Times stands still in Greenwich

 

This is a follow on blog to this one.

The above is a standard report called 'case history' and is clearly a chronological list of the main events. As you can see from the entry dated 23/11/2011 the motorist (in the form of Mr Mustard) was quick to make their first challenge, it is known as the 'informal challenge'. Mr Mustard keeps an eye on the on line PCN balance and checked it 16 times between 28 November and 8 April. On 8 April he noticed that the balance had reverted from £130 to £65 so he knew a letter of rejection was on the way. On that date he told the motorist that the end stop date for receipt of a Notice to Owner was 21 May.

 

As is now evident Greenwich had a back log on informal challenges (not Appeals, they are to adjudicators). If a formal representation is not responded to within 56 days a council is deemed to have accepted it but that rule does not apply to informal challenges (an informal challenge is one made against a PCN issued on street and a formal representation responds to a Notice to Owner or postal PCN).

Mr Mustard made a combined Freedom of Information and Subject Access request on 27 April and that was probably the event which woke Greenwich from its slumbers as shortly afterwards they asked DVLA for the keeper's details using a VQ4 request (these are done by computer). Now, it isn't clear whether or not the 1st VQ4 was actually sent nor how DVLA count 6 months (they may stop all November requests on 1 May?) but for whatever reason Greenwich didn't get the information they sought.

 

Had Greenwich issued a PCN after so long Mr Mustard would have relied on a lack of 'reasonable expedition' and hence unfairness as the Statutory Guidance of the Secretary of State says this:

That aside, on 26 May Greenwich Council decided to send a second 1st VQ4 request to DVLA. Clearly, Greenwich don't have a mechanism in place to ensure that they scrupulously follow parking law and they were also going to breach data protection fair processing rules and breach their KADOE (Keeper at date of event) contract with DVLA as 6 months had expired on 21 May (possibly 20th but it depends how you count).

Having failed to obtain keeper details Greenwich Council threw in the towel, about the only sensible thing they had done.

As it turns out, DVLA have built in a mechanism which prevents any council from obtaining information to which they are not entitled.

Whilst it is good that the DVLA don't release data out of contract, councils like Greenwich should be learning from their mistakes and should have programmed their software not to ask in the first place.

The DVLA aren't going to find wrongdoing unless they look out for it. They could improve their systems in this regard.

End.