Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Non-motoring legal advice => Topic started by: dave-o on September 05, 2024, 10:52:12 am
-
The use of the word "proof" for evidence is a common indicator of f*ckwittery.
-
The idea of a V5C being proof of ID is a new one on me.
-
I'd argue their specific request regarding the V5C is not necessary and they are being pathetically vindictive and/or just demonstrating the routine incompetence these companies show.
If the V5C is a must, what happens to people who find out about a PCN years after the event where the car has since been sold/transferred/scrapped and the V5C is no longer in your possession? What happens to those who were never the RK such as lessees, hirers, courtesy cars etc.
Probs best to recite ICO guidance to them as they are clearly a bit thick. Your DL with name and matching address is more than adequate to ID you as the valid subject. The V5C has no further benefit but as above, it depends on whether you wish to be pragmatic to get the info or can wait it out.
-
Honestly it doesn't matter too much to me, I just don't like being dictated to by scum. If they have a fair point I will bother digging around for the V5C. If they are in the wrong I will very happily try to make life difficult for them with the ICO. The SAR won't make a great deal of difference to me.
-
Pragmatically, it might be wise to consider what is more important to you: receiving a timely response to your SAR, or pursuing complaints to the ICO.
-
This is a SAR to a PPC, requesting all data relating to a specific "PCN". The PPC is demanding a V5C as proof of ID, while a photo driving licence has been provided. The PPC will be entirely aware that the keeper matches the person on the ID as they received this from the DVLA in order to send the NTK. They are refusing to process the SAR without it.
Am I in a position to demand processing, and then take it up with the ICO?