TfL Behaving Illegally
Discussion
It seems that when you advance pay the London congestion charge TfL ask for details of your vehicle.
They then confirm with DVLA that these details are correct.
Fair enough, you might think. However, under the Data Protection Act this is an illegal act as they cannot request such details until they believe an offence has been committed.
A friend phoned them to pre-pay and a recorded message told him his call was being recorded. He then spoke to a 'real person' who asked for his car details. He gave these and said that he assumed this was checked and the 'real person' confirmed that it was immediately checked with DVLA. My friend now awaits a reply to his letter asking then to explain this breach of the DPA. Very interesting!
Of course, it also seems that if you challenge a penalty from TfL as void under the Bill of Rights they just give up and go away, as such fines are also illegal. One chap has, apparently, had 7 'fines' deleted recently.
They then confirm with DVLA that these details are correct.
Fair enough, you might think. However, under the Data Protection Act this is an illegal act as they cannot request such details until they believe an offence has been committed.
A friend phoned them to pre-pay and a recorded message told him his call was being recorded. He then spoke to a 'real person' who asked for his car details. He gave these and said that he assumed this was checked and the 'real person' confirmed that it was immediately checked with DVLA. My friend now awaits a reply to his letter asking then to explain this breach of the DPA. Very interesting!
Of course, it also seems that if you challenge a penalty from TfL as void under the Bill of Rights they just give up and go away, as such fines are also illegal. One chap has, apparently, had 7 'fines' deleted recently.
cooperman said:
A friend phoned them to pre-pay and a recorded message told him his call was being recorded. He then spoke to a 'real person' who asked for his car details. He gave these and said that he assumed this was checked and the 'real person' confirmed that it was immediately checked with DVLA. My friend now awaits a reply to his letter asking then to explain this breach of the DPA. Very interesting!
Keep me posted. I know a journalist who would LOVE to get this story...
It may well be considered a reasonable cause to use the data to confirm that the registration given is correct.
It is also possible that that TfL was using an anonymised database where only the make/model/colour is available to the operator, so the conversation would be:
TfL: Registration?
Caller: X123 ABC
TfL: Is that a pink Nissan Micra?
Caller: Yes
but not:
TfL: Registration?
Caller: X123 ABC
TfL: Is that a pink Nissan Micra registered to Joe Bloggs?
Caller: Yes
Gareth
It is also possible that that TfL was using an anonymised database where only the make/model/colour is available to the operator, so the conversation would be:
TfL: Registration?
Caller: X123 ABC
TfL: Is that a pink Nissan Micra?
Caller: Yes
but not:
TfL: Registration?
Caller: X123 ABC
TfL: Is that a pink Nissan Micra registered to Joe Bloggs?
Caller: Yes
Gareth
g_attrill said:
It may well be considered a reasonable cause to use the data to confirm that the registration given is correct.
It is also possible that that TfL was using an anonymised database where only the make/model/colour is available to the operator, so the conversation would be:
TfL: Registration?
Caller: X123 ABC
TfL: Is that a pink Nissan Micra?
Caller: Yes
but not:
TfL: Registration?
Caller: X123 ABC
TfL: Is that a pink Nissan Micra registered to Joe Bloggs?
Caller: Yes
Gareth
It is also possible that that TfL was using an anonymised database where only the make/model/colour is available to the operator, so the conversation would be:
TfL: Registration?
Caller: X123 ABC
TfL: Is that a pink Nissan Micra?
Caller: Yes
but not:
TfL: Registration?
Caller: X123 ABC
TfL: Is that a pink Nissan Micra registered to Joe Bloggs?
Caller: Yes
Gareth
Exactly! Not that I'm a friend of CC TfL but in the same way that you put in your VRN to get an on-line insurance quote, and it comes straight back with Make: Model: Colour, Engine type: No of Seats: and so on.
The DPA 1998, S29(3) states: "Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions in any case in which - (a) the disclosure is for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1), and (b) the application of these provisions in relation to the disclosure would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in that subsection."
S29(1) - the subsection referred to - includes: "Prevention or detection of crime".
It's that section that TfL and DVLC will use to justify the disclosure.
Streaky
S29(1) - the subsection referred to - includes: "Prevention or detection of crime".
It's that section that TfL and DVLC will use to justify the disclosure.
Streaky
streaky said:
The DPA 1998, S29(3) states: "Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions in any case in which - (a) the disclosure is for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1), and (b) the application of these provisions in relation to the disclosure would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in that subsection."
S29(1) - the subsection referred to - includes: "Prevention or detection of crime".
It's that section that TfL and DVLC will use to justify the disclosure.
Streaky
S29(1) - the subsection referred to - includes: "Prevention or detection of crime".
It's that section that TfL and DVLC will use to justify the disclosure.
Streaky
But surely crime would mean criminal offense. Kengestion charge isn't criminal...
Sean
On a slightly side note on the mind thought of TFL then they do believe that if you are presented with documentation requesting money and you pay you are admitting guilt.
This is not an urban myth.
My last (hateful) job I was a section manager at a business outsourcing company. I am major client was TFL and my project was centered around TFL red route. Pure shambles in respect of certain parts. Sad to say but my then boss was/is not the nicest person around yet the NCP people were really nice and sound people and I was not dealing with the lower end of the food chain. It was quite refreshing to deal with nice people yet the policy which has come from TFL and not NCP dictated if you got a ticket and you did not research the circumstances correctly then you pay your are admitting guilt.
The TFL people were hard nosed and bullish in their approach yet were so incorrectly ill informed. Now things have changed in that the PA's use PDA's with cameras but when the tickets were hand written... imagine the fun and games my staff and I had!
