DVLA washes hands of Southampton Town Quay?

bazster

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=92309&view=findpost&p=1007192

The_Deep

Am I missing something here?

My understanding is that PE have reasonable cause to enquire of the DVLA for the RK's details in order that they may ask him/her to name the driver.

If the driver declines, and PE go on to pursue him/her under POFA, that then is a matter for Trading Standards, the police, and/or the Court.

DVLA have no more say in the matter.

bazster

Yes you are missing something. PE doesn't merely ask the RK to name the driver, PE also accuses the RK of being liable when this is not so.

couchiedemon

The_Deep wrote: »

Am I missing something here?

My understanding is that PE have reasonable cause to enquire of the DVLA for the RK's details in order that they may ask him/her to name the driver.

If the driver declines, and PE go on to pursue him/her under POFA, that then is a matter for Trading Standards, the police, and/or the Court.

DVLA have no more say in the matter.

Errr. Not so, I think. DVLA have a staturoty obligation to protect your and my personal information. It cannot be "reasonable" for Parking Eye or whowever to apply for access to personal details when there is no keeper liability on landthat is not relevant land under the POFA 2012 (SOuthampton Quay is covered by byelaws and is therefore not/not "relevant land ofr POFA purposes. So if DVLA were meeting their responsiblities to under the DPA they should, as their ministers say, deny access to companies who abuse the "right" to interrogate the DVLA database electronically. DVLA simply assume that PPCs and BPA members will act responsibly but as they are moneygrabbing scum, this can't be taken as read. Trust is, sadly, not an audit control. Ergo DVLA still bear some responsbility.

The_Deep

I disagree, the PPC has a perfect write to ask the DVLA for RK details in order to know the identity of the driver, who may well have parked on their land and bilked.

The fact that Town Quays may be off limits for PoFA does not mean that a driver is immune from a claim for breach of a contract which he/she may have entered into.

Argos do not become liable if a kitchen knife they sold is used to commit a murder.

bazster

The Deep disagrees. Quelle surprise.

HO87

The knub of DVLA's argument (and one they appeared to have adopted from PE and Associated British Ports) is that the byelaws do not relate to parking. That is entirely disingenuous and I draw their specific attention to byelaws 37, 38 and 39 which quite specifically deal with the parking of vehicles albeit not in the way someone looking to enforce particular rules - for profit - might wish.

The fact that ABP have chosen not to update those byelaws to cater for the situation that now subsists is a matter entirely for them. They saw fit only 11 years ago to update the byelaws as they now stand and in so doing revoked some older and outmoded provisions.

The development at Town Quay was well underway a good while before 2003 and parking had already become an issue for a number of reasons (the proximity to the Red Funnel jetties, for example).

This smacks most certainly of the profit motive being allowed to ride roughshod over the law. Once again the DVLA find themselves in the midst of things by looking for an excuse to release RK data when the caution clearly intended in Reg. 27(1)(e) should be requiring them to look for an excuse not to release it?

bazster

It's so frustrating. What can you do about a government agency that shows itself time and time again to be as corrupt as anything you would find in a banana republic and which no-one is willing to take to task?

The_Deep

What can you do about a government agency that shows itself time and time again to be as corrupt as anything you would find in a banana republic

Have you ever lived in a banana republic Mr B? I have, several, and I can assure you that, in this country, we are blessed with just about as uncorruptable governance as you are likely to find anywhere.

Because a government agency acts in a manner with which YOU disapprove, does not make them corrupt.

esmerobbo

Depends how you measure corruption.

How many MP's are non executive directors? Of course we know they do it out of the kindness of their hearts.

Mortgage switching anybody?

We may be as incorruptible as they can be but many are still well bent!

Northlakes

My interest in contract law started when I was sued in the Small Claims Court for a non payment of an invoice for which there was no contract. The invoice was speculative and not unlike the ones this forum deals with.


The claimants solicitors went quite swiftly for the SCC. However a very strong defence was entered and the claimant withdrew and I was able reclaim some of my expenses but not the true costs in time and money.


That's why I like the way Coupon Mad (and others) advice is to at all costs try and avoid the court system. I have read many a court transcript and you do worry about some judges reasoning, even their knowledge of the law! (the same is probably true for magistrates clerks).
You should also remember that if a claimant has a solicitor representing them you are fighting the legal club so the odds are stacked against you from the start.
From what I have seen the POPLA assessors have been far more reasoned in their comments than most Judges.


This forum has proved that PE and others can be seen off at POPLA however it doesn't make right the misuse of the law by PPC's.
The current situation regarding not relevant land is difficult both for the DVLA and POPLA to handle as they don't have maps and the PPC isn't going to provide one. That's why POPLA go for GPEOL most of the time. However the Consumer Protection (amendment) Regulations 2014 does provide an opportunity (from 1st October) of a counter claim (for use of a prohibited practice) which should be used on the initial appeal to the PPC. After all the PPC is only after your money and must assess the risk of incurring future costs. You have already seen certain PPC's backing off as soon a detailed legal rebuttal is given to the NTK.


Using byelaws may be the correct way of doing things with regard to not relevant land but may result in a far more difficult way of defending misleading claims by PPC's.