Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: DVLA unfairly processing data?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Valiant
The DVLA has now been advised of the following PPCs who issue Notices to Keeper (usually having used ANPR) and which do not meet the conditions in the POFA and so they cannot lawfully pursue keeper liability

Observices; Premier Parking Servcies; Park Direct UK Ltd; UKPC; Civil Enforcement Limited; G24; Proserve Enforcement Enforcement Solutions.

In each case, although the notice fails to meet the conditions in the POFA, the notices advise the registered keeper that the PPC has the right to pursue recovery from that registered keeper.

Having failed to meet the conditions in the POFA such a statement is misleading. Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 makes it a criminal offence to give misleading information in certain circumstances. In fact a number of these PPCs have been reported to Trading Standards.

So if you receive a Notice to Keeper from any of these PPCs check whether its notice fails to meet any of the conditions in the POFA and claims to be able to exercise the right to pursue keeper liability if the alleged parking charge is not paid or the name and address of the driver is not disclosed. If it is

1. Contact the DVLA (Kevin.Watts@dvla.gsi.gov.uk) and ask why it made your data available when the DVLA had been put on notice that the PPC used POFA to pursue recovery even though its notices are in contravention of the POFA.

2. Ask the DVLA why it made your Data available knowing that there was the possibility of it then being processed in a manner contrary to law and in a way which could be a criminal offence.

3. Ask the DVLA if their processing of your data, knowing that it was being made available in these circumstances, was fair processing in accordance with the First Data Protection Principle

4. Then remind the DVLA that
"On the 14th June 2012 the DVLA wrote to the BPA as follows:- "Can the BPA send out a message to all members of private parking schemes (contract law basis) that if the DVLA is advised and provided with evidence of any company making any reference to liability by anyone other than the driver we will immediately suspend access to our data for a minimum of three months. This applies to tickets, signage and any correspondence with a keeper."

Where a Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act then keeper liability may not be pursued. The Notice from this parking company makes it clear that the parking company claims the right to pursue keeper liability. As your direction of the 14th June 2012, to the BPA Members, including this parking company, concerned non Protection of Freedoms Act cases, then the DVLA should follow its own guidance and suspend this parking company for a period of three months with immediate effect."

5. If you do not get an admission from the DVLA that it has acted incorrectly then lodge a formal complaint with the DVLA.

6. Copy the Information Commissioner's Office into your correspondance (casework@ico.org.uk) requesting that it investigates the conduct of the DVLA

7. Notify your local Trading Standards office of the conduct of the PPC. Trading Standards may very well just put your letter on a file and take no action, but once the number of complaints reaches a certain level then it moves into action. We just need patience to get there.

The important issue here is that the DVLA knows that these PPCs process data in contravention of the POFA and, as far as I know, it has done nothing about it. It is the fact that the DVLA has this knowledge which, potentially, puts it in breach of the DPA and for which it may not transfer liability to the BPA.

The BPA was asked to investigate Observcies and it concluded that its notices were POFA compliant, so the DVLA went along with that! However, by way of a contrast, Trading Standards considered that the evidence was such that it should have a word with Observcies. I have been advised that Observices notices are now POFA compliant but I have yet to see the evidence.

In due course other PPCs, whose notices are not POFA complaint, will also be referred to the DVLA with details of just where their notices fall short of the conditions. Should the DVLA continue to make data available to such non compliant companies, but who continue to pursue keeper liability contrary to the law, the DVLA should be held to account for knowingly assisting PPCs in such unlawful activity.

We all know that the DVLA claims to have robust procedures in place to ensure that our data is processed fairly and lawfully. If you look here http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...-about-ppc.html you will see that the DVLA has, once again, been found out to have misled the public. In this case under a Freedom of Information request so their failure is very serious. The DVLA needs to not only be made to have robust procedures in place, but to enforce them as well. A number of findings of breaches of the DPA will assist.

In the alternative the DVLA is invited to put its own house in order and to clamp down on PPCs who do not show strict adherence to the law.