Once again, I cannot speak high enough of the pleasent and correct way to deal with people that NCP had adopted unlike TFL.
This is not an urban myth.
My last (hateful) job I was a section manager at a business outsourcing company. I am major client was TFL and my project was centered around TFL red route. Pure shambles in respect of certain parts. Sad to say but my then boss was/is not the nicest person around yet the NCP people were really nice and sound people and I was not dealing with the lower end of the food chain. It was quite refreshing to deal with nice people yet the policy which has come from TFL and not NCP dictated if you got a ticket and you did not research the circumstances correctly then you pay your are admitting guilt.
The TFL people were hard nosed and bullish in their approach yet were so incorrectly ill informed. Now things have changed in that the PA's use PDA's with cameras but when the tickets were hand written... imagine the fun and games my staff and I had!
Once again, I cannot speak high enough of the pleasent and correct way to deal with people that NCP had adopted unlike TFL.
I was so hacked off by the DVLA selling info to private companies that my MP is currently in correspondence with them about this very issue. I will keep you all informed.
I would suggest you all use your MP as it overloads the system and if they get enough complaints something will happen. I am sure I know what the DVLA's next response will be and I am ready to counter this. I can see this one being a real pain for them, but I will not let it go!
I would suggest you all use your MP as it overloads the system and if they get enough complaints something will happen. I am sure I know what the DVLA's next response will be and I am ready to counter this. I can see this one being a real pain for them, but I will not let it go!
NugentS said:
streaky said:
The DPA 1998, S29(3) states: "Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions in any case in which - (a) the disclosure is for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1), and (b) the application of these provisions in relation to the disclosure would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in that subsection."
S29(1) - the subsection referred to - includes: "Prevention or detection of crime".
It's that section that TfL and DVLC will use to justify the disclosure.
Streaky
S29(1) - the subsection referred to - includes: "Prevention or detection of crime".
It's that section that TfL and DVLC will use to justify the disclosure.
Streaky
But surely crime would mean criminal offense. Kengestion charge isn't criminal...
Sean
A curious thread bump but why not...and data management possibly with TfL behaving stupidly could be a common theme. Marked O/T so as not to offend purists on a Sunday morning.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11291390/Boriss...
Boris Johnson’s Transport for London (TfL) recently announced that it was planning to install more than 600 new digital speed cameras around the city. TfL claimed that its old film cameras, most of which it closed down three years ago, had reduced fatal or serious accidents by a staggering “58 per cent”, meaning that its new cameras will “help to prevent 500 deaths or serious injuries a year”.
No one was more startled by these claims than Idris Francis, an engineer and reader of this column. For 12 years he had been feeding into his computer huge quantities of data from police sources and TfL itself.
First he tracked back into the late Eighties the number of “KSIs” (killed and seriously injured) recorded at each camera site. This did indeed show a dramatic and steady decline. But he then compiled a graph showing the accident rate for the whole of London, subtracting the data for the sites with cameras. The result was unequivocal. The two graphs, though very slightly apart, showed exactly the same rate of decline. In other words, any evidence that cameras affected the accident rate was virtually nil.
Since July, Mr Francis has been trying to persuade TfL to look at his evidence, which has been checked out by an eminent academic statistician, but to no avail. In the end, TfL refused to answer his messages and seemingly ordered its switchboard not to put through his calls. Equally in vain have been Freedom of Information requests, which have been published on the Whatdotheyknow blog, trying to elicit the cost of this scheme, estimated at more than £20 million. TfL’s repeated reply was that such information cannot be disclosed because it is commercially sensitive.
So Mayor Johnson’s traffic officials have embarked on a scheme that will do little or nothing for road safety; made claims flatly contradicted by their own data; and are refusing to reveal what we will have to pay for it. It sounds like everything we have come to expect from modern government.
We don't mind the gap here as cameras aren't randomly sited, and the key result is that there is no trend gain in the speedcam locations. Good ol' TfL for listening to the voice of reason.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11291390/Boriss...
Boris Johnson’s Transport for London (TfL) recently announced that it was planning to install more than 600 new digital speed cameras around the city. TfL claimed that its old film cameras, most of which it closed down three years ago, had reduced fatal or serious accidents by a staggering “58 per cent”, meaning that its new cameras will “help to prevent 500 deaths or serious injuries a year”.
No one was more startled by these claims than Idris Francis, an engineer and reader of this column. For 12 years he had been feeding into his computer huge quantities of data from police sources and TfL itself.
First he tracked back into the late Eighties the number of “KSIs” (killed and seriously injured) recorded at each camera site. This did indeed show a dramatic and steady decline. But he then compiled a graph showing the accident rate for the whole of London, subtracting the data for the sites with cameras. The result was unequivocal. The two graphs, though very slightly apart, showed exactly the same rate of decline. In other words, any evidence that cameras affected the accident rate was virtually nil.
Since July, Mr Francis has been trying to persuade TfL to look at his evidence, which has been checked out by an eminent academic statistician, but to no avail. In the end, TfL refused to answer his messages and seemingly ordered its switchboard not to put through his calls. Equally in vain have been Freedom of Information requests, which have been published on the Whatdotheyknow blog, trying to elicit the cost of this scheme, estimated at more than £20 million. TfL’s repeated reply was that such information cannot be disclosed because it is commercially sensitive.
So Mayor Johnson’s traffic officials have embarked on a scheme that will do little or nothing for road safety; made claims flatly contradicted by their own data; and are refusing to reveal what we will have to pay for it. It sounds like everything we have come to expect from modern government.
We don't mind the gap here as cameras aren't randomly sited, and the key result is that there is no trend gain in the speedcam locations. Good ol' TfL for listening to the voice of reason.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff