DVLA

Page 1 | 2 | 3
 

The DVLA is selling drivers’ names and addresses to clamping companies that break industry rules by charging drivers more than £500 for minor parking breaches. The agency made more than £4 million last year by selling the details of 1.6 million drivers. It sold 900 names and addresses to Newline Securities and Parking Control Management, both of which have repeatedly double-charged drivers for parking breaches and inflated bills by adding spurious charges. Newline left a family stranded overnight after seizing a car and refusing to allow the owner to retrieve his house keys.

PCM charged an elderly couple £375 after they parked for 30 minutes outside a boarded-up office. The agency has continued to sell drivers’ details to the companies despite being aware of their behaviour. This contradicts the agency’s claim that it carefully vets companies seeking access to the vehicle register. The agency also claims that it denies access to companies that have breached the industry code on parking enforcement. Parking companies seek drivers’ names and addresses when they have been unable to clamp a vehicle.

They use closed-circuit television to read numberplates and, having obtained the owner’s details from the DVLA, send demands for payment in the post. If the driver fails to pay, the companies multiply the charge and send debt collectors to people’s homes. There is no right of appeal to an independent body, as there is for parking fines incurred on the public highway. The DVLA offers parking companies two ways of obtaining drivers’ details: they can either apply manually for each individual address or be granted automatic access via an electronic link to the entire register.

The DVLA claims that there are safeguards covering each approach. Companies seeking automatic access must sign up to the British Parking Association’s (BPA) self-governing industry code. Usage of the automatic route has doubled in the past five years, with companies obtaining names and addresses of 1.37 million drivers this way in the year to the end of March. With manual applications, the companies merely have to show that they have a contract to enforce parking on private land. The DVLA admits the manual approach is open to abuse and is proposing to require all applicants, by either route, to be BPA members.

However, there is evidence that the BPA fails to enforce its code and ignores evidence of breaches by its members, including Newline and PCM. The owner of PCM, David Blake, sits on the BPA panel, which is supposed to ensure fair treatment for drivers. Newline charged Panos Eliades £532 to retrieve his car after he parked on a private road in North London. Newline charged separate fees for clamping and removal, even though the BPA code states that only one fee can be imposed if the car is removed within three hours of being clamped.

The BPA has admitted that PCM and Newline breached its code but it is refusing to suspend or expel either company. The DVLA states on its website that “failure to comply with the BPA code could result in suspension and expulsion, and mean that they could no longer apply for information from the DVLA vehicle record”. A DVLA spokesman said, “We encourage anyone who believes their data has been misused to report it through our complaints procedure to inform our handling of future queries. We keep our processes under constant review to ensure they remain robust.” (Source: Times Online, Jun/09)

The DVLA’s off-road notification system is a shambles, legally unenforceable and administrative chaos. Two recent court cases suggest that the DVLA has been acting unlawfully and does not have the powers it thinks it has when it comes to pushing motorists around. First was a case heard in Clerkenwell District Court in October 2009. The DVLA was seeking a judgment against James Collins, on the grounds that he had failed to notify it when took his vehicle off the road (SORN). Mr Collins told the court that he had notified them, and it was not his fault if the DVLA had lost his details.

To the surprise of several people present, not least the DVLA, the judge accepted this argument and, according to Mr Collins, agreed that he only had to send details back to the DVLA. He did not have to send his documents by recorded delivery: he did not even have to obtain proof of posting. This is less surprising than it first seems: if members of the public were legally required to send documents by secure means every time they communicated with an organisation, then the same requirement would almost certainly apply to those organisations, adding immensely to their postage bills and making simple debt collection infinitely more costly.

It did not help the DVLA’s case that Mr Collins had been doing a bit of research. From earlier correspondence, he was able to demonstrate that the DVLA was capable of losing post in its internal mail, although it had no idea of how much post it lost. He then used a Freedom of Information request to establish that the DVLA did not actually log what communications were sent out to individuals. Instead, it relied on a cumbersome "aggregate matching procedure" which has been described by one communications expert as insufficient to "prove" who is sent what, and it destroys even these records after just three months anyway.

