Hmmm
Does 'right to be forgotten' apply to the DVLA?
The UK government is driving towards a sale of up to 6 million vehicle records to private parking firms, according to a transport lobby group. The RAC Foundation monitors the number of vehicle-keeper records that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency sells to firms, which use them to issue car owners with fines for parking …
I'm not quite sure that "a right to be forgotten" or the timescales involved in that part of regulation would be taken notice of by DVLA in this case, unless you decide to give up your driving license and car, and not own any form of road transport that requires you to provide or update information to them - such as a bicycle or a horse.
Of course not.
You're not a Parking Enforcement company.
IOW, you're not a man in a van with a Denver Boot and a mobile number who's registered with them to get such data on demand.
Perhaps it's time you were? I gather the "qualification" are minimal, as are the background checks.
...why are DVLA actively helping scumbag extortionists, and wankers like Crapita? These companies are using DVLA to drive a nicely profitable business model.
Fees from all vehicle fee paying enquiries equate to only 0.2% of the total amount DVLA collects from Licence fees and taxes
"It would be interesting to know what the rules and regulations are on becoming one of these companies."
You don't need to be one of those companies, anyone with a good reason can request details and cough up their £2.50.
CraPo above should have been allowed to too, possibly he didn't use the right language on the form.
Having scrapped the paper tax disc and thus said goodbye to piles of dosh, they now need us again, to sell off to evil firms? So those who honestly tx our vehicles can be sold like so many packets of gum?
I know I am the product when I am on Google, etc, but I did not think I was a product to HM Government. Now I know better.
Doesn't make any sense at all.
Scrapping the paper tax disc and the production and distribution costs of this should not reduce the income for car tax. Car tax is still applicable therefore how can removing such a running cost reduce income?
The government would have known that scrapping the paper tax disc would have caused a huge loss of income, that's why they did it. *Problem, Reaction, Solution*
To solve the problem of untaxed cars on the roads requires far more numberplate scanners.
By creating an urgent pressing need for this it will accelerate the roll-out of this surveillance system. The revenue from either the road tax or the fines will pay private companies to operate the system.
I doubt millions now avoid paying, the same ones still do not pay but with ANPR and mobile vans it's easier to spot them.
remember how many cars spent years with "Tax in post" where the disc was supposed to be?
Stop regurgutating daily mail pieces
Under very limited circumstances he/she is allowed to drive on the pavement.
If you are planning on taking court action for damages (perhaps you were distressed and suffered emotional injury?) then you should be given the keeper's details. You might, of course, decide to discontinue your court action after receiving them; that is your right.
And THIS is exactly why the DVLA haven't had my actual real home address for many years, and never will have again. I register my cars at an address which is entirely 'air gapped' from my real life, so to speak - and anyone obtaining the address from the DVLA will learn precisely *nothing* about me, other than that I can receive mail sent there. I would urge others to pursue a similar course of action.
Luckily True Address is not a thing legally speaking. The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 specifies that registration info should not be false nor materially misleading so a valid correspondence address (such as a PO box) should be ok afaict
No. I checked. They have only two rules:
- it must be a UK address
- you must be able to receive mail sent there
You don't have to be the owner of the car, you don't have to be a UK citizen or even hold a driving license, you don't even have to be resident in the UK; you just have to supply a UK address where they can write to you.
If the fee of £2.50 is set at that level "to recover the cost of..." and no more, then why the f'g hell did they charge me the princely sum £20 to replace one piece of pink plastic with a newer piece of pink plastic when the actual cost could have been no more than 50p.
Admittedly, processing a new driver would cost more than a replacement card, so charge them, the new drivers more. No hardship after spending 100's on learning to pass the tests.
"If the fee of £2.50 is set at that level "to recover the cost of..." and no more, then why the f'g hell did they charge me the princely sum £20 to replace one piece of pink plastic with a newer piece of pink plastic when the actual cost could have been no more than 50p."
Wait 'till they notice how much the CAA are charging for drone licences!
I am not a trained legal expert.
This is not legal advice.
Here in Oz, a private parking company has diddly-squat chance of extracting a 'fine' from a punter.