It is up to you whether you wish to fight back

Valiant.
Salmosalaris
And what do we mean by a schedule 4 compliant NtK ?
Identification of the creditor still seems to be a widespread omission on most NtK's , or is that not considered to be non-compliant ?
Broadsword
QUOTE (Salmosalaris @ Wed, 19 Jun 2013 - 19:23) *
Identification of the creditor still seems to be a widespread omission on most NtK's , or is that not considered to be non-compliant ?


Failure to identify the Creditor is non compliance with Sch 4 - it is a matter of fact.

The motorist should not be required to guess or assume who the Creditor is.
emanresu
Well here is the chance to shoot this down.

In the much publicised PE v Somerfield (publicised by PE) the judge said..

QUOTE
#411 ", since ParkingEye was clearly authorised under the terms of the Agreement to levy, collect and retain the parking fines, though strictly it was only Somerfield, as the owner or occupier of the car parks in question, which could have granted the necessary licence to the motorists."


And to support the m'learned judge the QC points out

QUOTE
#289 "In particular, clause 10.1 provided that it should grant ParkingEye and its personnel a “non-exclusive licence” to enter the Preliminary and Additional Stores to the extent that Somerfield should deem necessary to enable ParkingEye to deliver, properly install or remove the system. It also expressly provided that nothing in the Agreement should be construed as creating any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties."


So as the PPC cannot be an occupier with occupier rights and they have no interest in the underlying contract. So at best they are debt collectors with a 100% commission.

We are never allowed to see one of the contracts as I suspect the second point will be in all Occupier / PPC contracts. Why would they give them occupier rights.

So following on, the can never reveal the true Creditor is - the occupier - as the simple means of dispensing with the whole charade is to pay the Occupier the sum equivalent to the original breach - if there was one.

PE like VCS shoot themselves in the foot while the BPA wafts copious amount of bullshit about the place.
instrumentsofjoy
You might care to see my correspondence with Excel

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=78361

Umkomaas
QUOTE
"On the 14th June 2012 the DVLA wrote to the BPA as follows:- "Can the BPA send out a message to all members of private parking schemes (contract law basis) that if the DVLA is advised and provided with evidence of any company making any reference to liability by anyone other than the driver we will immediately suspend access to our data for a minimum of three months. This applies to tickets, signage and any correspondence with a keeper."



Well, this comes from the latest set of Letters Before Action from Parking Eye in relation to Aldi car park.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2myx5jc&s=5

NtK LBA states '.....you had become liable for a Parking Charge Notice '. Should this be referred to the DVLA as 'evidence'?
Valiant
Not naming the creditor is by far the biggest failure. Many a PPC that I have seen tend to have four failures to comply. Park Direct UK Ltd is actually winning at the moment. CEL is a very close second and for bonus points it appears to use "stimulus generalisation" by using a logo similar to that of a body with an established reputation. They get bonus points in this league of shame.

The point here is that the DVLA hides behind "We do not know what the PPCs are doing so if they are in the wrong it is not our fault". However, if the DVLA has been given evidence of PPCs who use non compliant NTKs, and claim the right to pursue keeper liability, then the DVLA falls into the same situation any of us would who knew that the chap next door was going to turn over the bank but didn't tell the Police.

The DVLA, having been advised of certain PPCs who unlawfully process data made available by the DVLA, still make that data available to them. If that PPC is processing data in breach of Reg 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs, and the DVLA knows that that is what it will do with the DVLA data, is the DVLA processing data fairly? NO

Despite the information that has been supplied to the DVLA e.g Excell (as one poster mentioned), the DVLA continues to make data available to those defaulting companies. A proper rigorous investigation by the ICO should them find that the DVLA has knowingly made data available for criminal purposes. Is that fair processing? NO

The DVLA can fall into the trap (and it seems willing to do so) or it can conduct its business in the manner that we expect a public body to behave. However, this needs you folk to put pen to paper.

A fight back forum isn't just about talking the talk

Game on?

Valiant.
Chippy365
They don't even check the notices. This is confirmed in the FOI that the Parking Prankster found.
Valiant
Yes, and originally they said that they did check them.

