DVLA washes hands of Southampton Town Quay?

Northlakes

By the addition of the statement regarding The Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulation 2014 to the initial appeal to the PPC you are also giving evidence that you have tried to mitigate their loss.

ampersand

I do like this, Northlakes-
'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.'

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

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.

Whilst I agree that PE have the right to ask DVLA for driver details here, they are provided with them to use lawfully.

If they try to claim keeper liability and POFA in their NTK, they are not using the data properly. This has been brought to their attention and to the DVLA and it is reprehensible that the DVLA continue to provide this data without demanding that PE only use this data in compliance with the laws or it will be withheld.

A better analogy than the Argos knife is a driving licence. You get one but have to comply with the rules or you get sanction points then get it suspended if you continue to flout the law.

Where next? The Information Commissioner is usually hot on misuse of data and if shown that people are misusing it, can take action. Not sure of their full powers but I am sure neither PE or DVLA would like their intervention.

bazster

Northlakes wrote: »

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.

Whether Southampton Town Quays is subject to the port byelaws is not at issue, what is at issue is whether the byelaws contain provisions relating to parking.

That the byelaws do contain such provisions takes about 30 seconds to establish with Google's help, but rather than do this themselves DVLA asked BPA Ltd. who, surprise surprise, lied through their teeth.

The Consumer Protection(Amendment) Regulations 2014 do not give us the power to sue companies simply because they engaged in an aggressive or misleading practice. We need to show that we actually entered into a contract and/or paid the company as a result of that practice. So the regulations can help those who have paid, but are of little help to those who are fighting a PPC and refusing to pay.