Friday, 12 June 2015

Duff's arguments found to be duff. Proserve must join an ATA to get keeper data

The judgment in the case of Duff v DVLA has now been handed down, and is available here.

In a nutshell, the judge found that the DVLA had ample reason to require Proserve to join an ATA, and brought attention to his previous failings in signage, charge level and access to independent appeals services.
I agree with the Deputy High Court Judge who refused permission on the papers, prior to its grant at an oral hearing. She observed that this claim for judicial review is really a merits challenge to the decision rather than a true public law claim. The claimant does not agree that he should be subject to a requirement that he should join an ATA if he wishes to be able to access large amounts of data from the register in order that he can profit by recovering sums of money from the keepers or drivers of vehicles which have trespassed on his clients' land. He is no doubt entitled to that view. However, the Secretary of State took a different view and his decision is plainly not irrational and there is no other arguable basis for quashing it.
Full costs were awarded against Duff.

In light of the above The Prankster expects the DVLA to stop providing data to other companies such as ACE Securities and ANPR Ltd who also operate car parking enforcement without belonging to an ATA.


The Prankster
Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. DVLA comment last week

    "It is DVLA’s policy that companies like Ace Security, who pursue motorists for alleged trespass damages using DVLA data, should be a member of an ATA. Such membership would ensure that a code of practice was followed that contained requirements on matters such as signage, charges and access to an independent appeals service.

    However, I must advise that DVLA’s policy in relation to requiring companies such as Ace Security to join an appropriate ATA is currently subject to a Judicial Review.

    Until the Judicial Review has been concluded, DVLA is unable to insist that companies that issue charge notices for alleged trespass on private land join an appropriate ATA. Therefore the Agency must continue to consider requests for data pending the outcome of the Court hearing.

    I can confirm that a manual request was made by Pace Recovery & Storage Ltd trading as Ace Security on the x xxx for an alleged trespass incident on the xx xxxx 2015 at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    As there is a legal gateway for the release of information from the DVLA vehicle register disclosure in these circumstances does not breach the Data Protection Act and the Information Commissioner’s Office is fully aware that data held on the DVLA’s records is released in this way. I should clarify the membership of an ATA does not itself satisfy the requirement to demonstrate reasonable cause. The requirement is a further safeguard, additional to the need for reasonable cause to be demonstrated to support the provisions of vehicle keeper information."

    door now shut!!

    until they find a new way of getting £2.50 a pop

  2. Ah well, just join an ATA then ignore the CoP. Works for everyone else.

    1. Exactly. I'm sure the scamsters at the IPC are happily awaiting the scum like Proserve, Ace and ANPR Ltd. And with a guaranteed win at the "independent appeals stage", what's not to like? :)

    2. Unfortunately for ANPR Ltd there will be a period of time in the wilderness as the sanction points that got them kicked out of the BPA Ltd are carried over to the IPC (at the insistence of the DVLA). So until those sanction points expire next April they cannot join any parking/trespass enforcement ATA.

  3. however I have been informed that the IPC have declined the application from ANPR Ltd