What happened, as I understand it, was that, having admitted to checking the notices, the DVLA found itself in difficulty because the allegations went in that, as they had checked them they must have known that they were wrong and so should not have been making data available. So, to avoid any claim of unfair processing contrary to the First Data Protection Principle they had to change their minds and deny having seen the notices. So, let's work it round the other way, provide tangible evidence that they know that certain PPCs have non compliant notices and then, if the DVLA buries its head in the sand, continues to make data available, it can have an investigation into unfair data processing.

In the alternative the DVLA can deal with this and sort out the PPCs who flout the law.

Valiant
Chippy365
Well I'm currently awaiting some correspondence into Parking Eye as they have not registered with the Information Commisioner their use of ANPR cameras.
They've not got long left until their Subject Access Request time runs out so once they overgo that, I'll be making a complaint to the Information Commissioner.
Salmosalaris
IMHO this is the way ahead . Winning the odd POPLA appeal or court case is largely irrelevant . Reducing the endless daily stream of thousands of keeper details could have a profound effect
Chippy365
QUOTE (Salmosalaris @ Wed, 19 Jun 2013 - 21:22) *
IMHO this is the way ahead . Winning the odd POPLA appeal or court case is largely irrelevant . Reducing the endless daily stream of thousands of keeper details could have a profound effect


Exactly. If a company such as ParkingEye was suspended for three months it would have a profound effect on their revenue, their work practices and the workload here.
They've heard all of the legal arguments but I would think targeting them in other ways (for which Data Protection certainly seems to be the most obvious way at the moment) will have an effect if action was taken against them.
Valiant
Hurrah...its just one concerted effort with folk giving the DVLA the bullets to shoot itself or, if the DVLA is reading, to get its act together. What was it that Jeremy Hunt said today about those in the Public Service being accountable for their Acts. It applies in house to the Government Departments as well as to Health Trusts!

Valiant
Salmosalaris
So can we now start suggesting that EVERY non compliant NtK results in a complaint to DVLA .
Advice should be
1. Await NtK
1. Appeal to PPC and
2. Formal complaint to DVLA for EVERY non compliant NtK
3. Appeal to POPLA

DVLA will be kept busy !
Chippy365
QUOTE (Salmosalaris @ Wed, 19 Jun 2013 - 21:46) *
So can we now start suggesting that EVERY non compliant NtK results in a complaint to DVLA .
Advice should be
1. Await NtK
1. Appeal to PPC and
2. Formal complaint to DVLA for EVERY non compliant NtK
3. Appeal to POPLA

DVLA will be kept busy !


Chuck in an SAR to the PPC for all data and information relating to the OP and the vehicle as well. See how many are sufficiently responded to. It would be disclosable at court anyway so there should be no charge.
Valiant
Yes, the DVLA needs to be made fully aware that enough is enough, and it will only be by a concerted effort with a focussed plan, from the motorists out there that should produce the weight of force from public opinion to bring about change.

If the DVLA lives up to its promise then the PPCs, mentioned in my first post, should be suspended for three months from tomorrow. From what has been posted, then Excell should also be on the DVLA list. Perhaps even Parking Eye.

If that does not take place, then if anyone gets a NTK from any of these companies, get the complaint in as I suggested in my first post, copy to the ICO. Make it work.

Suspensions may then just prompt PPCs to do something sensible like introducing Pay on Exit schemes, for example, so no matter how late you are back to the car you only pay for the length of parking and no more nonsense about parking charges.

Isn't it time we all really got together to sort this out or are we going to carry on with this nonsense for years to come. Talking must be over, it's time for positive action. It has to start with the DVLA, build up the case, develop ther evidence, and get the ICO to stand up for the data subject.

Perhaps when you lodge details of defaulting PPCs with the DVLA (remember you have to tell the DVLA where they fail the POFA test and that they still claim keeper liability - please get your facts right) why not copy in the Secretary of State Patrick.McLoughlin@dft.gsi.gov.uk.