I simply ignore. They never sue.
The Council and the Plods on the other hand, you're screwed.
True'ish....
No one but the government can "fine" you, no one. What these are are "bills for services". A private parking company owns some land, you park on it and they charge you a fee and for that they bill you. You pay the bill at the start or the end of the stay. It's a bill, nothing more. If you don't pay, it not a fine, it's a demand for payment for a service you used but didn't pay for. Same as your gas or electric, if you use it and don't pay they too will take you to court and demand payment.
However, like most people I still think they're all money grabbing, weasly scumbags that should be strung up but hey, they're still nothing more than private companies with a service to sell.
Surprised it has not been mentioned sooner, but private parking companies cannot issue fines, they can only send you a parking charge NOTICE which is to tell you that you have "agree" to pay them money as part of a distance contract formed when you were in the presence of signage, etc.
In the UK this has been condoned by the supreme court (just look up Beavis vs. Parking Eye) as reasonable behaviour and was brought in as part of the "protection of freedoms" act which stopped cowboy clamping...
Or, put another way, the DVLA had no revenue stream when you had to contact the clamping company to get your car freed but the new model does make them a bit of profit.
they could lose unencrypted copies of it on USB drives and laptops left on trains and in taxi's;
'Lose'?
I'm not sure I believe that anymore....the old switched briefcase, the envelope taped into a newspaper and casually left behind in a public bar. (yeah, I like all those 1960's spy TV series).
A USB or a laptop left on a train or a taxi.......? .in exchange for an envelope full of 'used twennies' left.
...breaks into 'Avenues and alleyways'
If you feel you must pay these robber barons, use the costly delay method.
Write back asking for more info of the alleged incident.
Ask for photos
Ask for the ooperator's name
Ask for the time of day and the weather conditions
Ask who killed JFK if you like.
After some office wonk has sent you all the info.
Wait a week and then write again to say you never heard back from them
Wait.
When the second bunch of info arrives, mail them back with a new question or request.
Maybe the photos weren't quite clear enough.
Wait.
Rinse repeat as many times as you can.
The fine period can't expire if you are in correspondence over the claim.
Eventually, and only if they pursue it, pay up, a few quid short.
Wait.
Eventually pay the balance
Result is the same but you cost them at least as much as the fine itself in postage and office time.
I did this once (without paying) to discover the details of the issue kept changing slightly from letter to letter.
I pointed this out and that was that, never heard back.
If you feel you must pay these robber barons, use the costly delay method.
Well in reality, there's not much scope for not paying them. SWMBO got caught when a local supermarket installed Parking Eye and she didn't see the signs (mounted high up, out of eyeline, in a place where a driver's concentration is on not hitting other cars, people, or the landscape !) The notice they sent was comprehensive: dates & times, photos in and out, all the required statutory information, etc, etc. They'll have had all the techniques you mention over the years, so they've developed a legally bulletproof notice.
As as previously mentioned, it's been all the way up to the supreme court, and three judges (London based, probably with significantly higher living standards than the average) decided that £85 was not "unreasonable" - hence any of these scumbags can charge £85 for such a breach of contract and it's all legal.
The best way to avoid having to pay is to take it up with the business owner. In this case, I emailed them and made it quite clear that neither myself nor any of my family would be spending any more of our money with them ever again - and as a result, they'd be losing far more than the parking "fine".
What was most annoying is that they'd been in the cafe (which is actually quite good - normally) for over an hour due to slow service.
Very quickly I got a reply back saying that the charge had been cancelled.
Mind you, I have had some ideas for how to screw around with them - knowing the angle/viewpoint of the cameras ...
Employers can contact the DVLA to check that an employee is entitled to drive (it is an offence if a company allows an employee to drive a vehicle for work without a valid licence). The employer must explain why it is requesting the information and how it will use it. The employee must provide his or her consent for the information to be disclosed so why aren't private parking companies required to get consent to access your personal data that the DVLA hold? Surely now at least with GDPR coming in May the DVLA will have to get your consent before releasing personal data (obviously other than to the Police or Government Department if an offense is suspected).