12. To help put this complaint, and our decision, in context, it may help to say more about DVLA’s role in matters such as this one.
13. DVLA is an executive agency of the Department of Transport. Its role is to maintain the registration and licensing details of vehicles in the UK.
14. As one of its roles, DVLA operate a contractual system, known as Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE), which allows approved private parking companies (PPCs) to electronically request details of a vehicle registered keeper from the DVLA, when a parking incident occurs. A PPC must be a member of an Accredited Trade Association (ATA - an industry body approved by the DVLA to regulate PPCs) before the DVLA will release vehicle keeper data to them.
15. Under a KADOE contract, the PPC must meet strict legal, security and data protection requirements and may only request information from DVLA for a specific ‘reasonable cause’ such as enforcing parking terms and conditions.
16. PPCs who request information from the vehicle record via an electronic link are not required to provide supporting evidence with each application, although the evidence must be collected and stored for future DVLA audits.
17. We should begin by saying we cannot take a view on whether DVLA acted lawfully when releasing Mr X’s data. Only a court can do that. Our role has been to look at whether DVLA acted reasonably and in line with its administrative responsibilities. This is keeping with our Principles of Good Administration – getting it right – under which we expect organisations to act according to their duties.
18. There is no doubt that the Parking Company made an error when it made the request to DVLA. However, we have seen nothing to suggest DVLA had any reason to suspect this. As a result, DVLA had no reason to withhold the information in response to what was, to all intents and purposes, a standard request. In doing so, it was acting in line with its role and our Principles.
19. We have noted Mr X’s contention that the Parking Company did not have ‘reasonable cause’ to make the request (because, as was later shown, he was not the registered keeper of the vehicle in question). However, this is something that has been established with hindsight and, as we had said, we have seen nothing to suggest DVLA could or should have been aware of this at the time.
20. We have no doubt what happened was a cause of considerable frustration to Mr X. We understand the distress this situation caused Mr X and his wife, particularly as they were both unwell with flu at the time, and we recognise the stress, disruption and impact on their private life. We would suggest that he may wish to address the matter with the Parking Company directly, if he has not already done so.
21. If Mr X believes DVLA acted unlawfully by releasing the information, he may wish to bring his concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO -the UK's independent authority responsible for ensuring that organisations handle personal data lawfully, fairly and securely). Alternatively, he may wish to seek independent legal advice on how he may be able to pursue the matter through the court system. We cannot help with either of these routes.
22. After consideration, we have decided to take no further action on Mr X’s complaint. This is because we have seen no indication of maladministration by DVLA.
23. We were sorry to learn of the circumstances which led to Mr X’s complaint. We hope this statement explains the reasons why we will not be considering the complaint further. We thank Mr X for bringing his concerns to our attention.