DVLA records

[Berty Blenkinsop]

Does DVLA keep a record of what vehicles I have owned?

I am not talking of finding current owner I.e if they key in
'Blenkinsop B' will it tell them what cars I have
owned over the years and if so how long back would such a record go?

[Peter Hill]

A vehicle I scrapped in 2010 is still on the TAX and MOT data lists.

✗ Untaxed
Tax due: 12 May 2010

✗ No MOT
Expired: 01 May 2010

I would assume they still know I was the last owner.

[Davey]

I would think that the information is all there somewhere, but it
depends on what facilities are programmed into the computers. Since it
seems that DVLA currently has no provision for correcting its own
errors concerning historic car registrations [1], this would probably
be way beyond its normal abilities. Also, until a certain date,
~1970s, all information was entered by hand from paper reports, so may
not be digitally available.

[1] I would post a link, but it is for a Members' Only page on a club
website.

--
Davey.

[MrCheerful]

They could, but I bet that unless it was a Police request there would
not be an answer to your question.

[Chris Whelan]

Perhaps the OP doesn't want anyone to know? ;-)

Chris

--
Remove prejudice to reply.

[Nick Finnigan]

On 16/08/2016 00:08, Berty Blenkinsop wrote:

> Does DVLA keep a record of what vehicles I have owned?
>
> I am not talking of finding current owner I.e if they key in
> 'Blenkinsop B' will it tell them what cars I have
> owned over the years

No, because you've used different names over the years.
And there may actually be someone else using that name.

[Peter Hill]

On 16-Aug-16 10:03 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
> On 16/08/2016 00:08, Berty Blenkinsop wrote:
>> Does DVLA keep a record of what vehicles I have owned?
>>
>> I am not talking of finding current owner I.e if they key in
>> 'Blenkinsop B' will it tell them what cars I have
>> owned over the years

They would need all addresses you have registered vehicles at as well.
If you have registered a change of address then they might be able to
follow the trail.

> No, because you've used different names over the years.
> And there may actually be someone else using that name.

Does a woman that changes a log book to match her married name count as
a "NEW" keeper and increase the keeper count?

> and if so how long back would such a record go?

So you think that having printed details of "former keeper" on the log
book they simply discard former keepers data record from the database?

Since the start of computer log book records there will be a record of
every owner of every vehicle. Where it fails is people sell/scrap
vehicles without telling them and then move, so they have a very large
number on missing vehicles that aren't being taxed or MOTed but are
still on record as being "owned" with no one by that name at that
address. I suspect a lot older cars have been bought and then
scraped/dismantled at a profit without any notification to DVLA, wasn't
any need to have a log book to scrap a car until recently.

What isn't "live" is on micro-filch - so yes they can't just key in the
name and find it but the record does exist and can be found with some
expense of a records clerks time.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vehicle_licence_records_held_by

Before computers there were records at local registration offices. Most
(if not all) will be in some county archive stores.

[MrCheerful]

A change of name (on marriage) would be just that, not a new keeper.

I have scrapped many cars and have sent back the reg. document marked as
scrapped, yet they still appear on DVLA online records.

There is no need for a log book to scrap a car even now, I asked just
that at the scrap yard a couple of weeks ago, they type the reg. number
straight into DVLA and tell them it is permanently scrapped. (someone
gave me a Fiesta without the logbook, getting a new logbook would halve
the scrap value)

[Graham J]

Peter Hill wrote:

> What isn't "live" is on micro-filch

micro-filch: a very small theft?

--
Graham J

[Berty Blenkinsop]

On 17/08/2016 10:57, Graham J wrote:
> Peter Hill wrote:
>
>> What isn't "live" is on micro-filch
>
> micro-filch: a very small theft?
>

Thanks for the comments but the question was about the record of the
cars kept by a person

[Tim+]

Surely the DVLA's prime function is to ensure that vehicles are taxed (or
SORNed) by *somebody* until destruction. Keeping records of an
individual's car ownership history isn't part of their remit.

Tim

--
Trolls and troll feeders go in my killfile

[Berty Blenkinsop]

Yes but a record of the cars that a person has owned might be
incidental information which could possibly be invoked by DVLA.

[Tim+]

I'm sure the data is there but they could charge for accessing it as it's
not part of their public service.

