War Is Declared: Court Action Against DVLA

bargepole

As many of the regulars on here will be aware, some of us, including Nev Metson (ex- Fraud Squad detective), Martin Cutts (Plain Language Commission), Paul Morris (Data Protection Society) and myself (cantankerous old git), have been beavering away to undermine the whole house of cards that is the BPA AOS scheme and its far-too-cosy relationship with the DVLA.

Today I can announce the next step in that process. I have sent a Letter Before Action for a proposed county court claim against the Secretary of State for Transport.

The basis of the action is that, as PPCs have no lawful means of enforcing their charges (and, in many instances, cannot lawfully offer parking facilities), there no longer exists any "reasonable cause" for the DVLA to release registered keeper details to these companies. By releasing the data, the DVLA are in breach of a number of sections of the Data Protection Act.

The LBA can be read here (personal details scrubbed): https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxv9h9876grs0ze/Dft_LBA2.pdf

HardWorker2010_2

Thanks for taking the fight to their door. :j

notts_phil

Good look keep us up to speed as and when you get delveopments!

peter_the_piper

Well done that man(men)

LincolnshireYokel

Oh yes, just point me to the fighting fund......

ManxRed

Trebor16

Bargepole,

Great to see you and the others being proactive on this. Is the action at the county court aimed at getting the court to declare their activities illegal with a view to it eventually going to a higher court for a more binding judgement?

bargepole

Trebor16 wrote: »

Bargepole,

Great to see you and the others being proactive on this. Is the action at the county court aimed at getting the court to declare their activities illegal with a view to it eventually going to a higher court for a more binding judgement?

I don't know how this will pan out yet. Obviously the first thing is to wait for a response within the 21 days from the treasury solicitors.

If I then proceed to a county court claim, it's possible that a Judge may decide that it's too complex legally for a county court, and bump it up to the High Court (which is where a fighting fund may be required). Or, they might hear the case and make a ruling, and I would imagine if the DfT/DVLA lost, they would want to appeal it.

All to play for at this stage.

rtho782

I approve of this wholeheartedly, my only concern being that the BPA will bleat at the government about how thousands of parking attendants are being put out of work and how the evil polluting motorists will park everywhere without them whilst running over and chewing on kittens. Don't you realise that the BPA are the only thing standing between us and total societal breakdown, etc.

The government could then pass a law making what they do legal, and sell it to joe public as saving landowners from the abuse of inconsiderate motorists that park in parent and child spaces at tescos, and probably murder babies.

bargepole

rtho782 wrote: »

...The government could then pass a law making what they do legal,...

They had the opportunity to do that when they were drafting the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. But instead, they came up with the completely unworkable mish-mash which is Schedule 4, Clause 56 allowing PPCs to pursue registered keepers. This doesn't make their contracts or charges any more legal than they are now, and falls a long way short of what the BPA originally wanted, which was to put PPC tickets on the same footing as Council ones.

rtho782

bargepole wrote: »

They had the opportunity to do that when they were drafting the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. But instead, they came up with the completely unworkable mish-mash which is Schedule 4, Clause 56 allowing PPCs to pursue registered keepers. This doesn't make their contracts or charges any more legal than they are now, and falls a long way short of what the BPA originally wanted, which was to put PPC tickets on the same footing as Council ones.

It's still a risk though, if you win this there will be a backlash from the BPA and I can see the daily mail running an article about how people are stealing disabled and parent and child spaces, and could park on YOUR drive next.

The current system of ignore-ignore-ignore works quite well I feel!

So does this mean they don't have to persue the driver anymore once the freedoms bill comes in?

Edit: Reading Clause 56 it seems that there is now a legal basis for enforcing these unsolicited invoices against RKs? I guess this changes "ignore-ignore-ignore" to "pay-pay-pay"?