DVLA and data release to Private Parking Companies

[Nev Met]

I have been looking at the interpretation and application of the 'reasonable cause' safeguard by the DVLA in response to requests from private parking companies for registered keeper data.

 

My conclusion is that the 'Approved Conditional Access' (ACA) electronic data release system is unlawful because the reality is that there is no 'reasonable cause'.

 

I have made a submission to the Transport Committee outlining my arguments and this submission has now been accepted as 'evidence' in the forthcoming 'Scrutiny of the DVLA and the DSA' by Transcom.

 

The link to my evidence is below but for those who want the three line version it goes like this:-

 

Membership of the BPA AOS + Compliance with the CoP = 'Reasonable Cause' (for electronic RK data release) according to the DVLA. I say that is unlawful because they have created a presumption of 'reasonable cause' and in doing so have reversed the burden of proof, i.e. the RK is now required to disprove the 'reasonable cause'

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/writev/dda/dda09.htm

 

Feel free to re-post the link etc in other websites.

 

Thank you

[brassnecked]

Excellent, 15 through 24 put any argument that the data release by DVLA is both lawful and proportionate paragraphs out of contention, Quite simply I consider the DVLA have been exposed as committing unlawful actions by release of data, The BPA is NOT an independent body with fair and transparent appeals, it is a justification for the Private Parking "Industry"

[WebFerret]

I've read fully your submission and I'm most impressed, essentially, it's the 'reasonable cause' assertion that's been removed from the ANPR process that appears to be key to stopping this quite wrongful practice I guess.

 

The case of Observices Parking Consultancy Limited is astonishing in the fact that a proven criminal can continue to obtain details - this alone is unbelievable! - if it was a 'profession' they would be 'stuck-off' and not allowed to practice again!

 

It will be interesting to hear Philip Hammond MP's response to this, for the DVLA is an executive agency of the Department for Transport and it is directly responsible to the Minister of State.

 

Nice work

[frickshan]

It's not solely data release to parking companies, this has relevance to my unfortunate dealings with the DVLA :-61) Finally, by refusing to investigate complaints regarding data release, the DVLA has been shown to have unlawfully abdicated its duties under the Data Protection Act 1998 to the............They sold my data to a cowboy loans for log book company who fraudulently claimed rights to my car, I received NO help whatsoever from anyone, the DVLA only showing concern when they assumed a friend who called on my behalf was a solicitor and on finding out she wasn't, decided to wash their hands of the whole matter. She managed to get them to admit an request for data was merely a tick box exercise and wasn't monitored. Data Protection..... Hah .....laughable.I had to prove ownership of my car by sending a copy of the V5 which proved it had been mine since new & there couldn't possibly be any claim. They behave in a ruthless manner and beyond the law, non of the public bodies (including the DVLA) I assumed would help me, were the slightest bit interested.

[Tony P]

I am unfamiliar with the workings of Commons Select Committees, although I hear the term on the news here, generally regarding slightly more salacious matters.

 

What is the process, time scale and possible outcomes of Nev Met's submission?

 

And following that - consequences and implementation ?

[Nev Met]

Duplicate entry - edited

Edited November 26, 2011 by Nev Met
Duplicate entry - edited

[Nev Met]

I am unfamiliar with the workings of Commons Select Committees, although I hear the term on the news here, generally regarding slightly more salacious matters.

 

What is the process, time scale and possible outcomes of Nev Met's submission?

 

And following that - consequences and implementation ?

 

Hi Tony this is the media player recording of the session http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9473

 

and this was the follow up in the Daily Mail the following day

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064885/DVLA-sells-data-2-50-pretty-dodgy-characters-says-MP.html

 

Also of interest is a recent FOI request I made to the DVLA here

 

In the last three years (To January 2011)

 

1. What is the total number of ACA electronic registered keeper data requests

that have been made to the DVLA by private parking companies?