The DVLA has to comply with the Policy sent down from the Sec of State's office, that is the law. A recent Freedom of Information request was put to the DVLA asking it to explain why it had changed its processes such that POFA became irrelevant to the DVLA operation. Yes folks the DVLA used to make data available only if PPCs wanted to use the POFA protocols. At the end of April the DVLA decided that it would make data available outside of the POFA timescales to any PPC and hoped that the PPC would not use POFA Notices if that data was late. What has happened? The PPCs carried on using POFA outside of the POFA timescales. You see the DVLA never told the PPCs of this change of policy. Did the Sec of State give the green light to this change of policy to drop POFA form its thinking when making data available? NO. The DVLA decided to run two systems of parking charge recovery, POFA and non POFA. No one knows, not even the PPCs and that is why you often get a NTK out of time.

This was discovered following a recent FOI request.....which reads

The DVLA is the operational arm of the DfT and has to implement DfT policy. Subordinate to that DfT policy, the DVLA can develop its own policies as to how DfT Policy should be implemented, but the DVLA is not permitted to operate in conflict with DfT policy.

It seems quite clear that the DfT, as sponsor of the POFA, expected that POFA would be the means used for parking enforcement. After all the DfT wanted the COP amended to reflect the POFA process, and an independent appeal process, before it would implement the POFA. Further the DfT is on record as stating that two enforcement processes would be "irrational". This would explain the process in operation from October 2012 up to the date that "instructions were amended." As I say you cannot operate in conflict with policy directives from above, so, can you please provide me with a copy of the change of policy set out by the DfT and which led to those "instructions being amended"?


Answer from the DVLA - NO

So the Government introduced POFA and expected PPCs in England and Wales to operate under it because that is what the COP says, but secretively the DVLA has changed the rules without any Policy change from upstairs.

Is this the conduct we expect of a Public Body?

Let the games begin!

Valiant
bama
QUOTE
A check with the BPA is undertaken for the following - complaints against company, sanction points awarded, breaches of Code of Practice.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dvla...s#comment-34380
SchoolRunMum
G24 seem to have put right the lack of the word 'creditor' specifying them in their NTKs. I noticed it on a recent MSE thread.

And as for Proserve, where do we start with a PPC who are getting DVLA data without being AOS members? Is it because they aren't called 'Proserve Parking' so the DVLA was fooled into thinking they are always acting as bailiffs when in fact they are ticketing?
Valiant
Proserve is a good example of the DVLA being off on a frolic of its own. The Secretary of State has issued a policy down to the DVLA that all companies, who operate as car park managers or enforcement companies must be in the BPA and comply by its COP. Proserve operates wearing a number of hats including that of Bailiffs. However, it manages car parks, as evidenced by its web site. As such the DVLA should be asking Proserve, when it applies for data, which hat it is wearing when it seeks data. It doesn't but just supplies it in contravention of the Policy. The DVLA web sites says
“all car parking companies seeking access to DVLA data must be a member of an ATA whose code of practice includes, amongst other guidance, procedures on appeals and the maximum parking charge that can be applied.”

Proserve, not being in the AOS, will be making paper applications for data (well they should be) so the DVLA has every opportunity to ask relevant questions before releasing data. DVLA guidelines state

"Enquiries that are submitted using a V888/3 application form are checked by clerks within the DVLA. Part of this check involves checking the date of the enquiry and the date of event to help make a decision on whether the information requested can be released. This process requires the car parking company to state whether the purpose of the request is to issue a parking charge or to chase up payment of a parking charge. The relevant timescales are then considered."


"This process requires the car parking company...." The DVLA ignores its own internal guidelines on processing applications for data. Is it "Fair" processing to ignore the safeguards that have been put in place? No

If you liken this to the way you operate at work - your Boss tells you what to do and you do it. Fail to do it and you get disciplined. In the DfT world it does not seem to work like that. It's Agency ignores DfT Policy and the DfT let's it get away with it. It leaves the DVLA at arm's length without the kind of controls normally expected in the work place. The DfT needs to take back control. Good business practices come from the top down and so do bad practices e.g Banks. The Government criticies the banks for their managerial styles and could easily be passing the same comments about their own failures.

