Charge Notice - Ace Securities

ManxRed

It appears very similar to Proserve.

The Parking Company is alleging a trespass, and attempting to obtain RK data from the DVLA as an agent of the landowner, which the DVLA have told them they cannot do unless a member of an ATA.

bazster

How much longer for the judgement in the Proserve JR? They don't half drag these things out grrrr!

I believe that, as a Judicial Review, it was the High Court rather than the CoA.

Proserve gets details as the landowner's agent and the claim is brought by the landowner. Regardless of the outcome of the Proserve JR any parking company that requests keeper details in order to pursue a trespass case in its own right rather than as the landowner's agent has no locus and hence no "reasonable cause".

Not that I expect DVLA to acknowledge this.

bazster

ManxRed wrote: »

It appears very similar to Proserve.

The Parking Company is alleging a trespass, and attempting to obtain RK data from the DVLA as an agent of the landowner, which the DVLA have told them they cannot do unless a member of an ATA.

They may be telling DVLA they are the landowner's agent, but this is shown to be a lie if they then make a claim in their own right.

enfield_freddy

bazster wrote: »

How much longer for the judgement in the Proserve JR? They don't half drag these things out grrrr!

I believe that, as a Judicial Review, it was the High Court rather than the CoA.

Proserve gets details as the landowner's agent and the claim is brought by the landowner. Regardless of the outcome of the Proserve JR any parking company that requests keeper details in order to pursue a trespass case in its own right rather than as the landowner's agent has no locus and hence no "reasonable cause".

Not that I expect DVLA to acknowledge this.

yes you are correct


The Judicial Review of the DVLA's decision that Proserve must be in an ATA to obtain data, applied for by Mr Lasty, is due to be heard at the High Court on the 6th May 2015

ManxRed

bazster wrote: »

They may be telling DVLA they are the landowner's agent, but this is shown to be a lie if they then make a claim in their own right.

Agreed, but even if they are an agent, as Proserve do, judgement (subject to a judicial review admittedly) has been passed down by DVLA that they cannot obtain data this way. The same should be true for Ace (again, depending on Lasty's JR).

bazster

ManxRed wrote: »

Agreed, but even if they are an agent, as Proserve do, judgement (subject to a judicial review admittedly) has been passed down by DVLA that they cannot obtain data this way. The same should be true for Ace (again, depending on Lasty's JR).

Yes, agreed. I presume this will end as soon as it's started if Duffnasty loses his JR, but that there will be another battle with DVLA if Duffnasty wins to try to get them to acknowledge the difference between an agent getting details so the principal can pursue a case, and an agent getting details then pursuing the case himself.

enfield_freddy

just reading 80 odd pages of preserve on pepipoo , and mainly the statements regarding the judicial appeal


one that stands out was that preserve were hired for parking control , not trespass , and that was there contract , I wonder what "ACE" contract says ?

bazster

That would indeed be interesting.

ManxRed

Pics of the signs would be good here.

Redx

also consider filling in the government survey within the next few days too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5208199

specifically complaining about parking tickets where the parking company is not a member of any approved ATA (same complaint as proserve and presumably ANPR now too) and complaining about the DVLA issuing keeper details in breach of the DPA