 

(Reply from Robert Toft at the DVLA) 709,769 electronic enquiries were made during the period April 2008 to March 2009.

 

The total number of requests processed from April 2009 is published on DVLA website at:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/foi.aspx You can find this information under ‘Publications’

and by clicking on the link ‘Who DVLA shares data with’. The exemption at Section 21 of

the FOIA is being applied to this information as these figures and reasonably accessible to

you. The specific information you requested is shown on pages 4 and 5 of the published

document.

 

(Edit by Nev Met - for ease of reference I've totted up the figures and (if my maths is up to it) it comes to a grand total of 3,689,511 electronic registered keeper data requests from PPCs from April 2008 to Sept 2011......now go to the next question below)

 

2. Of that total, how many of those ACA electronic registered keeper data

requests were (permanently) declined/refused by the DVLA.

 

(Reply from Robert Toft at the DVLA) "No electronic requests are declined/refused as this is an automated process.............."

 

And there you have it, a scandal to dwarf that of the MPs expenses.

 

The question that I would like to ask each and everyone of you, now you have this information, what are you going to do about it because simply reading it and being shocked isn't going to change a thing.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Nev Met
To add to the post

[Jarv1]

It is a scandal Nev Met, but going by your figures for data requests that amounts to £9.2 million (at £2.50 a pop) that the DVLA have raked in from the PPCs alone. That could in someways explain why the Government has turned a blind eye to the matter. It is gross misuse of the DPA but very nice little earner!! I think as it stands, educating people (as this site does very well) as to how these PPCs operate and people's right to ignore their childish threats therefore limiting the PPCs income will eventually (hopefully!) make these companies unviable.

 

Well that's how I see it anyway

[brassnecked]

They will welcome all the extra income from the ppcs and possibly look to increase the fees

[Nev Met]

They will welcome all the extra income from the ppcs and possibly look to increase the fees

 

If you listen to the Transcom video of the DVLA oral evidence, increasing the fees from PPCs (and other private companies) was raised by Mr Stringer MP. I don't have an issue with any increase in the fees in fact I would welcome it, so long as a percentage of that extra funding was ploughed back into a totally independent system of checks and balances underpinned by a totally independent appeal process.

 

The Transom website welcomes feedback on the 'performance' of the oral evidence of the DVLA. I just wonder how many concerned posters will be bothered to a) Listen to the recording of the evidence and b) post their feedback. Unless people are prepared to do more nothing will change.

[Nev Met]

It is a scandal Nev Met, but going by your figures for data requests that amounts to £9.2 million (at £2.50 a pop) that the DVLA have raked in from the PPCs alone. That could in someways explain why the Government has turned a blind eye to the matter. It is gross misuse of the DPA but very nice little earner!! I think as it stands, educating people (as this site does very well) as to how these PPCs operate and people's right to ignore their childish threats therefore limiting the PPCs income will eventually (hopefully!) make these companies unviable.

 

Well that's how I see it anyway

 

This will not happen. At the moment in excess of 60% of PPC victims pay up immediately and another 10 - 20% once the generic threatening letters have done their work. The fact of the matter is that there are thousands of PCN issued everyday (either by ticket or ANPR) and the minute percentage who find these forums is a mere drop in the ocean.

 

If you look at my FOI request here http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/registered_keeper_rk_data_releas#outgoing-162946 and take the time to see the number of annual data requests from PPCs the annual number is rising, it's a growth industry - once the RK liability becomes law (as it shall) then I anticipate that the percentages will increase further.

 

Telling people to simply ignore PCNs is like telling an Ostrich that burying your head in the sand is a brilliant long term strategy. It's exactly this complacency which has allowed us to sleep walk into RK liability.

[afcwben]

that is a horrendous figure, no wonder PPC's do what they do

[Nev Met]

I'm bumping this for no other reason that to report that Watchdog used the submission as the basis for their recent programme on OPC and then the MoS followed it up as well but in more detail.