So, if the DVLA is making data available to Proserve in contravention of the publicly declared policy isn't the DVLA acting ultra vires? Yes

Everytime that anyone gets a NTK from Proserve you should be complaining to the DVLA asking why it has made your data available in contravention of the DfT Policy on AOS and whether it if fair processing. Copy to the ICO

Valiant
bama
Isn't DVLA an Agency of the DfT ?
Agent Principal etc
Valiant
Yes it is and an Agency should be operating within its terms of reference.

Valiant
Valiant
Further to my post a couple of posts up on Proserve and it obtaining data whilst operating cas a car park management company but not a member of the BPA nor having signed up to its COP.

On the 28th February 2013 it was reported in Hansard that Stephen Hammond MP, was asked the question "what steps his Department is taking to prevent abuse of DVLA data by parking companies?"

On behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport Stephen Hammond replied
" A range of comprehensive measures is in place to prevent the abuse of DVLA data by private parking management companies. Parking companies cannot obtain data from the DVLA unless they are members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association and abide by its Code of Practice. In this role, the British Parking Association audits its members annually, and the DVLA also undertakes regular inspections. Where necessary, the DVLA takes direct action to suspend facilities to request vehicle keeper data."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...130228w0001.htm

Bearing in mind what happens with Proserve does this mean that Mr Hammond lied to the House?

The Secretary of State is accountable to the House of Commons for any wrongdoing by his Agency.

So, all of you recipients of Proserve tickets,

1. ask the DVLA how did Proserve obtain your data when it is not in the AOS and not signed up to the BPA COP?

2. Ask the DVLA why it did not follow its own internal guidelines when making your data available (See those guidelines above)

3. Ask the DVLA if Proserve actually used the wrong form when it applied for data and is that why it slipped through the net?

4. The answer to 3 will probably be yes, so ask the DVLA why it failed to exercise the level of due diligence we are entitled to expect of a public body charged with the task of protecting our personal data and did not spot that incorrect form.

5. Remind the DVLA what Mr Hammond said to the House (cut and paste the above extract and provide the date) and suggest that, perhaps, their conduct actually puts to a lie his commons statement.

6. Ask the DVLA if it considers that making your data available contrary to the Policy guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State , its Principal, is ultra vires and unlawful.

7. Copy in the ICO and the Secretary of State Patrick McLoughlin (email addresses above). Copy in Stephen Hammond (hammondsp@parliament.uk) as well, and remind the Secretary of State and Mr Hammond that the Sec of State is accountable to the House for the wrong doing of his Agency and would he like to make a Parliamentary statement in view of the apparent error made by Mr Hammond on the 28th February 2013.

Embarrass those at the top and eventually I would hope that a message trickles down.

One email will not do the trick but a substantial number just may do. You may wish to put into the subject box of your email "Has the Secretary of State been made to lie to the House?". He will open that and read it!

Incidentally Proserve Notices to Keeper are clearly seeking to pursue keeper liability (well the last one I saw did). Becaase it gets its data through paper applications, and with the DVLA being swamped, the DVLA cannot guarantee that Proserve will get its data long enough before the 14 days to serve a valid NTK. Check the dates on your NTK. Claiming registered keeper liability when that is not possible under POFA means that Proserve should fall within the DVLA condition mentioned above which means that it should have been suspended. Why has the DVLA not done that?

You may wish to Lodge a complaint with Suffolk Trading Standards ("tradingstandards@suffolk.gov.uk") about Proserve claiming keeper liability when they cannot do so and suggest that perhaps its misleading statement in this respect (If that is what an invalid NTK says) may just contravene Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008


Valiant
ManxRed
Is it worth preparing a quick template response to any posters who come on having received NtKs from the companies listed in this thread, specifying what they should look for from each.

For example, for someone who's received NtK from PE could be given a specific list - is the phrase "bvvbvbvbvbbv" used in para x on page 1?" "Does the word 'creditor' appear and who does it say it is?", and so on? Some easy templates might ensure that EVERYONE who comes on stating they have received NtKs from those PPCs in question is given precise advice as to what to look for, and can be advised on what to write to the DVLA.

