Question for our Dave
 

In message ,
polygonum_on_google writes
On Monday, 3 February 2020 11:41:48 UTC, Tim Lamb wrote:

Similar mild annoyance that Swansea will not identify the owner of an
illegally parked vehicle to the obstructed landowner.


AIUI, Swansea does not record the owner - just the keeper.

(Yes, your argument is much the same. But issues like HP or contract
vehicles could raise more issues.)

They won't tell me the keeper either:-) The Police are disinterested
and advise the risk of prosecution if you suggest moving it, (twoccing).
The alternative, which most farmers here adopt, is to block the access
yourself. Annoyingly this leads to 2 extra journeys, to remove and
replace the obstruction, as the *work* tractor is rarely suited to
moving large lumps of concrete.

On the ULEZ data protection issue, surely
notification of an offence would also be breaching DP? Perhaps they have
given themselves special dispensation.


--
Tim Lamb

Question for our Dave
 

On 04/02/2020 20:13, Tim Lamb wrote:
snip
On the ULEZ data protection issue, surely
notification of an offence would also be breaching DP? Perhaps they have
given themselves special dispensation.


The ULEZ is a charging scheme made under the GLA Act 1999 which gives
them statutory power to issue penalty charges to registered keepers.
And of course when they post it to the registered keeper they don't have
the problem of verifying identity as they do when someone phones or
emails them.

For completeness, it seems to me that someone who suspects a partner
could access the information if they set up an account so the charge is
paid automatically. I suspect - but don't know - that avoids problems
with data protection because they verify that the person registering to
pay is the registered keeper.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Question for our Dave
 

On 04/02/2020 22:15, Robin wrote:
On 04/02/2020 20:13, Tim Lamb wrote:
snip
On the ULEZ data protection issue, surely
notification of an offence would also be breaching DP? Perhaps they
have given themselves special dispensation.


The ULEZ is a charging scheme made under the GLA Act 1999 which gives
them statutory power to issue penalty charges to registered keepers. And
of course when they post it to the registered keeper they don't have the
problem of verifying identity as they do when someone phones or emails
them.

For completeness, it seems to me that someone who suspects a partner
could access the information if they set up an account so the charge is
paid automatically.Â* I suspect - but don't know - that avoids problems
with data protection because they verify that the person registering to
pay is the registered keeper.

What if someone who is not the registered keeper, but uses the vehicle,
needs to register to pay?

SteveW

Question for our Dave
 

In message , Robin
writes
On 04/02/2020 22:20, Steve Walker wrote:
On 04/02/2020 22:15, Robin wrote:
On 04/02/2020 20:13, Tim Lamb wrote:
snip
On the ULEZ data protection issue, surely
notification of an offence would also be breaching DP? Perhaps they
have given themselves special dispensation.


The ULEZ is a charging scheme made under the GLA Act 1999 which
gives them statutory power to issue penalty charges to registered
keepers. And of course when they post it to the registered keeper
they don't have the problem of verifying identity as they do when
someone phones or emails them.

For completeness, it seems to me that someone who suspects a partner
could access the information if they set up an account so the charge
is paid automatically.* I suspect - but don't know - that avoids
problems with data protection because they verify that the person
registering to pay is the registered keeper.
What if someone who is not the registered keeper, but uses the
vehicle, needs to register to pay?


I don't know. We haven't used the autopay system for years now as we
now so rarely drive into the CC zone when charges arise.

I signed up as a precaution but didn't spot any autopay options for the
ULEZ. Too late now. Perhaps I should move home to avoid the post:-)

ISTM that posting information obtained and transmitted electronically
should also be subject to data protection.

--
Tim Lamb