4 Managing and sharing data
Sharing
vehicle keeper data with parking enforcement companies
34. Parking charge notices are issued to motorists
who have been deemed to be parked illegally on private land. Parking
enforcement on private land is unregulated and relies on the laws
of contract and trespass. Since this Committee's predecessors
looked at private parking enforcement in the 2005 Parliament the
situation has improved but remains a concern to many people. Then
many of the concerns were about enforcement targets and incentives,
and clamping on private land. Our predecessors supported the release
of data from the DVLA's register of vehicle keepers provided "
the public are properly protected from abuse of this information,
and that any loopholes allowing unscrupulous parking enforcement
activity will be closed."[87]
We found that the situation had improved markedly by 2013-14;
clamping on private land had been made illegal and there were
fewer reports of aggressive enforcement.[88]
Some concerns do remain, however, with NoToMob, a campaign and
direct action group, suggesting that "rogue clampers [had
been] reincarnated as rogue ticketers", and reporting that
a story of a private parking company "pursuing a completely
uncaring and relentless approach with a view to maximising its
profits" occurred on an almost daily basis.[89]
35. Private parking enforcement companies can obtain
information from the DVLA about registered vehicle keepers upon
payment of a £2.50 charge. This enables the companies to
pursue vehicle keepers for the enforcement of parking restrictions
on private land. The release of vehicle keeper data is specifically
permitted by the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations
2002 for those showing 'reasonable cause' to receive it and who
are members of an Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) run by an Accredited
Trade Association (ATA)in this case the British Parking
Association (BPA).[90]
'Reasonable cause' takes precedence over the Data Protection Act
1998. The DVLA defines 'reasonable cause' in this way:
reasonable cause for the release of data
from the DVLA vehicle register relates to motoring incidents with
driver or keeper liability. These can include matters of road
safety, events occurring as a consequence of vehicle use, the
enforcement of road traffic legislation and the collection of
taxes.[91]
36. The DVLA told us that vehicle keepers were often
unaware of the legitimacy of the release of data from the DVLA
vehicle register. It said:
It is probably one of the biggest areas of complaints
in terms of people not entirely understanding why we are providing
the data [
] and ensuring that the right controls are in
place so that that data are used properly.[92]
37. Stephen Hammond explained the framework thus:
There is a licensing and framework arrangement
for data to be provided to car parking companies, but those car
parking companies must be licensed either by their trade association
or the local authority. The Government have therefore set up a
framework such that this is properly monitored. Where there are
breaches of that, the company is suspended from receiving that
data, or local authorities are suspended from licensing those
companies.[93]
38. The DVLA said its approach balanced the need
to treat motorists fairly with a landowners' desire to protect
their legal rights and ensure that parking facilities remain available
for legitimate users.[94]
It audits its data customers on a three-year rolling programme,
supplemented by a programme of 'site visit' audits that see every
company visited at least once every two years. Targeted audits
are used where intelligence suggests an audit outside the rolling
programme is warranted. In 2013 22 private parking companies and
one local authority were suspended from requesting DVLA data due
to anomalies in their parking related enforcement.[95]
39. Our survey found the release of keeper details
to private parking enforcement companies remain a concern to motorists
because:
· they
do not trust private parking companies;
· parking companies
are perceived as failing to act fairly or responsibly; and
· parking companies
are suspected of actions that would breach the British Parking
Association (BPA) code of practice that prevents companies from
passing vehicle keeper information on to third parties.
40. Both the British Parking Association (BPA) and
NoToMob expressed concern about the release of vehicle keeper
details.[96] NoToMob
argued that a sensible and proportionate approach would be to
target persistent offenders and for the decision on whether to
proceed with any type of enforcement to rest with landowners and
leaseholders rather than with private parking companies.[97]
Ranger Services told us that there were better ways for private
parking companies to target persistent and repeat offenders but
the DVLA's insistence on repeat searches for each offence meant
that cost of an alternative approach made it impractical for their
customers.[98] They said
charges for repeat disclosure could be avoided through access
to another DVLA databases (used by HPI and major insurance companies,
and which provides information on make, model and colour of vehicle
and the date of the last registered keeper change/update). This
would enable private parking companies to check whether there
has been a change of ownership since the first violation for which
they held registered keeper details. With no change of ownership
the first search could form the basis for starting or continuing
enforcement action, including the issuing of penalty charge notices
without incurring the cost of a second search of the vehicle keeper
database.[99]
41. The AA recognised that the DVLA has a duty to
give this information but noted the current system depended on
the confidence the DVLA placed on trade associations to ensure
compliance with codes of practice.[100]
It thought more needed to be done to reassure the public that
private parking penalties were not a scam and that the release
of vehicle keeper details was justified.[101]
The AA argued for an alternative system where the DVLA informed
a vehicle keeper when an inquiry was made by a private parking
enforcement company. This would be more costly but the additional
costs could be recovered by raising the fee charged to parking
companies. This would allow the DVLA to tell the vehicle keeper
that it is legally obliged to give their details to the named
parking enforcement company, and inform them of their legal rights.[102]
42. We acknowledge that the Government has made progress
on private parking companies but while the system is better there
is still much to done to explain this to the public. Protecting
personal data is an issue that people feel strongly about and
the DVLA needs do more to explain to the public the legal basis
for its sharing of personal data and the steps that are being
taken to deal with private parking companies and local authorities
caught misusing parking data; the Government needs to ensure there
is more transparency and better accountability on this issue.
