Keeper Liability: Easy to Defeat

maninthestreet

It was (perhaps stiill is?) possible to register to vote using an address of a park bench - so perhaps we can give that as 'contact details' for the driver?

Sirdan

steve1500 wrote: »

Kite2010 wrote: »

"sorry but due to the data protection laws, I am unable to disclose the name of the driver on that day without the required data access fee of £10"

Sorry to pull you up on this but the correct answer should be

I have not notified the Information Commissioner that I am processing another persons information. Failure to notify the IC can lead to a FINE of upt o £5000.00

If you forward me £35 ( fee required by the IC) I will notify the IC that I am processing personal information

I will then consider your request and any charges that may apply

I beg to differ :-

"
Individuals who are processing personal data for personal, family or household affairs are exempt from notification and most of the other provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998."

(Source ICO ) http://www.ico.gov.uk/notify/self/question5.html

Of course this may all be a redundant arguement as Schedule 4 only states that if the PPC does not have the driver's details then keeper liability applies , so any reason or excuse used by the keeper seems to be irrelevant.

give_them_FA

If the Act has been accurately quoted in Post #5, then it appears that once the keeper has provided the PPC with a name and address, he has no further liability in the matter.

There remains no obligation upon the nominated driver to respond to any correspondence sent to them; and it does not appear that there is any provision for the PPC to go back to the RK if the driver ignores them.

Hence, although I have little doubt that the PPCs will try to turn the screw to frighten RKs, and, given the ignorance of the average Briton will probably succeed in many cases, in fact, this law makes no difference to the situation at all.

It does not, for example, render an unenforceable penalty enforceable; and only transfers the "ignore" stance from the RK to the named driver.

Hadeon

give_them_FA wrote: »

If the Act has been accurately quoted in Post #5, then it appears that once the keeper has provided the PPC with a name and address, he has no further liability in the matter.

There remains no obligation upon the nominated driver to respond to any correspondence sent to them; and it does not appear that there is any provision for the PPC to go back to the RK if the driver ignores them.

Hence, although I have little doubt that the PPCs will try to turn the screw to frighten RKs, and, given the ignorance of the average Briton will probably succeed in many cases, in fact, this law makes no difference to the situation at all.

It does not, for example, render an unenforceable penalty enforceable; and only transfers the "ignore" stance from the RK to the named driver.

Were the RK even to nominate him/herself as the driver, they could easily 'ignore' further threatograms just as they can now, without any further liability upon them as RK IMHO.

give_them_FA

I agree. And (once again, if the legislation has been correctly quoted) there is no obligation at all upon the RK to supply the name of the driver or even to respond- as at present. All that is created is a provision which appears to suggest that in the absence of response, one person could be sued for another's debt in a matter over which they had no control or knowledge. The only way it would be easier for the PPC would be not having to prove who was driving.

Whether such a proposition would survive a challenge under Human Rights legislation is an interesting point.

peter_the_piper

Scenario.
Driver parks.
RK gets ticket and names driver who could prove they were not there.
RK has fulfilled their obligation.
Driver can't be sued.
What happens then?

give_them_FA

Same as happens now. A few letters followed by..... nothing.

vax2002

" The right to silence is absolute as per bill of rights, now pizz off " !

ripped_off_driver

Once the keeper has given a name and current address for service for the driver (with no comeback if the name is wrong, made up or just plain silly) then keeper liability cannot be invoked. The keeper is off the hook and there is no right of appeal for the PPC.

The lack of enforcability of this provision was obvious all through the drafting stage to anyone who took a close look. Except the BPA who wouldn't see it if it jumped up and bit them on the !!!!!.

give_them_FA

Reading between the lines, it must be clear that the Government was never going to enact dodgy legislation which would have the effect of rendering one person responsible for another's contract. So the BPA were probably given Hobson's choice on this issue! They will of course do their utmost to use their usual bullsh*t to try and frighten RKs, and in my opinion will have some success. It is all very well for US to say hey it's easy to defeat, but a good 60% of the drivers out there already get taken in by this con and I see that figure rising before it drops.