Reasonable Cause

esmerobbo

Or how it should read!

Data release to the Parasitic parking industry


Private car parking facilities provide a vital service in towns and cities throughout the land. improperly controlled data release from the DVLA vehicle register helps those facilities operate more effectively for the benefit of their profits and of tens of thousands of motorists every day.

In all matters regarding data release we act irresponsibly and in accordance with our own legislation.

Reasonable cause for data release
[STRIKE]Motorists are[/STRIKE]The driver is obliged to comply with the terms and conditions of car parks in which they choose to leave [STRIKE]their[/STRIKE] a vehicle. Unauthorised or inconsiderate parking, 1 inch over the bay such as misuse of disabled bays, for which they offer on concessions or overstaying the permitted time over one minute can cause considerable nuisance to other motorists and can result in economic loss for the land owner. In such instances, private car parking [STRIKE]enforcement[/STRIKE] enrichment companies can claim ‘reasonable cause’ and request that we release personal data so that they can trace the keeper of any vehicle contravening the contrived parking restrictions. Who can then refuse to disclose the driver!

An inconvenient alternative Hopefully not for long.
Without data release by DVLA, private car parking companies would have no alternative for enforcing parking conditions other than to apply vehicle clamping (in England and Wales) and/or removal, both of which cause massive inconvenience for the motorist. Which would also stop people going into retail outlets.

When parking enforcement companies use wheel clamping as a deterrent they do not need to request vehicle keeper information from DVLA. The simple procedure is that the clamp will not be removed until a release fee has been paid. Wheelclampers will only rarely apply for vehicle keeper information, Until they steal the vehicle and sell it. where a vehicle is not claimed by the keeper, or where criminal damage occurs to their immobilisation devices.

robredz

Yes esmerobbo, that is how it should read

ppc_guy

Right this post will push me out of the good books a bit but seeing as you all know that you dnt need to pay or even acknowledge any of these letters ... WHY even worry? If PPC's request details they are paying for them. This is more loss for them.

It seems like you just wont let go of the bone. its moaning for the sake of moaning. If the DVLA were ding anything wrong i am sure it would have been pointed out almost 3 years ago on this very forum

esmerobbo

ppc_guy wrote: »

. If the DVLA were ding anything wrong

ding is probably right! However the DVLA makes no effort to ensure reasonable cause is shown.

Do they add on to the information sent to the PPC

OF COURSE IT IS THE DRIVER WHO PARKED AND NOT THE REGISTERED KEEPER WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY BREACH YOU ARE CLAIMING!

ppc_guy

BUT WHY DOES ANYONE CARE YOU HAVE ALREADY SAFELY ESTABLISHED THAT IGNORANCE IS BLISS.. SO WHO CARES IF THEY SEND THE LETTER TO THE QUEEN MOTHER'S SISTER'S UNCLE'S BROTHER'S SON'S BEST MATE'S CAT?

oops sorry for caps but i aint deleting and typing again lol

Fergie76

ppc_guy wrote: »

BUT WHY DOES ANYONE CARE YOU HAVE ALREADY SAFELY ESTABLISHED THAT IGNORANCE IS BLISS.. SO WHO CARES IF THEY SEND THE LETTER TO THE QUEEN MOTHER'S SISTER'S UNCLE'S BROTHER'S SON'S BEST MATE'S CAT?

oops sorry for caps but i aint deleting and typing again lol

People with less knowledge than us, don't know that these invoices are invalid.

Also, imo, it's a breach of the DPA, which is a serious offence. The DVLA have a responsibility to to protect my information and not just give it to anybody willing to pay £2.50.

Has it not also been known for PPCs who have access to the database to sell this information to PPC's without access?

Luckily, I have never had one these invoices, as I am a considerate parker, however, if and when I do get one, I will be complaining to the the DVLA, Information Commissioner and my MP, if DVLA give out my information, and the reasonable cause test, has not been achieved.

ppc_guy

Fergie76 wrote: »

People with less knowledge than us, don't know that these invoices are invalid.

Also, imo, it's a breach of the DPA, which is a serious offence. The DVLA have a responsibility to to protect my information and not just give it to anybody willing to pay £2.50.

Has it not also been known for PPCs who have access to the database to sell this information to PPC's without access?

Luckily, I have never had one these invoices, as I am a considerate parker, however, if and when I do get one, I will be complaining to the the DVLA, Information Commissioner and my MP, if DVLA give out my information, and the reasonable cause test, has not been achieved.

As mentioned the Reasonable cause is the intent of court action.
You as the RK are not responsible unless the driver is your agent.
You do not need to pay anyway
The PPC selling details thing would suprise me as we hardly get on hand in hand but that said it is possible and in such cases the selling PPC would be in breach not the DVLA.
Also this thread isnt about not paying its abut the DVLA giving your informatin out which doesnt matter for the reasons given above.

Fergie76

ppc_guy wrote: »

As mentioned the Reasonable cause is the intent of court action.

I know what the thread is about, I started it!

I believe maybe wrong, but the intent of court action, is not defined as reasonable cause. Where on this link does it mention about court action, as this seems to be the DVLA's definition of Reasonable Cause.

Someone else earlier mentioned that Court Action was S35, not sure if thats the same section as Reasonable Cause.

As you have already stated you have never taken anyone to court, if you apply to DVLA for someone's details on the pretence of taking the Person to Court, surely you are obtaining these details under false pretences and therefore DVLA are breaching the DPA, by furnishing you with these details?

ppc_guy

an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions;

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1R2ACAW_enGB400&q=define%3Aintent&rlz=1R2ACAW_enGB400&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1

Definition of intent. An anticipated. .not confirmed.... I intended to buy a new car but they were sold out.

Also in answer to your questions the PPC solely provides the vehicle index number when using the EL with the DVLA however when using the V888/2 form the PPC must provide the vehicle make model and colour.

Fergie76

ppc_guy wrote: »

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1R2ACAW_enGB400&q=define%3Aintent&rlz=1R2ACAW_enGB400&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1

Definition of intent. An anticipated. .not confirmed.... I intended to buy a new car but they were sold out.

Also in answer to your questions the PPC solely provides the vehicle index number when using the EL with the DVLA however when using the V888/2 form the PPC must provide the vehicle make model and colour.

But you have no intention of taking anyone to court, you have already stated that. So you are obtaining peoples details fraudulently.