Charge Notice - Ace Securities

bazster

Umkomaas wrote: »

Here is an interesting response from Ace Securities' Managing Director, and erstwhile Detective Inspector, Mr Michael Chapman to the consultation prior to the introduction of PoFA 2012.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/protection/memo/pf18.htm

Needless to say they were clampers-at-large and clearly not best pleased with the threat of losing their seat on the gravy train! Awww, bless!

You'd have thought an ex-copper would understand the law on trespass. Or maybe he does but he just doesn't care.

aguynameddarryl

Trespass is a civil offence - the Police wouldn't touch it.

bazster

You don't say (actually it's not an offence at all, it's a tort). But I'd still expect a copper to understand the law.

Marktheshark

Its not trespass if you are "invited" on the land.
Once invited you have to be asked to leave and refuse.
Then there is the question of what you did to prevent people trespassing, in car parks, a barrier is the best method, letting people park and then claiming they were trespassers would leave most judges frowning over the reading glasses.

betterthanyours

So...do I do anything? Do they have any grounds at all?

bazster

With respect to Ace there is nothing you can do, there is no appeals service. Just wait to see what they do next.

Let us know what the DVLA responds. They really need a good kicking over this.

ampersand

Will they try to justify on these grounds?

pp's blog:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/anpr-ltd-get-keeper-details-using.html

Watch for membership influx:
http://www.csa-uk.com/consumer/our-members/

#
bazster - re:
'You'd have thought an ex-copper would understand the law on trespass. Or maybe he does but he just doesn't care.'

[a] We can wonder why he is an 'ex-copper'.....
Gamekeeper turned poacher?
[c] His failure to understand the law[but understand how to frighten motorists] makes him ideal private parking scumpany material.
########
-with special thanks to enfield freddie, whose Thread and latest foi's have brought this tactic to a wider readership.

betterthanyours

Update: Response from DVLA:

Dear xx xxxxx

Thank you for your email of 26 May about the release of information from the DVLA vehicle records to Ace Security Services. This has been passed to me to reply. I am sorry you did not receive a response to your email of 15 May.

Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 allows information about a registered keeper of a vehicle to be disclosed to Local Authorities for any purpose connected with the investigation of an offence and to third parties that can demonstrate a reasonable cause to receive it. Reasonable cause is not defined in legislation, but the Government’s policy is that it should relate to the vehicle or its use following incidents where there may be liability on the part of the keeper or driver. Guidance on what constitutes reasonable cause is published online at gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla

As you are aware, to help ensure motorists are treated fairly when any private parking charge is pursued, the DVLA will disclose vehicle keeper information only to companies that are members of an Accredited Trade Association (ATA). The ATA would carry out stringent checks on companies before allowing them to join and monitor compliance of their code of practice. If a company fails to comply with the code of practice it can be suspended or expelled, during which time no data will be provided to it by the DVLA.

It is DVLA’s policy that companies like Ace Security, who pursue motorists for alleged trespass damages using DVLA data, should be a member of an ATA. Such membership would ensure that a code of practice was followed that contained requirements on matters such as signage, charges and access to an independent appeals service.

However, I must advise that DVLA’s policy in relation to requiring companies such as Ace Security to join an appropriate ATA is currently subject to a Judicial Review.

Until the Judicial Review has been concluded, DVLA is unable to insist that companies that issue charge notices for alleged trespass on private land join an appropriate ATA. Therefore the Agency must continue to consider requests for data pending the outcome of the Court hearing.

I can confirm that a manual request was made by Pace Recovery & Storage Ltd trading as Ace Security on the x xxx for an alleged trespass incident on the xx xxxx 2015 at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As there is a legal gateway for the release of information from the DVLA vehicle register disclosure in these circumstances does not breach the Data Protection Act and the Information Commissioner’s Office is fully aware that data held on the DVLA’s records is released in this way. I should clarify the membership of an ATA does not itself satisfy the requirement to demonstrate reasonable cause. The requirement is a further safeguard, additional to the need for reasonable cause to be demonstrated to support the provisions of vehicle keeper information.

DVLA is unable to intervene in this dispute and your case should be raised with the company itself and, if necessary, through the Civil Court should the case against you be pursued.

betterthanyours

Sounds like ACE are taking this further. Any clear groundings on what / how I should argue this?

betterthanyours

Bump...any advice?