court, in any way?

I realise there may be holes in my thinking but I wanted to see if we could get a general discussion going and formulate a strategy.







--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
Advertisement
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 18:32
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 19:32
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Why would it be useful in court? I assume you are angling towards fraudulent misrepresentation somehow, but it doesn't fit at all. In civil court you can (generally, PPCs excepted) only claim for actual damages, not hurt feelings.

As the DVLA say, complain to them or the ICO if you are unhappy, much good as that has done people to date.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 19:58
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



I don't think my case will go far enough with Met likely collapsing at POPLA. As you say, complaints to DVLA or ICO have not achieved much to date.

I was wondering if there is another route that we could find to make DVLA access a little more difficult.

Thinking out loud! smile.gif


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 22:13
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



The DVLA takes the view that, if a private parking company is a member of a trade association, it's entitled to access the keeper information because it would be disciplined if there wasn't a cause of action

The ICO and the courts take the view that the company is entitled to receive and process the information if it believes a payment is owed no matter how hopeless its case if it was to be tested in court

What might be more productive would be if everyone receiving a parking notice made a subject access request to the DVLA, costing it more to process than the £2-50 it receives from the parking company

It would be an improvement on the present situation if the DVLA automatically notified registered keepers of the requests and covered the cost by increasing the price for companies to access the database
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 07:58
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



It would be much simpler and cheaper just to force PPCs to put a paragraph on there letters along the lines of "We obtained your details from the DVLA on xxx. If you feel they have wrongfully been obtained, please contact yyy. No paragraph = no access.

The bigger issue is that the DVLA claim to make a loss on every request. It is scandalous that they have managed to make what should be a self service web based database lookup and a nice little earner into something that costs them money.

But, loss making or not, they should whack up the price. The whole business model for almost PPCs relies on accessing the DVLA database. They have no chance of reducing their queries even if you doubled the price.

I've never really understood the DVLA beyond it being ridiculously inefficient. I have my car tax on direct debit. This year they sent me a letter saying it wouldn't be renewed because there was no MoT. I called them up and they said system error, not to worry, definitely will be renewed. I asked them to put it in writing, which they did.

Since then I have received three or four letters every single day telling me my car has no MoT and they won't renew my direct debit and a separate one one thanking me for setting up my direct debit. DVLA seem to think this is nothing to worry about. No idea what will happen over the next few days - £thousands of direct debits, car being clamped, or quite likely both.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 16:54
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Most NtKs already say details were obtained from DVLA. Putting a para in the letter won't necessarily mean it is truthful, as many of us dealing with PPCs are well aware.

I like the idea of suggesting every PPC NtK is checked at DVLA. If nothing else, it may bolster figures and lead to an increase in the £2.50.


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 17:18
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Checked for what?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 17:22
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Checked the identity of the enquirer and the date of the enquiry via a subject access request on SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk



--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Half_way
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 17:55
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 542
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
Member No.: 57,365



QUOTE
Members of this scheme must adhere to a code of practice for the operation of their company

So if you can show to the DVLA that a PPC has ignored /failed to adhere to the COP then what?

This post has been edited by Half_way: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 17:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 17:56
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Half_way @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 18:55) *
QUOTE
Members of this scheme must adhere to a code of practice for the operation of their company

So if you can show to the DVLA that a PPC has ignored /failed to adhere to the COP then what?

Then you might be able to complaint to the ICO for breaching the GDPR I guess.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 18:57
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (Half_way @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 18:55) *
QUOTE
Members of this scheme must adhere to a code of practice for the operation of their company

So if you can show to the DVLA that a PPC has ignored /failed to adhere to the COP then what?

Like any trade association if you cheese them off then they can chuck you out. Chuck you out = no access to DVLA database. No access to DVLA = no POFA and crippled business.

It's why the BPA keep on knocking IPC - apart from IPC being the most ridiculous sham ever, it's not only taking membership fees but also demonstrating that almost anyone could create a skeleton trade association and the DVLA would roll out the red carpet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 01:29
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 18:56) *
QUOTE (Half_way @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 18:55) *
QUOTE
Members of this scheme must adhere to a code of practice for the operation of their company

So if you can show to the DVLA that a PPC has ignored /failed to adhere to the COP then what?

Then you might be able to complaint to the ICO for breaching the GDPR I guess.

DPA 2018?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 13:14
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here