Questions regarding the scam by PPCs

fb1969

As someone living in an estate where the managing agent has decided to appoint a PPC I have recently become a regular reader of this section of the forum and have become aware of the lack of legality of the charges raised by PPCs. In the case of our estate an obvious anomaly is that the signs say you can only park with permission, but the residents have been issued with parking permits and told that anyone without will be fined (managing agent’s words) but there is no mention of passes on the signs.

As the PPCs cannot “fine” you, and any breach of contract cannot be easily determined, why don’t Data Protection laws and/or the Information Commissioner stop the DVLA from giving out vehicle ownership details?

Likewise, why haven’t Trading Standards Departments made this information widely known? We are often told of scams such as lottery wins through the post and phising through emails, PPCs operate a bigger scam yet nothing is said.

I'd be grateful for anyone's input.

anewman

fb1969 wrote: »

As the PPCs cannot “fine” you, and any breach of contract cannot be easily determined, why don’t Data Protection laws and/or the Information Commissioner stop the DVLA from giving out vehicle ownership details?

Likewise, why haven’t Trading Standards Departments made this information widely known? We are often told of scams such as lottery wins through the post and phising through emails, PPCs operate a bigger scam yet nothing is said.

Each time details are requested from the DVLA a charge is made, I think it's £2.50 or £5 or something. Anyway, basically this is a very big income source for the DVLA, and it would be like anyone else quitting their job without another one lined up. I.e. financial suicide.

The Trading Standards point of view is sadly always pay the "fine" (sic) to avoid it going up and then appeal. I suspect this is because it is in a manual now distributed to all trading standards people during training. Perhaps this lie was originally perpetuated by a PPC company? Maybe the person who originally wrote it and put it in the manual just did not have a clue what they were writing and as ever s**t sticks.

Basically everyone is arrogantly looking out for their own interests. The PPC's, DVLA, and to a certain extent Trading Standards. Unfortunately this is the way of the world in a Capitalist supposed Democracy. Things aren't going to change any time soon.

I also think part of the problem is people like to feel superior and look down their nose at others. If they can do this by saying they believe someone else is stupid and deserves a "fine" for not following the terms and conditions displayed, this only perpetuates the issues you describe. No-one cares when it's someone else's fault and so long as it doesn't affect them.

fb1969

Thanks for that.

I understand the reasoning for the DVLA wanting to keep their income, but still wonder how Data Protection laws allow them to release the information. I guess someone has raised this issue with the Information Commissioner and received a reply based on the ignorance of any "fine" being legal!

Coupon-mad

fb1969 wrote: »

Thanks for that.

I understand the reasoning for the DVLA wanting to keep their income, but still wonder how Data Protection laws allow them to release the information. I guess someone has raised this issue with the Information Commissioner and received a reply based on the ignorance of any "fine" being legal!

Maybe no-one has correctly raised the issue specifically about private companies, with the Information Commissioner? Maybe this should be done asap in an informed way, using a specific case as an example where clearly there was no reason/implied contract at all?

I know all PPC tickets are duff - but if we picked a particularly good example and someone was able to word a letter to the IC correctly, maybe it might work?

anewman

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Maybe this should be done asap in an informed way, using a specific case as an example where clearly there was no reason/implied contract at all?

They may argue a contract is formed when the driver parks, which is assumed to be in acceptance of displayed terms and conditions, and hence some form of contract has been made. That the fine is disproportionate to any loss suffered and unenforceable in a court of law would be of little concern to the information commissioner.

Have you ever noticed on many signs there are stickers on the signs, usually rephrasing the "fine" aspect? Presumably this is done to comply with law which means they are not allowed to describe the invoice as a fine.

fb1969

The signs on our estate mention "parking charge" several times but at the bottom it says "fines can be paid..............." which blows a hole in their attempt to avoid using the word.

As any contract that may be in place is with the driver rather than registered keeper, and the DVLA don't hold that information, perhaps that issue could be used to question the DVLA's actions? I expect that the only person that can query this with the ICO is someone who has been sent a "fine".

AlexisV

The DVLA will give out information to anyone who requests it with "reasonable cause".

There is no such thing as "unreasonable" cause though! Everything in the DVLA's eyes is reasonable - otherwise you wouldn't be asking, is their angle.

I wouldn't be surprised if you got an address for putting your reason as "possible burglary target" on the V888 form.

fb1969

I assume that "to harrass and threaten the registered keeper about an unenforcable invoice" also counts as reasonable cause! The driver of a car this morning was good looking, maybe I should ask the DVLA for their details?

usignuolo

I believe the Data Protection Commissioner did get involved, at one stage, over the release of driver information to the PPCs. The DVLA said they were obliged by law to release this information "to anyone with a reasonable cause to request it", which natch included PPCs.

Under pressure to tighten up their act, after it turned out the data was being given to convicted crooks who had set up PPCs, the DVLA said online access to its database would only be made available to PPCs registered with the approved trade body, the BPA. This of course lets them off the hook when it comes to vetting who has access to the information. When challenged over giving it out the information it always parrots this line.

What the DVLA omits to mention unless pressed on the point, is that if you write in for the information, instead of logging in, you simply pay the £2.50 fee and don't need to be registered with anyone. You or I could set ourselves up as Dotdot Parking Services and obtain it.

The DVLA also claims the £2.50 fee only covers the cost of administration and they do not make any money out of it. Yeah, well.

peter_the_piper

Even those who are not approved by the BPA they just have to use the services of another ppc or similar to get the number for a fee. Easily got around.