DVLA , the law (proserve Mk 2)

enfield_freddy

after clamping was banned and the new rules were brought in I was under the impression that all PARKING companies had to be a member of an approved (dvla) ATA and offer an alternate resolution system , if they did not comply , then it was game over .


I know Proserve tried a variation of this , and were stopped from gathering info , and in fact there is an appeal running and awaiting results


What IF:

a company starts , lets call them Groserve or BMPR , and they join a trade assoc , that is not suited to parking , but they bluff the DVLA , or they even use form v888/2 ,

the company's ATA are not geared up and do not have a recognised independent appeals sys ,


what is the goverments stance on this?

I thought the wording , (although I cannot locate it) was that all PARKING companies must be members of an approved ATA and offer a alternate resolution system

is that in print (law) anywhere?

nigelbb

There is no law it's just DVLA policy to make the selling of keeper details look kosher. It's that policy which is the subject of a Judicial Review at the request of Proserve.

enfield_freddy

ok , so me and my mate can start up , earn lots of money , until enough complaints are made to the DVLA , and they revoke disclosure of info in a few yrs time?




sounds very different to what the government wanted , is the statement "was that all PARKING companies must be members of an approved ATA and offer a alternate resolution system " or similar not written into POFa 2012?

nigelbb

enfield_freddy wrote: »

ok , so me and my mate can start up , earn lots of money , until enough complaints are made to the DVLA , and they revoke disclosure of info in a few yrs time?




sounds very different to what the government wanted , is the statement "was that all PARKING companies must be members of an approved ATA and offer a alternate resolution system " or similar not written into POFa 2012?

POFA doesn't have anything to do with selling keeper details it's just about what must be done to chase a keeper for unpaid parking charges incurred by a driver. It doesn't differentiate between PPCs, landowners or private individuals. There is no requirement for a PPC to be a member of a parking ATA or to offer any form of appeal.

bargepole

enfield_freddy wrote: »

ok , so me and my mate can start up , earn lots of money , until enough complaints are made to the DVLA , and they revoke disclosure of info in a few yrs time?




sounds very different to what the government wanted , is the statement "was that all PARKING companies must be members of an approved ATA and offer a alternate resolution system " or similar not written into POFa 2012?

No, that wasn't written into POFA, which has turned out to be a complete mish mash of badly drafted legislation which confuses motorists, parking companies and even Judges.


But anyone can request keeper details using the manual V888/2 forms, if they can show 'reasonable cause'. So if there was an abandoned car blocking, or dumped on, your property, you could get those details, you don't need to be in an ATA.


The argument at the Proserve JR was that if you're requesting details on a regular basis, you must be in an ATA (says the DVLA). Proserve argued that as they enforce on the basis of trespass, they don't need to be.


We may find out who the Judge agrees with next week, when the RCJ resumes after the break.

enfield_freddy

that's interesting , so anyone can breech the DVLA system , or rely on the 60% + who cough up there names , and run with it.


conning the public with immunity from criminal and civil law?




I am surprised based on the 60%+ figure that a lot of companies don't quit the BPA/IPC , they can get away with £150-£200 scott free

enfield_freddy

bargepole wrote: »

No, that wasn't written into POFA, which has turned out to be a complete mish mash of badly drafted legislation which confuses motorists, parking companies and even Judges.


But anyone can request keeper details using the manual V888/2 forms, if they can show 'reasonable cause'. So if there was an abandoned car blocking, or dumped on, your property, you could get those details, you don't need to be in an ATA.


The argument at the Proserve JR was that if you're requesting details on a regular basis, you must be in an ATA (says the DVLA). Proserve argued that as they enforce on the basis of trespass, they don't need to be.


We may find out who the Judge agrees with next week, when the RCJ resumes after the break.

yup I understand that (and await the RCJ results) , I also know the clause that parking cos should use there ATA to get details , at what point do the DVLA step in and say "too many?" , is it one a year , 100 a year or 20,000 a year , if the company is not in a ATA ,


and as posted above 60%+ admit , free for all has started


forget being in the BPA , or IPC , just go for the 60%


sorry , head spinning around a weird email I have here ,

nigelbb

Form V888/2 is for a company to request keeper details. A sole traderl such as Mr Duff T/A Proserve should be using form V888.

If you are the landowner or occupier then the DVLA cannot refuse to sell you keeper details for vehicles that are trespassing or breaching conditions of a parking contract on your land. The issue with Proserve is that they are not the occupier. If Ransomes Europark were doing their own enforcement rather than Mr Duff then the DVLA could not insist they belong to an ATA just like they cannot force a hospital or a university to join an ATA before selling keeper details.

BTW the 60% figure is those who pay up without appealing. If you just dish out windscreen tickets then like some of the smaller PPCs who are not BPA/IPC members you don't even need to bother paying for keeper details as people pay up regardless. It's just to squeeze out the very last drops of extra cash that you need to start bullying & threatening the RK.

enfield_freddy

ok thanks nigellb , explains a lot


so unless I am incredibly rich and own a lot of land , "me and my brother" would be out of work quickly


however if I did a deal with Mr "rich guy" I would need to be in a recognised ATa , likewise if I took on some carparks I would need to be in a recognised ATa , otherwise I could not get details.


its the offering or not offering an ADR (after conning the dvla) that is my question


has it been enshrined that even after breaking the law (working on "rich mans land" as a non ATA , a claim would fail because on a non existant ADR

Myriddin

Is it not just a matter of the landowner giving written consent to the DVLA for xxx ppc to have access to keeper details on their behalf? I know CEL do this at the hospital where I work.

Umkomaas

Myriddin wrote: »

Is it not just a matter of the landowner giving written consent to the DVLA for xxx ppc to have access to keeper details on their behalf? I know CEL do this at the hospital where I work.

Not a great example to prove (or otherwise) this theory as CEL automatically qualify for keeper details as a full member of an ATA AOS (BPA).