We recommend that the DVLA and Department for Transport consider
whether each vehicle keeper should be told when their data is
released and what more can be done to help target persistent repeat
offenders. The Government needs to be mindful of the costs of
any changes and we would expect it to consult widely on any proposals
it brings forward, including how the costs of any such scheme
could be met.
43. There are widely-held concerns that the DVLA
profits from the sale of the data it holds on drivers.[103]
The Government's motoring agencies set their fees at a level that
will cover their costs (the VCA is required to make a small operating
surplus).[104] The
DVLA told us it is currently making a loss from charging for the
provision of information to parking companies. It charges £2.50
for each enquiry. It costs the DVLA £2.84 to process each
request.[105] The difference
between income and cost for this service last year was a shortfall
of around £700,000, which represents 0.1% of the DVLA's total
costs. The DVLA should not subsidise private parking companies
by providing data at a loss, if anything it should err on the
side of making a small surplus. As it reviews its fees
and income, the DVLA should consider whether efficiencies can
be made to reduce the cost of processing these requests. If not,
the DVLA should adjust the fee for the provision of personal data
to ensure costs are covered. The DVLA should make clear on its
website how the costs are calculated. It should also consider
whether the enhanced provision of information to drivers, as recommended
above, could be financed through the fee.
Sharing data more widely
44. The motoring agencies already share data with
a number of different companies and enforcement bodies. As new
services are made available online and new applications and datasets
are developed the potential for sharing data and the number of
potential consumers of the data will grow. It is important that
the Government and the motoring agencies recognise opportunities
to share data and design systems with interoperability in mind
but this may not be happening. For example, the Freight Transport
Association told us it was concerned that the DVLA systems should
not be designed in a way that prevents them at a later stage sharing
data with DVSA systems, systems in the Office of the Transport
Commissioner or indeed any other systems.[106]
POLICY CHANGES THAT INCREASE RELIANCE
ON THE QUALITY, ACCURACY AND EFFECTIVE SHARING OF DATA
45. The Government plans to abolish the tax disc
and has proposed scrapping the counterpart driving licence (the
paper document containing information which supplements the plastic
licence). These kinds of policy change will increase reliance
on the timely, accurate and effective sharing of data.
46. The AA said a poll in December 2013 found that
47% of those surveyed said that not having a tax disc visible
in the windscreen may lead to them forgetting to renew it, placing
a considerable number of drivers at risk of the DVLA's late tax
penalty of £80.[107]
Unless data is shared effectively it may also make it harder to
identify untaxed vehicles.
47. John Lepine told us that without the counterpart
licence it would be difficult to know if a person attending a
speed awareness or red traffic light course was legally allowed
to drive without phoning a premium rate DVLA phone number to make
sure they did not have a short period disqualification.[108]
In the vehicle rental and leasing sector, before handing over
the key to a motor vehicle, a business needs to be satisfied that
the individual it is leasing or renting to has a valid driving
licence. Without the counterpart there needs to be a way to check
such information online at any time.[109]
TfL told us many employers were not adequately managing driver
risk ratings, as they carry out unreliable manual driving licence
checks, which are not regularly verified by the DVLA.[110]
TfL argued for a cost effective and direct service for employers
to validate and check the driving licences of their employees,
recommending that the DVLA would provide a similar service for
driving licences to that that the police have to use vehicles
registration numbers to access vehicle ownership and insurance
databases. This would also enable the use of in-car scanners to
read driving licences for comparison to the vehicle (and type)
being driven.[111]
Other businesses need to check what courses, like the driver CPC,
someone has taken before employing them as a driver.[112]
48. Interoperability of systems and the ability
to share data with other agencies needs to be given a high priority
by all the motoring agencies. The motoring agencies should think
carefully about what data their users need, how this can be shared
effectively and what safeguards need to be in place. They should
assess policy changes to understand what impact they may have
on data sharing. The need to share and exchange data needs to
be balanced with the protection of personal data.
WORKING WITH ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
49. Various enforcement agencies use the motoring
agencies databases, and effective enforcement of a number of regulations
requires timely access to accurate information in these databases.
