Another drafting blunder by the Department for Transport leads to breaches of the Data Protection Act

... another iceberg spotted.

It was mentioned at the time that the Traffic Management Act 2004 had been ill-conceived and there had been little proper consultation. The Operational Guidance similarly had been pulled together in a rush and dropped on local authorities toes just weeks before the legislation came into effect.

Now we can reveal a major blunder by the draftsmen which has compromised local authorities who may now have breached the Data Protection Act by acquiring data from the DVLA to which they weren't entitled and the DVLA for releasing data which they weren't entitled to release.

The 'Current' and 'Proposed' content can be seen below ...


The issue is quite simple.

When a PCN is issued there is a period of 28 days which MUST expire before a Notice to Owner can be issued.

The current drafting gives councils an illegal 'head start' on acquiring keeper details, in conflict with the legislation.

• The PCN, if attached to a vehicle, can be removed by the driver who may or may not be the registered keeper and who may decide to pay within the 28 days … perhaps to avoid the Registered Keeper being aware.


• However, in law the Notice to Owner (and therefore the keeper details) CANNOT be requested until after the 28 day period has expired because the law does not permit a Notice to Owner to be issued before then. The Guidance is in conflict with the law.
  
• Because the Registered Keeper is responsible in law any attempt to acquire such details prior to the 28 days will constitute procedural impropriety.

The Guidance gives local authorities a ‘head start’ but this creates a breach of the Data Protection Act because the keeper may be provided details of the movements of the driver of the vehicle. This ‘sharing’ of data will constitute an offence. I am sure the ICO will wish to comment on the implications under DPA

BUT
the big blunder is the fact that any local authority who has acquired the data early will be guilty and the PCN will have to be cancelled AND, for those who have paid, monies refunded.

A simple FoI will reveal the extent but I would anticipate that the majority of councils would have done it and with £1.3bn PCNs a year this will run into tens if not hundreds of £millions.

Perhaps this new Government will consider a shake-up of the Department responsible for yet another shambles. Quite clearly Captain Smith has not been control of this ship as another iceberg approaches.
The same draftsmen seem to have forgotten that at Annex E in the same guidance they remind local authorities to comply with TSRGD 2002 AND that CPZs should be no bigger than a dozen streets!

The leaked document is shown below in full ...

PATAS puts TPT to shame ...

The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) is behaving in a correct and proper fashion when it comes to applying the law.

In this case a decision (left) involving an incorrectly marked bay sees the appeal allowed. The decision is so important (and recent) that I have decided to publish it in order for others to use it in defences against similarly, incorrectly and illegally marked restrictions.

Many readers of this blog and parking ticket appellants will have been frustrated by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal's (for appeals against outside of London authorities) attempts to 'dumb down' and subvert the legislation by attempting apply a concept that the law was merely 'a guide' and that a sign, any sign was good enough if 'no reasonable person could be misled.'


PATAS adjudicators appear to be distancing themselves from this 'offensive' stance which implies partiality towards the local authorities.

This is not how the law or the Operational Guidance to Local Authorities was written. The extracts below from the Operational Guidance is explicit ... and shames many decisions by TPT adjudicators. What, or more importantly who are TPT trying to protect?

Has TPT's adjudicators attempts to 'dumb down' the legislation been deliberate to assist local authorities?

Has TPT been aware that many local authorities have misled the Secretary of State into granting Civil Parking Enforcement powers by claiming that ALL their lines and signs comply with TSRGD 2002 and as such, if proven that was the case, the local authorities could have their CPE powers removed thereby affecting TPT's income stream (they are remunerated solely from PCN revenue at the rate of 60p per PCN)?

Is TPT worried that by applying signing law strictly as is required it could affect the decision of adjudicator Andrew Keenan which currently finds itself before the High Court?

Is the Department for Transport worried that they have attempted to support illegal signing and TRO activity by local authorities by failing to investigate complaints and, as such may be subject to criminal complaints?

As a criminal investigation is launched into Sunderland City Council's parking department one has to ask 'How much did the DfT know? Why, when they were aware that Sunderland was acting illegally did they fail to act?'

Let us hope the criminal investigation leaves no stone unturned, especially when interviewing the DfT and GONE officials whose emails referred to 'fraud' and 'illegal.'

Annex E (above) makes interesting reading, especially E5. Sunderland's CPZ ... the subject of the Judicial Review, covers the whole of the City Centre and is over a mile in diameter with hundreds of streets. Seems to be at odds with what is written in the legislation ... but they always knew that.

Perhaps questions need to be asked also as to why ALL the Senior Officers involved in Sunderland are no longer in post and the final one has opted for early retirement, leaving in September.