VRM's (Vehicle Registration Marks) Personal Data

Philip Swift made this Freedom of Information request to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

The request was partially successful.

From: Philip Swift

26 January 2010

Dear Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency,

I refer to

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

Internal Review concerning FOIR1768

please provide all data the DVLA possess causing you to state:

"Registration marks are regarded as personal data in that an
individual can be identified from their registration mark, we would
in the circumstances consider using section 40 (2) of the FOIA
personal information. "

How does the DVLA believe an individual can be identified from
their registration mark; an alpha-numeric string, on clear pubic
display?

what readily or widely available database do the DVLA know of that
the public can lawfully (or otherwise) access to determine a keeper
from a VRM?

you state you would 'consider' using the exemption; why is there a
lack of certainty if the exclusion applies?

Yours faithfully,

Philip Swift

Link to this

From: FOI FOI
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

1 February 2010

Dear Mr Swift,

Thank you for your e-mails of 26 January (09:58 and 10:06). These
e-mails will be dealt with as a follow on from your previous e-mail of
21 January and our response of 26 January (08:39). It is unclear whether
you are requesting an Internal Review (IR) of our original response or
whether you are making new FOI requests in the said e-mails but if you
wish to have an IR conducted and/or you are making new requests then
please clarify.

Your email of the 21 January stated that you “understood and
appreciated” our response to your FOI request (ref: FOIR 1768/10) yet
you have continued to ask questions and sought comment from us. This
response is intended to deal with the questions you raised.

You will be aware that we have stated that to comply with your request
it is estimated that the cost of complying with that request would
exceed the appropriate fees limit of the £600. As such, DVLA is not
obliged (under section 12 of the FOIA) to comply with your request. The
DVLA database is so vast it would be difficult to extract information
even if your request was narrowed. You may already be aware that the
Information Commissioner has already issued a Decision Notice (Ref:
FS50197237) regarding a similar request such as yours upholding DVLA’s
application of section 12 of the FOIA. That Decision Notice can be
viewed on their website at
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/d...

It is accepted that section 12 may not be the only applicable exemption
from disclosing information but with regards similar requests to yours,
it is likely that section 12 would be engaged before having to consider
any other exemptions such as sections 40(2) and 31(1)(a).

You have already been advised that the stand-alone database referred to
may be available towards the latter end of the year. However, it would
not be possible to comment on what exemption (if any) would be applied
at that time if you were to make another request towards the end of
2010. Until you make a request, it is not possible to consider which
exemption(s) may or may not apply.

You ask for the DVLA policy/guidance for handling FOIA requests
especially the requests. It is a requirement of a public authority to
comply with the provisions of the FOI Act and DVLA adheres to such
provisions. As each request is handled separately then the appropriate
exemption (where necessary) will be applied and the response will be
tailored accordingly.

The DVLA does not agree that it adopts a “two (or more) bites at the
cherry approach” but applies relevant exemptions accordingly. As
mentioned above, with regards your request the obligation not to release
information under section 12 arose well before having to consider
whether any other exemptions applied. As such, that was the only
exemption that was applied.

You were informed in our e-mail of 21 January that registration marks
are regarded as personal data. Whilst the registration mark is on public
display, if an individual has additional information it may then be
possible for a link to be established between that registration mark and
another individual. In addition, the Information Commissioner has
recently issued a Decision Notice regarding the application of section
40(2) exemption (‘personal information’); that Decision Notice
(FS50186040) can be viewed on the Information Commissioner’s website
at
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/d...

The DVLA is not aware of any other readily or widely available database
that the public can lawfully (or otherwise) access to determine a keeper
from a VRM.

Again, the DVLA disagrees with your suggestion that “there is a lack
of certainty” when we state that we would “consider” using an
exemption. It is the prerogative of a public authority whether or not to
apply an appropriate exemption and as such, it is necessary for that
authority to ‘consider’ whether to apply that exemption or not. Even
if an exemption can be applied, it may still be a consideration of the
public authority to disclose information they deem necessary and
appropriate to disclose. You will be aware in any event that if a public
authority wishes to apply a qualified exemption that they must
‘consider’ whether the public interest in applying the exemption
outweighs the public interest to disclose the information.

