BPA views on keeper liability and other issues

HO87

bargepole wrote: »

There's also a tongue-in-cheek bit in point iii, where the BPA want the Govt. to force all PPCs to join an ATA (Approved Trade Operator). The list of ATAs currently extends to, er, one - step forward the BPA! (Trebles all round).

The more I read about this fiasco, the less likely I think it is to ever happen.

No problem with ATA's, well, just TA's of course because you do have a choice. Besides the large, forward-moving BPA there is always - P.E.T.A. - the grandly named Parking Enforcement Trade Association. Sounds grand until you (quickly) discover that the president is one Trevor Whitehouse. Enough said, really.

To sum up then PETA is a trade association - well, it does call itself that - but as far as one can tell they're not yet approved. I am not prepared to open book on them gaining such approval but would do so on the predicted decibel level of laughter at the DVLA when they open PETA's application for approval.

Presumably, Trevor needed something to occupy himself with when he's at his villa.

bargepole

HO87 wrote: »

Besides the large, forward-moving BPA there is always - P.E.T.A. - the grandly named Parking Enforcement Trade Association. Sounds grand until you (quickly) discover that the president is one Trevor Whitehouse. Enough said, really....

That website is the biggest exercise in self-delusion I've seen for ages - even the clowns at the BPA must be having a laugh at poor old Trevor.

bromsgrovebarry

I just love the logo. So professional. Oh and check out the spelling and talk about 'offences'.

Sirdan

SodG24 wrote: »

I thought it was nice of them to tell us who they plan to lobby in the House of Lords - now we can do the same

Indeed they tell us they will lobby Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson (TGT)

and then go on to describe TGT as a "stakeholder" ...what exactly does that mean ???
I'm pretty sure that any old member of the Commons or Lords debating this bill would not be described as a "stakeholder" so what exactly is her interest in Private Parking ..

I note she is (was ?) on the Board of TfL and is disabled...I doubt she is aware that BPA members frequently mislead by claiming similar statutory powers to TfL or the disgraceful way the PPC industry treats genuinely disabled people ....perhaps someone should tell her ?

Sirdan

Alexis27 wrote: »

Who would hold written information about who was likely to have been driving at the time and would have little reason not to comply, other than lose potential custom. But then they do that themselves by just passing on admin charges anyway.

When it comes to individuals who genuinely don't know who was driving, have no paperwork to submit, or who would put up a fight against having to name relatives, it's a different ballgame.

I beg to differ hire companies are not permitted to comply. Uunless there is explicit consent in the hire company's contract they have no right to disclose the personal data to the PPC, it is a breach of the DPA.
So for hire companies an NPO should be essential.

AlexisV

Sirdan wrote: »

I beg to differ hire companies are not permitted to comply. Uunless there is explicit consent in the hire company's contract they have no right to disclose the personal data to the PPC, it is a breach of the DPA.
So for hire companies an NPO should be essential.

Are you saying complying with a NPO would breach the DPA?

My point was that hire companies are not going to fight tooth and nail against an NPO.

Sirdan

AlexisV wrote: »

Are you saying complying with a NPO would breach the DPA?

My point was that hire companies are not going to fight tooth and nail against an NPO.

Not at all..complying with a court order would I believe fall within Section 35 of the DPA ..which allows disclosure as provided for in law. (I agree the hire companies will not oppose an NPO application but they can't lawfully disclose without either consent or an NPO )

What I was trying to say was that hire companies that give details to PPCs when it is not by consent (i.e. provided for specifically in the contract to hire) or NPO, ARE breaching the DPA.
Currently hire companies seem to do this at will AND charge the data subject (the person hiring the vehicle) an admin charge for the priviege of having their name and address illegally disclosed to a third party !!!

robredz

Sirdan wrote: »

Not at all..complying with a court order would I believe fall within Section 35 of the DPA ..which allows disclosure as provided for in law. (I agree the hire companies will not oppose an NPO application but they can't lawfully disclose without either consent or an NPO )

What I was trying to say was that hire companies that give details to PPCs when it is not by consent (i.e. provided for specifically in the contract to hire) or NPO, ARE breaching the DPA.
Currently hire companies seem to do this at will AND charge the data subject (the person hiring the vehicle) an admin charge for the priviege of having their name and address illegally disclosed to a third party !!!

I am with you on that one Sirdan, if it is a term of the contract that there can be no third party disclosure without due legal cause, and a NPO would be such cause, the Hire company would be in breach of contract also imho along with data protection.

Sirdan

robredz wrote: »

I am with you on that one Sirdan, if it is a term of the contract that there can be no third party disclosure without due legal cause, and a NPO would be such cause, the Hire company would be in breach of contract also imho along with data protection.

Not quite. There does not need to be a term in the contract preventing disclosure as the DPA already enforces this.
However IF and ONLY if there is a specific term in the contract which states that you give consent to disclosure to third parties other than statutory bodies, can the data be disclosed.

Coupon-mad

Thanks for doing that FOI request, NevMetson. I know you have had some interesting contact with the DVLA over the whole matter.

Be very intersting to see what they come back with!