Ok, I'm just working on a few ideas at the moment so it may be a bit fuddled.
Basically, if I'm right then a PCN can be treated similar to a County Court Order:
London Local Authorities Act 2007
Part 4 Penalty Charges
64 Enforcement of penalty charges
(1)The Lord Chancellor may make regulations for or in connection with the enforcement of penalty charges.
(2)The regulations may include provision—
(a)creating criminal offences to be triable summarily and punishable with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or such lower amount as may be specified;
(b)for amounts payable under or by virtue of any provision of this Part to be recoverable, if a county court so orders, as if they were payable under a county court order.[/b]
More importantly, the only section I can see that would allow a council to apply for your details is under Section 15 Court/Individual/Company/Organisation DVLA document MIS546(?)
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_193598.pdfWhich requires the applicant to show a court order as evidence. So treating the PCN as a form of court order, being generous, was that provided to the DVLA. Does the DVLA hold details of PCNs on their system as proof that the correct procedures were taken in accordance with the Data Protection Act?
I'm open to the idea that there may be other acts which would give a stronger automatic right to the council to get your details, having seen this in an amendment bill for the London Local Authorities Bill
''Clause 4 provides London borough councils, authorised officers of London borough
councils, community support officers and accredited persons with powers to require
a person on whom they intend to serve a penalty charge notice to give them his name
and address, in cases where a penalty charge notice is to be served under section 61
of the London Local Authorities Act 2007. If the requirement is made in person by an
authorised officer of a council, then he must show proof of his authorisation. It is an
offence to fail to give a name and address or to give a false or inaccurate name or
address in response to a requirement under Clause 4.''(
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmprbill/lla/210411/210411.pdf)
But I still think they would have to show appropriate evidence and for it to have actually been looked at.
I realise my case is a bit unique, but the council have confirmed that they requested the details from the DVLA at the start of the process and that their appointed debt collection agencies made numerous requests, even after they had removed my vehicle (this was them rechecking to make sure they had further evidence as my complaint progresses). So what is the justification for allowing more than say 2 checks for the same reason by the same organisation or its agents?
Also if you consider the practice of bailiffs taking people's cars, because they're an easy way to get people to pay if they continue to fight or are having debt difficulties, then what justification do the DVLA have in selling details of the
registered keeper to bailiffs? This isn't to identify who was driving or who is responsible for the vehicle, so how can it be legal?
Basically look at all the categories of people who can apply to look at your information and wonder how many provided the required proof, and if they did, is it now on you DVLA file?
My thoughts for the moment on it, but maybe it is flawed or other can see a different angle.
