CPS (aka Perky) suspended from DVLA Data Access

HardWorker2010_2

Where these taken before and after the DVLA ban???? I think we should be told.........

. .

.

ppc_guy

Just to be a cynic as always (and also if its true then i too will be informing the BPA) is there ANY proof of this claim? Do you have a copy of the letter for instance?

Half_way

Despite all the gloating and cackling going on, ive noticed that they key word here is suspension of access to the data base.
Whats sztopping CPS from putting self adhesive yellow envelopes on vehicles, and relying on motoroists ignorance of what they realy are to get the money, storing registration numbers until a time when data base access is restored, or even using a third party ( ie another PPC) to get the details on thier behalf?

taffy056

Half_way wrote: »

Despite all the gloating and cackling going on, ive noticed that they key word here is suspension of access to the data base.
Whats sztopping CPS from putting self adhesive yellow envelopes on vehicles, and relying on motoroists ignorance of what they realy are to get the money, storing registration numbers until a time when data base access is restored, or even using a third party ( ie another PPC) to get the details on thier behalf?

That's why I mentioned earlier about clocking when exactly people are getting invoices, and the demands from them. They probably will get access back at some point but if they get RK during the ban they are obviously circumventing the punishment doled out to them. If they do the same thing as OPC (I think? ) and store invoices waiting for access then another complaint to the dvla is in order.

trisontana

Playing devil's advocate here. Come October 1st. won't those signs become compliant when RK liability comes into force?

esmerobbo

ppc_guy wrote: »

Just to be a cynic as always (and also if its true then i too will be informing the BPA) is there ANY proof of this claim? Do you have a copy of the letter for instance?

Do you mean this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4755270.stm

esmerobbo

trisontana wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate here. Come October 1st. won't those signs become compliant when RK liability comes into force?

Dont know has anybody worked out what they are liable for??????:cool:

skivenov

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.

Gives him time to save up for a spirit level I suppose.

bazster

trisontana wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate here. Come October 1st. won't those signs become compliant when RK liability comes into force?

I wouldn't have thought so. The signs are a futile attempt to bind the RK into a contract which makes the RK liable, regardless of the driver's liability, actions or inaction.

Conversely, RK liability in the POFA seeks to make the RK liable only if the identity of the driver is unknown. If the identity of the driver is known, the RK is liable for nothing - even if the driver refuses to pay.

A sign which clearly spelled this out would presumably be compliant, but an attempt to bind the RK into a contract regardless would still be futile.

ripped_off_driver

Correct, RK liability is a misnomer - all it is is a "right to claim" against the RK if the driver is unknown but liability would still have to be established in court and all the old obstacles - signage, unlawful penalty - etc come into play. The real value of RK "right to claim" will be in the misleading spin issued by the PPCs.

The sign wording is typical Perky. He has a very surface level knowledge of an area and thinks he is cleverer than everyone else. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of law would know the wording is an absurdity, yet it is surprising that despite Perky's far flung travels to courts to win easy cases he hasn't a clue.