Parking Eye lose a small claim on an alleged fabricated evidence

lescm19

As has been pointed out by others, the BPA rely on the subscriptions for outfits like PE and the DVLA rely somewhat also on PE's requests for RK details, so not much incentive there for either!

Half_way

lescm19 wrote: »

As has been pointed out by others, the BPA rely on the subscriptions for outfits like PE and the DVLA rely somewhat also on PE's requests for RK details, so not much incentive there for either!

While that may be true the above was posted as in an ideal world...
the reality of it is that the BPA probably couldn't care a toss, as long as it has no impact on their ability to allow members access to the DVLA data goldmine then it will just be brushed under what i would assume to be a very big carpet.
nothing to see here, business as usual etc etc.

Custard_Pie

The better approach is for us to be professional all round and stick to the end goal. Name calling and suggestion is unhelpful to say the least. If we stick to the facts as reported and evidenced, then a PPC doesn't have a leg to stand on and we don't get detracted by legal threats.

Let's wait for the legal transcript and report the findings as stated. If a judge using a certain word then it can't be considered libel (legal priveledge), nor can it be removed.

Hot_Bring

lescm19 wrote: »

As has been pointed out by others, the BPA rely on the subscriptions for outfits like PE and the DVLA rely somewhat also on PE's requests for RK details, so not much incentive there for either!

And allegedly a rather large financial "loan" from PE to help back the setting up of POPLA ( because the BPA didn't have the financial security to do so ).