I trust this clarifies our position.

DVLA - FOI Best Practice

show quoted sections

2010 09:57:53 >>>
Dear Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency,

I refer to

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

Internal Review concerning FOIR1768

please provide all data the DVLA possess causing you to state:

"Registration marks are regarded as personal data in that an
individual can be identified from their registration mark, we
would
in the circumstances consider using section 40 (2) of the FOIA
personal information. "

How does the DVLA believe an individual can be identified from
their registration mark; an alpha-numeric string, on clear pubic
display?

what readily or widely available database do the DVLA know of
that
the public can lawfully (or otherwise) access to determine a
keeper
from a VRM?

you state you would 'consider' using the exemption; why is there
a
lack of certainty if the exclusion applies?

Yours faithfully,

Philip Swift

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Philip Swift

9 February 2010

Dear Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Driver and Vehicle
Licensing Agency's handling of my FOI request 'VRM's (Vehicle
Registration Marks) Personal Data'.

I refer to your anonymous response of the 1st February 2010 above.

You state that whilst the registration mark is on public display,
if an individual has ‘additional information’ it ‘may’ then be
‘possible’ for a link to be established between the VRM and
‘another individual’.

I am aware of the decision notice reference FS50186040 which the
Information Commissioner’s Office advise is currently the subject
of an appeal. This aside, your response is unclear, it does not
address my question:

‘How does the DVLA believe an individual can be identified from
their registration mark; an alpha-numeric string on clear, public
display’.

Please explain what is meant, by reference to your response to:

‘Additional information?’

I have only asked in respect of vehicle registration marks.

You make reference to a link to be established between the
registration mark and another individual. This is not understood.
What manner of ‘link’ are you referring to?

My request relates purely to vehicle registration marks and I await
your comments in respect of the ‘additional information’ to which
you are referring to i.e examples of same.

You state it ‘may’ be ‘possible’ for a link to be established.
There is clear uncertainty in your response.

Please could you address the question posed; how do you believe an
individual can be identified from the registration mark? You have
stated that you are not aware of any other readily or widely
available data base that the public can lawfully (or otherwise)
access to determine a keeper from a VRM. This appears to contradict
your earlier statement; if there is no database that the public can
lawfully (or otherwise) access, what additional information could
result in a possible link between the VRM and an individual?

My understanding of the implications of the Durrant Judgement was
that a narrow interpretation of ‘personal data’ should be adopted.
Personal data is defined in Article 2 of the directive (European
Data Protection directive) is ‘whether information relates to an
‘identified or identifiable individual’.

If you provide me a registration mark I cannot, even if determined,
ascertain the identity of the keeper, as evidenced by your
response; you are not aware of any readily, widely available data
base that the public can lawfully, (or otherwise) access to
determine a keeper from a VRM.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vr...

Yours faithfully,

Philip Swift

Link to this

From: FOI FOI
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

9 February 2010

Dear Mr Swift,

Thank you for your email requesting an Internal Review of FOIR1768/10.

Please be advised that DVLA is holding the Internal Review of
FOIR1768/10 and we will respond when concluded.

Regards,

FOI - DVLA

show quoted sections

2010 07:17 >>>
Dear Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Driver and Vehicle
Licensing Agency's handling of my FOI request 'VRM's (Vehicle
Registration Marks) Personal Data'.

I refer to your anonymous response of the 1st February 2010
above.

You state that whilst the registration mark is on public display,
if an individual has ‘additional information’ it ‘may’
then be
‘possible’ for a link to be established between the VRM and
‘another individual’.

I am aware of the decision notice reference FS50186040 which the
Information Commissioner’s Office advise is currently the
subject
of an appeal. This aside, your response is unclear, it does not
address my question:

‘How does the DVLA believe an individual can be identified from
their registration mark; an alpha-numeric string on clear, public
display’.