Leon Daniels, Managing Director, Surface Transport, TfL, told
us that "the gathering of intelligence and sharing of data
between the agencies is not perfect".[113]
50. The DVSA works with the police, traffic commissioners
and highway authorities to enforce the standards it sets for vehicles
and drivers. Our Report into the work of VOSA (now part of the
DVSA) called on VOSA to take steps to improve its relationships
with the police and Traffic Commissioners.[114]
We recognised the value of VOSA's intelligence-led system for
targeting operators for checks, based around its Operator Compliance
Risk Score (OCRS), but were concerned that undue reliance on it
could have a distorting effect, risking that larger operators
would not be monitored effectively.[115]
We were keen to hear what changes there had been since our 2013
inquiry. Beverley Bell, Senior Traffic Commissioner, remained
sceptical about the value of the OCRS as a tool for the DVSA.[116]
She suggested that intelligence about poorly-managed lorry, bus
and coach operators was already available to local agencies and
that providing resources for "boots on the ground" inspections
of individual operators was essential.[117]
TfL highlighted the success of collaborative intelligence-led
enforcement exercises but expressed concern that pressure on DVSA's
budgets could have a negative effect on such enforcement operations.[118]
Leon Daniels said that without timely and accurate sharing of
information OCRS scores might not reflect the correct number of
clear checks.[119]
TfL said this was unfair on compliant operators, as clear stops
by the police (when a vehicle passes an inspection without any
problems) are generally not communicated to the DVSA and do not
therefore result in a positive revision of the Operator Compliance
Risk Score (OCRS).[120]
Accurate and timely sharing of data could change an operator's
likelihood of being stopped in future and DVLA and police resources
could then be targeted on operators with a poorer record.[121]
51. Several witnesses voiced a number of concerns
about the DVSA's approach to foreign hauliers. Adrian Jones reported
concerns from members of Unite the Union that foreign vehicles
were not maintained to as high a standard as UK vehicles.[122]
The Freight Transport Association argued that the DVSA failed
to target poor compliance among operators of foreign vehicles;
meaning that only a random selection faced roadside checks.[123]
When a foreign vehicle did face a roadside check and failed, we
heard anecdotal evidence that the DVSA failed to pursue the foreign
hauliers to receive the fixed penalties due.[124]
The then Minister was confident that the DVSA's budget was sufficient
for it to enforce driver and vehicle standards over both domestic
and foreign operators in the UK and stated that the Agency "absolutely
enforce against foreign drivers".[125]
52. The AA recommended the DVSA and the Metropolitan
Police Service (MPS) should work together to link computer systems
and develop shared databases.[126]
TfL wanted better controls over the quality and accuracy of data
provided by the DVLA as it would reduce their costs incurred and
avoid the situation where people received penalty charge notices
in relation to vehicles that they no longer owned.[127]
53. Timely access to accurate data is important for
effective enforcement. Offenders need to be caught and dangerous
vehicles must be removed from the road network. An intelligence-led
approach to enforcement that targets the most serious non-compliance
and the repeat offenders depends on access to and the effective
sharing of data. We view this as essential to reduce the likelihood
of traffic accidents and save lives. The Department should
drive forward a culture change in the approach to sharing data
between the motoring agencies and their enforcement partners and
should identify the steps that need to be taken to ensure data
is accurate and can be shared in a timely way to support the work
of the agencies and enforcement bodies.
87 Transport Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2005-06,
Parking Policy and Enforcement, HC748, paragraph 301 Back
88
Transport Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2013-14, Local Authority parking enforcement,
HC118 Back
89
NoToMob (GMA0023) Back
90
Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2742) Back
91
DVLA, Release of information from DVLA's registers, October
2010, p.3 Back
92
Q126 Back
93
Q177 Back
94
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (GMA0026) Back
95
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (GMA0026) Back
96
British Parking Association (GMA0022) and NoToMob (GMA0023) Back
97
NoToMob (GMA0023) Back
98
Ranger Services (GMA0001) Back
99
Ranger Services (GMA0001) Back
100
Automobile Association (GMA0006), para 3.9 Back
101
Automobile Association (GMA0006) Back
102
Automobile Association (GMA0006) Back
103
"DVLA made £10m by selling on millions of drivers' names and addresses to parking and clamping firms",
Daily Mail, 15 April 2013 Back
104
Department for Transport (GMA0010) Back
105
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (GMA0026) Back
106
Q13 [Karen Dee] Back
107
Automobile Association (GMA0006) Back
108
Q40 Back
109
Q51 Back
110
Transport for London (GMA0017) Back
111
Transport for London (GMA0017) Back
112
Q76 Back
113
Q90 Back
114
Transport Committee, Third Report of Session 2013-14, The work of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA),
HC 583, para 36 Back
115
Transport Committee, Third Report of Session 2013-14, The work of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA),
HC 583, paras 29-31 Back
116
Q93 Back
117
Q93 Back
118
Q87 Back
119
Q90 Back
120
Transport for London (GMA0017) Back
121
Q90 Back
122
Q16 Back
123
Q19 Back
124
Q16, Q17 and Q19 Back
125
Q184 Back
126
Automobile Association (GMA0006) Back
127
Transport for London (GMA0017) Back
|