Just a thought.
Valiant
Here is a complaint to the DVLA. This covers facts which could be thrown at a PPC but you do need to read Schedule 4 of POFA and check paragraph 9 (if they have used ANPR) and do a word search to compare what the Act says they must say in the notice and just what they have said in the notice you received. Everything in [ ] is an instruction on completing the letter and must not be in the actual letter being sent

Dear Mr Watts,

[enter full name and address of PPC as a heading]

I wish to lodge a formal complaint against the above named Parking Company and the DVLA

I enclose the following documents for your consideration
1.Notice to Keeper served by the Parking Company on the [ insert date you received notice] in respect of an alleged parking infringement which occurred on the [ insert date ]

You will note from this Notice that the Parking Company claims to have the legal right to pursue keeper liability

The Parking Company

In order for any parking company to pursue keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the Act) that parking company must have met the conditions in the Act. The conditions are set out in the sub paragraphs of the paragraphs in Schedule 4 of the Act. The Parking Company uses ANPR for its enforcement, in which case the relevant conditions that it must meet are those in paragraph 9. That is to say, the whole of paragraph 9 as is evident from its introduction which reads “(2) The Notice must…specify…inform…..describe…state that …warn…identify. All of which are mandatory requirements.

The Parking Company failed to meet the following conditions in relation to its Notice:-
[Pick whatever is relevant - these seem to be the usual failures]
1. Paragraphs (9)(4) and (9)(5) in that the Notices were served more than 14 days after the alleged infringement
2. Paragraph (9)(2)(h) in that the Notices fail to identify the "Creditor". To identify anyone he has, at the very least, to be named. The obligation here is not to leave that identity to the imagination of the registered keeper. Asking for payment is not the same as identifying the creditor as required by this condition.
3. Paragraph (9)(2)(b) in that it fails to inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay the charge
4. Paragraph (9)(2)(e) in that it fails to state that the creditor does not know the name and address of the driver nor does it invite the registered keeper to pay the charge or to provide the creditor with the name and address of the driver
5. Paragraph (9)(2)(f) in that there is no warning provided of the kind required by this paragraph

as a consequence, paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of the Act prevents the Parking Company from exercising the rights to pursue keeper liability. Notwithstanding the Parking Company expressly states in its Notice that it has the right to recover the charges from the keeper of the vehicle. That is wrong in law and misleading the registered keeper.

Making a claim, which cannot be sustained in law, contravenes the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Regulation 5, for example, refers to misleading statements. Advising a registered keeper that action will be taken against him, when it cannot be pursued, is clearly misleading. A breach of these Regulations is, of course, a criminal offence. Send a follow up letter making the same claim and there may be a breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1967 and which creates another criminal offence. So it is arguable that the Parking Company processed my data for criminal purposes. That may have been inadvertent but ignorance of the law is no defense. It is my understandind that your Agency has already had this drawn to its attention.

[If your Notice is received after the 14 days include the next three paragraphs]
I understand that Kevin Watts, on the 17th June 2013 stated "Where a company requests data outside of the 14 day period for ANPR-run car parks set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act, they are still entitled to receive this data under the reasonable cause provisions provided that they do not use it to exercise the keeper liability powers in Schedule 4 of POFA, and only use it to pursue payment through other channels in accordance with the conditions and deadlines set out in the BPA Code of Practice."

This scenario concerns the issue of a Notice to Keeper out of time and which is a failure to meet a condition in the Act. It follows, logically, that if a parking company has data in sufficient time to serve a notice within the timescales of the Act, but intends to serve it outside of that time, it did not have reasonable cause. It is the same action i.e. deliberately failing to meet the conditions. The Parking Company may have so established its business such that it knows that it will be unable to serve any Notice to Keeper within the statutory timeframe and thus obtains data knowing that it will serve a Notice late. The DVLA should investigate this suggestion.

The DVLA is required to advise me of the date that the Parking Company applied for my data in relation to the Notices. If it was indeed late then that falls squarely into Mr Watts condition and the Parking Company certainly did not have “reasonable cause”

I further understand that on the 14th June 2012 the DVLA wrote to the BPA as follows:- "Can the BPA send out a message to all members of private parking schemes (contract law basis) that if the DVLA is advised and provided with evidence of any company making any reference to liability by anyone other than the driver we will immediately suspend access to our data for a minimum of three months. This applies to tickets, signage and any correspondence with a keeper."

