There was a recent case of a stolen dog that was microchipped. The original owner was contacted by the microchip organisation and asked to confirm if he wanted to change his address. Apparently, the "new owner" had asked for a transfer of ownership. The original owner asked for details of the applicant but this was refused due to the Data Protection Act.
Why then, is the DVLA providing personal details to non-statutory bodies such as wheel clampers? Surely this must contravene the DPA?
|
No the DPA is not being contravened. See guidance below from the information commissioner.
www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/dvla.aspx
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 25 Sep 10 at 11:08
|
The relevant extract from Bromptonaut's link:
"Examples of reasonable causes for obtaining the information:
"To trace keepers who have parked on private land without paying the parking charges."
Show 'reasonable cause' and the keeper's details are yours - for a fee.
|
|
How does this relate to foreign cities getting details of the drivers of hire cars to chase up alleged violations of say, Italian Cities restricted traffic zones? Is this legal and do they pay to get the information? It wouldn't surprise me to hear that it wan't legal or was a bit boderline but they do it anway as it earns a bit of money
|
>> How does this relate to foreign cities getting details of the drivers of hire cars
>> to chase up alleged violations of say, Italian Cities restricted traffic zones? Is this legal
>> and do they pay to get the information?
With hire cars, the hire company provide the renters name and address to said city. This is explicitly noted in your rental agreement that you sign.
|
|
It's interesting that tracing the owner of a car parked on private land is a justifiable reason, but tracing someone possibly guilty of theft is not.
|
...but tracing someone possibly guilty of theft is not...
Detection of crime is reasonable cause.
Quoting from the link:
"The Data Protection Act allows personal information to be released on a case by case basis, when, if the information was withheld, it would be likely to stop or delay preventing or detecting crime or prosecuting offenders."
|
>> It's interesting that tracing the owner of a car parked on private land is a
>> justifiable reason, but tracing someone possibly guilty of theft is not.
If the same agency were giving those contradictory answers then there might be a case to answer. The DVLA, as a public authority has spelled out in reasonably clear terms the reasonable ways in which it will process data. In a lot of organisations staff training on data protection is to stonewall all queries with the inference that the DPA makes it illegal to disclose any data; even with a power of attorney or a court order getting information can be like pulling teeth.
Would the organisation registering the chipped dogs release information to the police?
|
DVLA And Data Protection Act - Bromptonaut
