Free Traffic Legal Advice

Latest is that I have a letter from DCBL and final reminder. Can you confirm I'm just ignoring these? Thanks

Reply from DVLA....Thank you for your email of 4 June about the release of information from our vehicle
register and the dispute you have with the parking company Vehicle Control Services (VCS)
Ltd. Your case has been escalated to step 2 of our complaints procedure and I have been
asked to reply.
We aim to reply within 10 working days. However, on this occasion, it has taken us longer
as our current work volumes are higher than usual. Please accept my apologies for this.
I understand you feel that Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Ltd did not meet the
requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, and that they have
breached the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. I fully appreciate you feel that
although the company may have had reasonable cause to request your information, this
was then misused. However, I must advise that it is not a matter for the DVLA to decide on
the merits of individual cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between motorists and
private companies or other enforcement agencies. We cannot regulate any aspect of a
company’s business. Any representations should be made to the landowner or their agent.
As you are aware, the law provides for the release of information from our records in certain
circumstances. Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing)
Regulations 2002 permits the disclosure of information from vehicle records held by the
Secretary of State for Transport to those who can demonstrate a reasonable cause for
receiving it. While reasonable cause is not defined in legislation, the government’s policy is
that requests should relate to the vehicle or its use following incidents where there may be
liability on the part of the driver.
I should explain that overall responsibility for off-street parking sits with the Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). This includes matters relating to
the applicability of the keeper liability measures provided by the POFA 2012. I can advise
you that there will be significant changes within the private parking sector with the creation
of a statutory Code of Practice and a single independent appeals service. MHCLG is
responsible for the implementation of these new measures. You may wish to raise any
concerns you may have with them. They can be contacted by emailing
parking@communities.gov.uk

It may also help to explain that the DVLA’s role in this context is to consider whether the
release of information to third parties requesting the data meets the reasonable cause
provision under Regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing)
Regulations 2002. As you are aware, the release of information to private car parking
companies is considered to be a reasonable cause.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is fully aware of how data held on our records
is released. The ICO’s opinion regarding the lawful basis for the processing of vehicle
keeper data is published here. This includes information regarding the sharing of data with
car park management companies under Article 6(1) of the UK General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR). It also explains that paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 provides car park management companies with an enforceable
legal right to claim charges from vehicle keepers.
Recipients of information from our records are bound by contract and subject to audit. The
supporting evidence relevant to each request must be held and stored securely by the
company. Anyone making a false declaration to obtain information may be leaving
themselves open to prosecution under data protection laws. As my colleague has
explained, VCS, separately from us, is the data controller of each item of data received
from us from the point of receipt. VCS has a duty to comply with data protection legislation
and any data protection principles in relation to any further processing.
As you are aware, private parking management companies wishing to request vehicle
keeper information must be members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association
(ATA). This helps ensure that requesters are legitimate companies operating in line with a
published code of practice that promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures that
there is a clear set of standards for operators that cover, among other things, signage,
appeals processes, and methods of contacting drivers. The Government is very much
aware of public concern about the enforcement practices adopted by some parking
management companies. We are working closely with the parking sector to improve
procedures and to encourage compliance with relevant codes of practice. The ATA carries
out its own checks before allowing companies to become members and monitors ongoing
compliance with the code of practice.
As previously advised, UK Car Park Management Ltd is a member of the International
Parking Community (IPC). Under the circumstances, I suggest that you contact the IPC
about this matter, as the DVLA cannot comment on the issues you have raised regarding
compliance with the code of practice. It is the IPC’s responsibility to make sure their
members are operating according to the code of practice available at
www.theipc.info/publications
Section 18 (page 30) of the code of practice covers monitoring compliance. If the IPC find
that VCS have not followed the correct procedures, they will take the appropriate action. As
my colleague has explained, this could mean that the parking company is suspended or
expelled. During which time no data will be provided to them by the DVLA. As noted on
section 18.11, the ATAs inform the DVLA and the other ATA immediately if an operator is
suspended, expelled from membership.

If a company does not adhere to their contract with us, it could be suspended independently
of any ATA investigation. I can assure you our audit arrangements ensure that requesters
have appropriate internal controls in place to protect the information provided. Checks are
also conducted by the Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA) on our behalf. Where
compliance issues are identified, we will take appropriate action to ensure the matter is
rectified.
While I understand your concerns and that you feel that we have not complied with our
duties as the data controller, there is no evidence that VCS has breached any statutory
provisions or other legal requirement affecting the Keeper At Date Of Event (KADOE)
service. Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 could be applicable at the site in question, as the
enforcement scheme at Liverpool John Lennon Airport is not operated under airport
byelaws.
In closing, I can assure you we have followed the correct procedures in releasing your data
and we cannot become involved in the dispute that has now arisen between you and the
parking company. VCS are responsible for making decisions about how the personal data
they hold is handled, ensuring compliance with data protection regulations including the UK
GDPR. If you cannot resolve this matter through appealing to VCS or via the IPC process,
or through contact with MHCLG, you have the option of seeking independent legal advice.
Ultimately it would be for a court to determine the validity of any claim.
This brings the DVLA procedure to an end. Further options can be found in the enclosed
leaflet, (MIS 582), which outlines the remit of the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA).
Please note, an ICA cannot look at complaints about legislation, government, departmental
or agency policy.
I must also advise that an ICA would review the handling of your enquiry but if you are not
satisfied with the way that we (or indeed the other parties concerned) have handled your
data, you should contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. Further information and
their contact details can be found at ico.org.uk

I didn't realise the IAS appeal was a two stage process.

The Parking Operator should have uploaded sufficient evidence to show that you are, on the face of it, liable to pay the charge.

You will then have TWO options:

1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond.

- OR -

2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.

Presumably I'm taking the 2nd option?

Thanks. Interestingly the IAS website does not appear to recognise the CN reference.

Thanks. I've done that.
Out of interest was theirs the standard response you expected?

Sorry I thought I'd attached it [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

All submitted. I'll let you know when they reject it!

Thanks for all that advice.

So I'll create a reply to them based on B789 wording and complain to DVLA too.