The second case features Duncan Peck, who also fell out with the DVLA over the matter of a lost SORN. In Horsham County Court last month, Mr Peck explained that he had sent back his notice in compliance with the law. The DVLA first claimed that he hadn’t: then that he had done so late. Besides, even if it had lost it, he should have phoned it when they failed to send him an acknowledgement. In this, it was relying on the small print on the relevant forms (V11 and V890) which stated that if do not receive an acknowledgement letter within four weeks, you need to ring.

Once more, according to Mr Peck, a judge begged to differ. In his view, the DVLA have no statutory power requiring anyone to ring them, or otherwise respond, should they not receive an acknowledgment letter. This could turn out to be a serious blow for an organisation which has the until recently covered up its own inadequacies with a mixture of bluster and bluff, claiming legal powers it does not have, and being quick to send in the bailiffs should anyone dare to cross it. The evidence from both Collins and Peck is that the DVLA does lose mail internally.

Despite a claim that it "never loses mail", allegedly made by an individual working in the office of the DVLA’s chief executive, the fact that it does, and that they do not have a clue how much it loses, was confirmed in yet another Freedom of Information request made by Mr Peck. They make mistakes, as exemplified by the case of Lois Mallon, in September 2009, before Teesside Magistrates’ Court. She was found not guilty of failing to notify a change of keeper in respect. However, the DVLA had insisted on prosecuting Ms Mallon despite her producing letters in court showing she had notified the DVLA when she sold her Peugeot 107 in January 2009.

It is quick to apply pressure. Mr Collins and Mr Peck both complain about intervention from debt collection agencies while their complaints were supposedly under investigation. In one case, the agency used by the DVLA was itself under investigation for unlawful conduct, but it took another FoI request before the DVLA would admit to this. The DVLA has no internal review process, and while there is scope for complaints to be referred to an independent assessor, whether or not this happens is up to the Chief Executive. It is thus judge and jury in its own cause.

If the courts applied the letter of the law, the body that looks after our vehicle registrations could find itself millions of pounds out of pocket. One estimate suggests that the figure collected by way of SORN penalty notices is in excess of £10m per year. Luckily, however, as has been demonstrated in a series of recent high-profile cases, the fact that something is unlawful is no reason for government to stop doing it, and that is pretty much the story in this case. When questions have been asked previously about the DVLA’s conduct, they have been slow to provide a legal justification, relying mostly on the argument that they "would not" breach the law, so obviously they have not.

A spokesman for the DVLA said, "The DVLA does not impose any requirements for customers to obtain proof of posting or use recorded delivery in their dealings with us. However, and this is a key point, the onus is on the customer to ensure their off-road notification is delivered to DVLA. With reference to non-receipt of acknowledgement letters by customers, there is no legal obligation on the customer to contact DVLA if they do not receive their acknowledgement letter. However, and another key point, we do advise customers to contact us if this happens so that we can confirm if their notification has been delivered to us or advise them otherwise how to comply".

This appears to contradict the result of the judge's ruling in the case of Mr Collins. Again, there appears to be some discrepancy here between the official line and the argument initially put forward in the case of Mr Peck. The DVLA declined to respond to questions about its ability to audit or track mail internally, or to confirm that it does lose mail internally. This is at the heart of criticism levelled by Paul Watters, Head of Public Affairs at the AA. He said, "I personally don't think a coach and horses has been driven through late tax/SORN penalties but I agree there are weaknesses. Any system that relies on the post is dependent on it being sent and received."

He added, "We have highlighted this weakness on many occasions in particular with civil parking and traffic offences. Missing one piece of important paper can result in bailiffs at the door step. We believe that when penalty notice offence amounts escalate through non-payment the letters should be recorded, this would add to the cost but this could be covered by the well-heeled parking/traffic authorities who make big bucks from PCNs. We have called for there to be an open, independent and transparent appeal system for DVLA enforcement. We say that staying compliant should be made really easy and there should be tolerance of small mistakes. If the authorities lose sight of this they will also lose the support of motorists." (Source: The Register, May/10)

<<< Prev