Havering PCN appeal. Can they keep my data?

[disgruntled2007]

I recently had a PCN cancelled by PATAS due to a procedural impropriety. Havering failed to respond to my representations within the 56 day time limit. They (Havering) think it is a guideline as stated in the TMA 2004, BUT, it is now enshrined in Law under Statutory Instruments2007 No. 3482 road traffic, England The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007.

 

Anyway, I am keen to learn whether the should notify me of cancellation, and within what time period.

 

Most importantly, I resent my data being held by them as an "innocent" and wonder if there is any legislation or precedent to support me demanding all data held about me and my vehicle in relation to this PCN be destroyed?

 

Thanks for looking!

[pin1onu]

I recently had a PCN cancelled by PATAS due to a procedural impropriety. Havering failed to respond to my representations within the 56 day time limit. They (Havering) think it is a guideline as stated in the TMA 2004, BUT, it is now enshrined in Law under Statutory Instruments2007 No. 3482 road traffic, England The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007.

 

Anyway, I am keen to learn whether the should notify me of cancellation, and within what time period.

 

Most importantly, I resent my data being held by them as an "innocent" and wonder if there is any legislation or precedent to support me demanding all data held about me and my vehicle in relation to this PCN be destroyed?

 

Thanks for looking!

Given the landmark case regarding the DNA database I think you might have a point. It would be worth contacting the Information Comissioner's office and getting their take.

[green_and_mean]

Would you be happy if you complained to the ombudsman or sued the Council over your case only to be told they knew nothing about it as it was shredded? Even Court cases that result in a not guilty plea stay on record or do you think they shred everything as soon as the jury returns the verdict?

[disgruntled2007]

Thanks pin1onu, I may just try that!

[disgruntled2007]

Here's an enquiry I have just sent to the ICO!

 

Sir, I have recently had a Penalty Charge Notice cancelled by the Parking And Traffic Appeaks Service. It was issued by the London Borough of Havering. They have a video of my vehicle, together with my registered address on file. I am not comfortable with the Borough retaining this information as PATAS have found that the contravention did not occur and I have been searching the relevant legislation to help me, but am unclear on two things. Firstly, what legislation permits the Borough to keep my details relating to this cancelled PCN on their database? Secondly, am I within my rights to demand this information is destroyed, and on what grounds (legislation)?

Thankyou.

[disgruntled2007]

Would you be happy if you complained to the ombudsman or sued the Council over your case only to be told they knew nothing about it as it was shredded? Even Court cases that result in a not guilty plea stay on record or do you think they shred everything as soon as the jury returns the verdict?

 

I'm not Jack the Ripper, pal. Get some perspective...

[green_and_mean]

I'm not Jack the Ripper, pal. Get some perspective...

 

Whats that got to do with anything? What would you do if you received a visit from the baliffs in a years time demanding payment of the PCN, if you had your way any record of the PCN being cancelled would be shredded!

[crem]

Whats that got to do with anything? What would you do if you received a visit from the baliffs in a years time demanding payment of the PCN, if you had your way any record of the PCN being cancelled would be shredded!

 

If all record of the PCN had been shredded, why would the bailiffs turn up?

[green_and_mean]

If all record of the PCN had been shredded, why would the bailiffs turn up?

 

I said if all records regarding 'the cancellation' if you actually read my post. Councils are legally obliged to keep records as are most organisations.

I find it comical that on one thread you support suing Councils for issuing on bays ruled non compliant at adjudication, then go on to support removing any record of a PCN cancelled at adjudication which would give Councils the opportunity to ignore ALL descisions at adjudication as there would be no record of them!

[crem]

I find it comical that on one thread you support suing Councils for issuing on bays ruled non compliant at adjudication, then go on to support removing any record of a PCN cancelled at adjudication which would give Councils the opportunity to ignore ALL descisions at adjudication as there would be no record of them!

 

Who said I supported it? I may just enjoy taking a contra view when your blind support for councils being angels tends to show through.

[pin1onu]

Would you be happy if you complained to the ombudsman or sued the Council over your case only to be told they knew nothing about it as it was shredded? Even Court cases that result in a not guilty plea stay on record or do you think they shred everything as soon as the jury returns the verdict?

We are innocent before the law until we are proved guilty.

 

Court cases may be recorded and held that is understood - however the point is irrelevant to de-criminalised proceedings.

 

However the processing of information for what is a non-criminal offense is subject to the data processing rules.

 

The case of the DNA samples sets out an important principle. That is if you are not convicted of a crime then the plod have no right to continue to hold your data.

 

Why should the same principle not be applied to a council?

[green_and_mean]

Who said I supported it? I may just enjoy taking a contra view when your blind support for councils being angels tends to show through.

 

Why is my stance on this point supporting Councils, record keeping benefits both parties surely? Any claim against malpractice by Councils would get no where if all records got deleted. If you felt a bay was non compliant and asked if any PCNs had been cancelled in the same location, there would be no record. The records kept actually benefit the driver more than the Council. Most information apart from the alleged contravention is already public knowledge on the electoral role and DVLA database I fail to see why anyone would be concerned that a cancelled PCN was kept on record?

[My Real Name]

A few questions for the OP:

 

• What data does the council hold?
  
• Have you made a Subject Access Request to the council's data controller?
  
• What are the purposes for which the council processes this data?
  
• How is the data process (How long do they hold it for etc.)
  
• Does the processing of the data conform with the overarching principals of the Data Protection Act (to do with relevance, excessiveness etc.)
  

If you want the recent ECHR ruling on Marper & S to be significant, you would need to explain how the processing of your data would be prejudicial to your rights under the ECHR. I can't see any relevance myself.

 

With regards your vehicle, the ICO will be quick to inform you that vehicle data does not necessarily relate to personal data.

 

They will also likely point out that the processing of data is not inherently undesirable or A Bad Thing™

[patdavies]

What a lot of people forget is that personal data is not simply any data relating to an individual, but that it must be held in a relevant filing system (which is defined by both the Act and the Information Commissioners Office guidance).

 

It is likely that any data held about the OP is indexed by PCN number (that would be most logical after all). As such, it is not held in a relevant filing system to be classed as personal data; therefore the strictures about processing or holding do not apply.

 

If it were indexed by name and/or address, then that would be a different matter...

[My Real Name]

What a lot of people forget is that personal data is not simply any data relating to an individual, but that it must be held in a relevant filing system (which is defined by both the Act and the Information Commissioners Office guidance).

 

It is likely that any data held about the OP is indexed by PCN number (that would be most logical after all). As such, it is not held in a relevant filing system to be classed as personal data; therefore the strictures about processing or holding do not apply.

 

If it were indexed by name and/or address, then that would be a different matter...

If you restricted yourself to a paper based or other manual filing system, them you would be correct.

 

However, as soon as you use a computerised system, the notion of indexing (in the strict IT sense) defers to the notion that the data is structured and easily retrievable*.

 

 

*Otherwise, all a data processor would need to do, in order to avoid complying with the act, would be to index on a non-personal data set.