Where a Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act then keeper liability may not be pursued. However, as I say, the Parking Company Notices indicates that it claims that statutory right. In law it can only pursue recover of an alleged debt outside of POFA. As your direction of the 14th June 2012, to the BPA Members, including the Parking Company, concerned non Protection of Freedoms Act cases, then the DVLA should follow its own guidance and suspend the Parking Company for a period of three months with immediate effect.

As regards the Notice to Keeper, I have set out the sub paragraph conditions that have not been met. Checking those references here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...edule/4/enacted and then perusing the Notice, to see if the relevant mandatory words or phrases are present, is simply a word search exercise that the DVLA can undertake. There is no need to ask the BPA if the Notice is valid. I understand that in some cases of invalid Notices the BPA has maintained that invalid notices are valid. The BPA is of course the body representing the interests of its members and not the interests of the public. Accordingly, I do not expect to see that the BPA is involved in your word search.

Action required
1.That the Parking Company be suspended from access to the DVLA database for a period of three months.
2.That the Parking Company be advised that upon its reinstatement it may not pursue keeper liability, in whatever guise, until such time as its Notices are fully compliant with the Act

The DVLA
The First Data Protection Principle directs the DVLA that it must
(a) be transparent about how it intends to use our personal data, and
(b)handle people’s personal data only in ways they would reasonably expect.

To that end the DVLA is on record as stating that it has a number of procedures in place to ensure fair and lawful processing. These are clearly designed to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that when the DVLA makes data available to Members of an ATA, that Member uses that data lawfully. For the DVLA to make personal data available to a party knowing that it will use that data in a way which is contrary to the law would clearly not be fair processing, a breach of the Data Protection Act and fly in the face of the assurances it has provided to data subjects.

The DVLA has said, publicly, that it “can confirm that since the implementation of POFA in October 2012 we have checked the notices issued by every new PPC. DVLA have also checked the notices issued by all PPCs who were already under contract with us, however some of these checks will have occurred before October 2012.” It has since retracted that assurance. However, it has also confirmed that as part of the AOS protocols it checks the notices served by Parking Companies. It has also now retracted that statement. It is a nonsense for the DVLA to provide public assurances that it did check such important documents and then change its mind. In view of the introduction of such wide ranging changes to private parking enforcement it was incumbent upon the DVLA, in meeting its duty to data subjects, to have checked such notices. There is a lack of transparency here.

Notwithstanding, the DVLA has now been put on notice about quite a number of PPCs whose Notices fail to meet the conditions in POFA and which may offend the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, such that
(a) If the parking Company in this case is amongst those referred, the DVLA knew that it was making my data available to a PPC to be used unlawfully, and
(b) any prudent public body, acting diligently, would have checked the Notices to be used by PPCs by now. A failure to do so reflects a laissez faire attitude towards fair processing, and
© The DVLA has sufficient evidence before it that PPCs Notices are not POFA compliant that it should be checking all notices and advised PPCs that they may not pursue keeper liability until their Notices have been approved.

If either failure has arisen, I would submit that the DVLA, in such circumstances, has improperly exercised the discretion to make my data available and has processed my data unfairly.

If the Parking Company in this case has had its defective notices referred to the DVLA, then the DVLA is required, under the Freedom of Information Act, to confirm that that is the case. If that is the case the DVLA has failed to implement its own policy by not suspending the Parking Company

Action required
1. That the DVLA apologises
2. That the DVLA provides me with an assurance that it has introduced changes into its processing of data, and to describe those changes, to ensure that similar situations do not arise in the future

Regards

Copy to ICO
Albert Ross
How does this become fairly processed?

I thought that it couldn't, and that DVLA could only TO enforce.



nigelbb
QUOTE (Albert Ross @ Thu, 20 Jun 2013 - 11:50) *
How does this become fairly processed?

I thought that it couldn't, and that DVLA could only TO enforce.

I think sending out a last chance warning letter could legitimately be described as enforcement. PPCs are just about issuing PCNs (just 99.99999999% of the time:-)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.