CPS (aka Perky) suspended from DVLA Data Access

bazster

What's really funny about that sign (apart from the rubbish about the RK) is that it flat-out admits that the offer to park is made by the landowner (either directly or through its agents), thus confirming exactly what m'luds said in VCS vs HMRC.

Consequently it is beyond any argument that any contract exists only between the landowner and the motorist, and CPS is nowhere in this scenario other than the landowner's hired help, and certainly not party to any contract with the motorist!

If he replaces the signs with ones omitting the RK rubbish but leaving in the clear offer from the landowner, this ought to be incontrovertible evidence for the ICO that Perky is levying unenforceable charges, and hence does not have "reasonable cause" for requesting data from the DVLA. Only the landowner could (arguably) demonstrate such cause.

And the argument that Perky has "reasonable cause" as the landowner's agent would only hold water if he were issuing charges in favour of the landowner rather than himself, but he's not gonna do that is he?

Really, for a legal eagle he does a pretty good impression of a legal booby.

TrickyWicky

Trebor16 wrote: »

"By parking on this land you are also agreeing that if you are not the registered keeper the registered keeper has authorised all acts that you perform as the driver of the vehicle and that the registered keeper has agreed to accept liability and responsibility for the above parking charge"

About as water tight as a bucket full of holes

Seriously, a 12 year old could have come up with better wording than that! Come to think of it even a 12 year old would understand that you can't enter someone into a contract they're not aware of so that says a lot about much of the nation!

bazster

What's more, if I came across a sign such as that in a car park I would be strongly inclined to send a picture to the landowner pointing out that CPS is claiming to be its agent, is claiming to enter into contracts on its behalf, and is thus making the landowner liable for all possible consequences arising from CPS threats and harassment.

HardWorker2010_2

Oh dear Perky's not quite so smug these days is he?








And there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for the pie eater.






Perhaps he could get a job shelf staking at one of the sites he currently can't infest.


:T

bazster

Does anyone know if CPS "operates" any car parks in the south-east? If there's one in my area I'd really like to go and get a "ticket" in the vicinity of one of these signs just so I could kick up a right stink at the DVLA and ICO ('cos I bet he's still issuing "charges" even if he can't get RK details, after all some mugs are gonna pay up just on the basis of the rubbish stuck to their windscreen).

bargepole

bazster wrote: »

Does anyone know if CPS "operates" any car parks in the south-east? ....

Frater Gate Business Park, Gosport is where the offending sign leading to the suspension was originally spotted.

bazster

Thanks, but too far from me to justify a special trip.

MDBJ

Rather than gloating about what has happened we should ask ourselves what this says about a system supposedly created to protect the public and why it took so long.

If nothing else, this case amply demonstrates that the truth about PPC's is that the system has been utterly sucked in by it and is bending over backwards to facilitate its activities. Realistically there can only be one of two motives - politics or money. I suspect a bit of both - and don't rush to dismiss politics as being at the root of things. The DNA of the global warming climate change police is all over government transport policy which I remain convinced is being used as a justification for using private agencies to restrict car usage.

Stephen_Leak

bargepole wrote: »

Here is an image of the sign in question:

http://i49.tinypic.com/2d1pguv.jpg

It was on the CPS website under "example signs", but has now been removed.

Are you sure that you can post that? Wouldn't it be confidential between him and his victims? After all, it's not as if fixing it to a wall and posting it on the internet is in the public domain in Perkyworld.

ManxRed

bargepole wrote: »

Here is an image of the sign in question:

http://i49.tinypic.com/2d1pguv.jpg

It was on the CPS website under "example signs", but has now been removed.

As I pointed out on page 1, it is indeed the old Perky myth about the RK and Driver having the same relationship as a Principal/Agent applied to contract law, despite the fact that we've been telling him for a LOOOOOOONG time that this is in fact tripe.

Hoist by his own petard.