Please explain what is meant, by reference to your response to:

‘Additional information?’

I have only asked in respect of vehicle registration marks.

You make reference to a link to be established between the
registration mark and another individual. This is not understood.
What manner of ‘link’ are you referring to?

My request relates purely to vehicle registration marks and I
await
your comments in respect of the ‘additional information’ to
which
you are referring to i.e examples of same.

You state it ‘may’ be ‘possible’ for a link to be
established.
There is clear uncertainty in your response.

Please could you address the question posed; how do you believe
an
individual can be identified from the registration mark? You have
stated that you are not aware of any other readily or widely
available data base that the public can lawfully (or otherwise)
access to determine a keeper from a VRM. This appears to
contradict
your earlier statement; if there is no database that the public
can
lawfully (or otherwise) access, what additional information could
result in a possible link between the VRM and an individual?

My understanding of the implications of the Durrant Judgement was
that a narrow interpretation of ‘personal data’ should be
adopted.
Personal data is defined in Article 2 of the directive (European
Data Protection directive) is ‘whether information relates to
an
‘identified or identifiable individual’.

If you provide me a registration mark I cannot, even if
determined,
ascertain the identity of the keeper, as evidenced by your
response; you are not aware of any readily, widely available data
base that the public can lawfully, (or otherwise) access to
determine a keeper from a VRM.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vr...

Yours faithfully,

Philip Swift

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: FOI FOI
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

1 March 2010

Attachment FOIR1768 Swift P Internal Review.pdf
86K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Swift,

Please see the attached response to your request.

show quoted sections

2010 07:17:21 >>>
Dear Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Driver and Vehicle
Licensing Agency's handling of my FOI request 'VRM's (Vehicle
Registration Marks) Personal Data'.

I refer to your anonymous response of the 1st February 2010
above.

You state that whilst the registration mark is on public display,
if an individual has ‘additional information’ it ‘may’
then be
‘possible’ for a link to be established between the VRM and
‘another individual’.

I am aware of the decision notice reference FS50186040 which the
Information Commissioner’s Office advise is currently the
subject
of an appeal. This aside, your response is unclear, it does not
address my question:

‘How does the DVLA believe an individual can be identified from
their registration mark; an alpha-numeric string on clear, public
display’.

Please explain what is meant, by reference to your response to:

‘Additional information?’

I have only asked in respect of vehicle registration marks.

You make reference to a link to be established between the
registration mark and another individual. This is not understood.
What manner of ‘link’ are you referring to?

My request relates purely to vehicle registration marks and I
await
your comments in respect of the ‘additional information’ to
which
you are referring to i.e examples of same.

You state it ‘may’ be ‘possible’ for a link to be
established.
There is clear uncertainty in your response.

Please could you address the question posed; how do you believe
an
individual can be identified from the registration mark? You have
stated that you are not aware of any other readily or widely
available data base that the public can lawfully (or otherwise)
access to determine a keeper from a VRM. This appears to
contradict
your earlier statement; if there is no database that the public
can
lawfully (or otherwise) access, what additional information could
result in a possible link between the VRM and an individual?

My understanding of the implications of the Durrant Judgement was
that a narrow interpretation of ‘personal data’ should be
adopted.
Personal data is defined in Article 2 of the directive (European
Data Protection directive) is ‘whether information relates to
an
‘identified or identifiable individual’.

If you provide me a registration mark I cannot, even if
determined,
ascertain the identity of the keeper, as evidenced by your
response; you are not aware of any readily, widely available data
base that the public can lawfully, (or otherwise) access to
determine a keeper from a VRM.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vr...