[DJC]

Possibly, but only at great expense. I've just change address so sent in
the V5, it hasn't come back yet, whereas changing address on my licence
online produced a new photocard in less than a week. The V5 did ask for
keeper's licence nr. but as 'not a statutory requirement' they can do
without. So maybe one day they could link up all the data they have. On
the other hand systems change over time and unless it is a specific
requirement the ability to link data at a later date is just too much
trouble, names change, addresses change, etc. At best it would be a
manual process that might be justified as part of a criminal
investigation if serious enough.





--
djc

(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿)
No low-hanging fruit, just a lot of small berries up a tall tree.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <np1gj5$ono$1...@dont-email.me>,

It could well be for the police, etc. So why create a second database for
just that purpose? Although that doesn't mean such records should be
available to the public.

--
*No husband has ever been shot while doing the dishes *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Tim+]

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <np1gj5$ono$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Berty Blenkinsop <blenk...@villas.com> wrote:
>>> On 17/08/2016 10:57, Graham J wrote:
>>>> Peter Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What isn't "live" is on micro-filch
>>>>
>>>> micro-filch: a very small theft?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the comments but the question was about the record of the
>>> cars kept by a person
>>>
>
>> Surely the DVLA's prime function is to ensure that vehicles are taxed (or
>> SORNed) by *somebody* until destruction. Keeping records of an
>> individual's car ownership history isn't part of their remit.
>
> It could well be for the police, etc. So why create a second database for
> just that purpose? Although that doesn't mean such records should be
> available to the public.
>

Why "create" a second database at all for anyone? The whole point of a
database is that it can be searched in many different ways. I dare say that
they could create a list of blue cars registered in London owned by
Jones's. The point is, there's no need to create a new database, you just
search the one you have.

Computers are good at this sort of stuff.

Tim

--
Trolls AND TROLL FEEDERS all go in my kill file

[Peter Hill]

On 18-Aug-16 12:34 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <np1gj5$ono$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Berty Blenkinsop <blenk...@villas.com> wrote:
>>> On 17/08/2016 10:57, Graham J wrote:
>>>> Peter Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What isn't "live" is on micro-filch
>>>>
>>>> micro-filch: a very small theft?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the comments but the question was about the record of the
>>> cars kept by a person
>>>
>
>> Surely the DVLA's prime function is to ensure that vehicles are taxed (or
>> SORNed) by *somebody* until destruction. Keeping records of an
>> individual's car ownership history isn't part of their remit.
>
> It could well be for the police, etc. So why create a second database for
> just that purpose? Although that doesn't mean such records should be
> available to the public.

80 million records with 47 data items are available on DVD, at a price
of £96,000/pa. You have to be able to show you will use the data
responsibly. At present the data is only shared with 6 companies that
are all in the "check a car" business or trade organisations like SMMT.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bulk-data-set-information-for-vehicle-buyers

Other firms / councils etc can pay £2.50 per enquiry for more data that
includes postcode. This is used for parking charges etc.

You can make a free enquiry if you have "just cause".
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/v888-request-by-an-individual-for-information-about-a-vehicle

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <np3mm8$e78$1...@dont-email.me>,

Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Surely the DVLA's prime function is to ensure that vehicles are taxed
> >> (or SORNed) by *somebody* until destruction. Keeping records of an
> >> individual's car ownership history isn't part of their remit.
> >
> > It could well be for the police, etc. So why create a second database
> > for just that purpose? Although that doesn't mean such records should
> > be available to the public.
> >

> Why "create" a second database at all for anyone? The whole point of a
> database is that it can be searched in many different ways. I dare say
> that they could create a list of blue cars registered in London owned by
> Jones's. The point is, there's no need to create a new database, you
> just search the one you have.

Did you actually read my reply?

--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees

[Tim+]

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <np3mm8$e78$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Surely the DVLA's prime function is to ensure that vehicles are taxed
>>>> (or SORNed) by *somebody* until destruction. Keeping records of an
>>>> individual's car ownership history isn't part of their remit.
>>>
>>> It could well be for the police, etc. So why create a second database
>>> for just that purpose? Although that doesn't mean such records should
>>> be available to the public.
>>>
>
>> Why "create" a second database at all for anyone? The whole point of a
>> database is that it can be searched in many different ways. I dare say
>> that they could create a list of blue cars registered in London owned by
>> Jones's. The point is, there's no need to create a new database, you
>> just search the one you have.
>
> Did you actually read my reply?
>

Why did you bring up a "second database"? I certainly didn't.

[Tim+]

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <np3mm8$e78$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Surely the DVLA's prime function is to ensure that vehicles are taxed
>>>> (or SORNed) by *somebody* until destruction. Keeping records of an
>>>> individual's car ownership history isn't part of their remit.
>>>
>>> It could well be for the police, etc. So why create a second database
>>> for just that purpose? Although that doesn't mean such records should
>>> be available to the public.
>>>
>
>> Why "create" a second database at all for anyone? The whole point of a
>> database is that it can be searched in many different ways. I dare say
>> that they could create a list of blue cars registered in London owned by
>> Jones's. The point is, there's no need to create a new database, you
>> just search the one you have.
>
> Did you actually read my reply?
>

Why did you bring up a "second database"? I certainly didn't.

[Nick Finnigan]

On 18/08/2016 00:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <np1gj5$ono$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Berty Blenkinsop <blenk...@villas.com> wrote:
>>> On 17/08/2016 10:57, Graham J wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the comments but the question was about the record of the
>>> cars kept by a person
>>>
>
>> Surely the DVLA's prime function is to ensure that vehicles are taxed (or
>> SORNed) by *somebody* until destruction. Keeping records of an
>> individual's car ownership history isn't part of their remit.

Noting the previous owner in case they have to print a new form of
registration docs when thousands get stolen is in DVLA's remit.

> It could well be for the police, etc. So why create a second database for
> just that purpose? Although that doesn't mean such records should be
> available to the public.

Initially the PNC was to record stolen vehicles, which DVLA don't care
about. Now they will use the PNC for initial checks on any registration,
before potentially checking with the databases at MID and VOSA and DVLA.

And Quest will probably allow them to search by name and postcode. £10
will allow BB to check what BB knows about him.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <np4ou9$1ng$1...@dont-email.me>,

Because the police, etc may well want to trace the history of a vehicle.
Currently by using DVLA records. If the DVLA didn't keep those, and the
police really did need it, the alternative would be another database.


You did say 'Keeping records of an individual's car ownership history
isn't part of their remit' didn't you?

--
*The best cure for sea sickness, is to sit under a tree.

[Tim+]

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <np4ou9$1ng$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <np3mm8$e78$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Surely the DVLA's prime function is to ensure that vehicles are taxed
>>>>>> (or SORNed) by *somebody* until destruction. Keeping records of an
>>>>>> individual's car ownership history isn't part of their remit.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could well be for the police, etc. So why create a second database
>>>>> for just that purpose? Although that doesn't mean such records should
>>>>> be available to the public.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> Why "create" a second database at all for anyone? The whole point of a
>>>> database is that it can be searched in many different ways. I dare say
>>>> that they could create a list of blue cars registered in London owned by
>>>> Jones's. The point is, there's no need to create a new database, you
>>>> just search the one you have.
>>>
>>> Did you actually read my reply?
>>>
>
>> Why did you bring up a "second database"? I certainly didn't.
>
>
> Because the police, etc may well want to trace the history of a vehicle.
> Currently by using DVLA records. If the DVLA didn't keep those, and the
> police really did need it, the alternative would be another database.
>
>
> You did say 'Keeping records of an individual's car ownership history
> isn't part of their remit' didn't you?
>

Note the use of the word "history". Of course they keep records of
ownership and can access an owners vehicle history if required (by police
etc). I was just pointing out that it isn't their main function to normal
vehicle owners any more than listing every blue Ford Ka registered to an
address in Stevenage say.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <np705r$reo$1...@dont-email.me>,

Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Because the police, etc may well want to trace the history of a
> > vehicle. Currently by using DVLA records. If the DVLA didn't keep
> > those, and the police really did need it, the alternative would be
> > another database.
> >
> >
> > You did say 'Keeping records of an individual's car ownership history
> > isn't part of their remit' didn't you?
> >

> Note the use of the word "history". Of course they keep records of
> ownership and can access an owners vehicle history if required (by police
> etc). I was just pointing out that it isn't their main function to normal
> vehicle owners any more than listing every blue Ford Ka registered to an
> address in Stevenage say.

You'd need some figures to decide what their 'main' function was. Is it to
keep a record of who owns a car so it can be traced more easily - or
simply to collect VED? You'd probably get a different answer depending on
who you asked.

--
*Always drink upstream from the herd *

[cardw...@gmail.com]

Betty, did you get an answer to your query? I have owned vehicles since 1964, and cannot remember half of them. Would love a list of them. Am prepared to pay a fee I guess, but not interested in where these cars are now. But from what I can see of answers to your blog, nothings seems very clear!

Lynn Cardwell