Yours faithfully,

Philip Swift

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Philip Swift

1 March 2010

Dear FOI,

i note your reply:

1 March 2010
Dear Mr Swift
FOIR Request – Internal Review
I am writing in response to your e-mail of 9 February at 07:17 in
which you request an
independent Internal Review of the handling of your request for
information under the terms
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I have been asked to
undertake that review.
Having carefully considered the correspondence between you and the
Agency, I can conclude
that the response sent to you on 21 December 2009 (as well as
subsequent DVLA responses)
was correct in the circumstances. It was not clear that you were
making further (new) FOI
requests in your two e-mails of 26 January since your comments and
questions related to the
original request and I apologise if clarification was necessary.
That said, I believe the
comments and questions were fully addressed in our e-mailed
response of 1 February.
In your original request you asked:
I ask to be provided the registration numbers of all un-recovered
E-Type jaguars
reported stolen between 2000 and the present date.
You were advised that the cost of providing you with the
information you requested would
exceed the appropriate limit of £600 and that, as such, the Agency
was applying section 12 of
the FOI Act.
On 8 January we received your e-mail asking for a review of the
response you had received.
You requested an explanation of the processes involved and an
understanding of why such
costs would be incurred. You also asked whether section 12 would be
the only exemption that
applied to the request.
In reply, on 21 January, DVLA responded in some detail explaining
the work that would be
necessary to extract the required information. Our letter also
advised you that we were in the process of developing a stand-alone
database, which should eventually allow us to provide
the type of information you requested at a much lower cost. Until
then, we have a duty to be
mindful that we are funded by taxpayers money and must impose
limits on our use of these
funds. I do accept that your question about whether any other
exemptions would apply to
your request was overlooked and was not addressed. As such, I
apologise for that oversight
but I will come back to this issue further on.
On 26 January we received two e-mails from you asking questions
relating to our responses
to your original request and on 1 February a full response was sent
to you answering all your
questions in turn.
I will now turn to your two e-mails of 9 February and firstly your
e-mail sent at 07:12. I am
sorry you feel that DVLA appears “to have taken issue with [your]
request for further
information, the questions [you] asked, that had not been addressed
by the DVLA.” You go
on to say that you have approached this matter in a reasonable,
considered manner but you
feel that the “tone of [our] reply does not suggest that [you are]
to be treated in a similar
fashion”. I am afraid that I fail to see where any of DVLA’s
responses have not been
reasonable or considered and I can assure you that all requests for
information are treated
exactly the same. You quoted from our e-mail of 1 February that “it
is accepted that Section
12 may not be the only applicable exemption” and then asked
“Accepted by whom?”. DVLA
accepts that when it employs section 12 FOIA, other exemptions may
also apply but if the
costs limit is reached before the request is responded to then the
other exemptions fall away
at the first stage. Until we are able to determine whether we hold
the information and then
locate, retrieve and extract that information we cannot say whether
exemptions such as
sections 40(2) or 35(1) would apply. In your case, we can only say
for certain that section 12
FOIA would apply. If, and when, we receive the necessary funding to
develop the stand-
alone database mentioned we will give all requests under the FOIA
full consideration at the
time. If the information can be provided within the cost limit it
is then that we would give
consideration to any exemptions that may apply. I note that you
claim to have raised this
issue with the Information Commissioner’s Office where you were
advised that when DVLA
issues a refusal notice we should be advising the enquirer of all
the exemptions which apply.
That is accepted but only in so far as we know what information we
have, within the £600
costs limit, to apply the exemptions to.
In your second e-mail of 9 February at 07:17 you ask what we mean
by “if an individual has
additional information it may then be possible for a link to be
established between that
registration mark and another individual.” If an individual is in
possession of a vehicle
registration mark then it may be possible for them to make a
fee-paying request for a printout
of the keeper details.
To conclude, I confirm that I am content with the way in which your
request for information
has been handled by the Agency.
If you are not content with this Independent Internal Review, you
have the right to complain
directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision; you have
already been provided
with details of the complaints procedure. In any event, the
Information Commissioner can be
contacted at:

Information Comissioners Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely
Unsigned – sent via e-mail
Gary Nicholas
Head of Unit
Drivers Customer Services"

I am not content with the manner in which this issue has bene
addressed, I have placed the mnatter with the ICO

Yours sincerely,

Philip Swift

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency only: