VCS - DVLA and stopping

enfield_freddy

well the DVLA have now said there piece


stopping IS parking as far as they are concerned


forget the security "crap" , just a re write (or not) of the KODOE agreement .


"We are not able to provide a definitive definition of ‘parking’, our responsibility is limited to the lawful release of vehicle data. However, we do not consider ‘stopping’ a vehicle in an unauthorised area to be so different from ‘parking’ a vehicle in an unauthorised area, as to make it incompatible with the KADOE contract. If the vehicle is considered to be stopped (e.g. occupied) or parked (e.g. unoccupied) in an unauthorised area, this still makes an investigation by the operator necessary, and fulfils the reasonable cause criteria for the lawful release of vehicle keeper data. Therefore, we do not consider there to have been a breach of the KADOE contract."




Regards,
Glenda Hire,
Data Sharing Team, Strategy & Policy Directorate, D16 West, DVLA, Swansea, SA99 1DY.
Twitter: @dvlagovuk
Logo_long
8 June 2015 - the counterpart is abolished.
Find out more at: www.gov.uk/dvla/nomorecounterpart

Marktheshark

The data is not released under "reasonable cause" it is realesed under "parking"
They can not intertwine two separate legal statements.
Get back at her and ask why she feels she has the power to use half one act and half of another

enfield_freddy

brick wall *issin against ,


[EMAIL="Glenda.Hire@dvla.gsi.gov.uk"]Glenda.Hire@dvla.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]


you "try" to explain , and when she mutters "security" , don,t pull your hair out

Marktheshark

I would elaborate and expand the point with her ?
If a car has to stop for a hazard, say a pedestrian or for security reasons.
According to her "judgement" and interpretation of the rules setting precedent then that also constitutes been parked.
Are vehicles to drive straight out at junctions for fear of getting penalised for "parking" .
What about at crossings on the approach roads.
If stopping constitutes parking, they state they will release details so the stopper can be penalised.
Is she advocating drivers do not stop at all, even in an emergency ?

This is going to get interesting, a matter of public safety is at risk due to her comments.

Castle

Has anybody noticed that according to DVLA,; "parked" requires the vehicle to be "unoccupied"?

nigelbb

Marktheshark wrote: »

I would elaborate and expand the point with her ?
If a car has to stop for a hazard, say a pedestrian or for security reasons.
According to her "judgement" and interpretation of the rules setting precedent then that also constitutes been parked.
Are vehicles to drive straight out at junctions for fear of getting penalised for "parking" .
What about at crossings on the approach roads.
If stopping constitutes parking, they state they will release details so the stopper can be penalised.
Is she advocating drivers do not stop at all, even in an emergency ?

This is going to get interesting, a matter of public safety is at risk due to her comments.

There are already cases of VCS pursuing keepers when the driver stopped at a zebra crossing to allow pedestrians to cross.

fisherjim

nigelbb wrote: »

There are already cases of VCS pursuing keepers when the driver stopped at a zebra crossing to allow pedestrians to cross.

You cannot be serious has this been in the press?

fil_cad

What a money spinner for VCS, there just like rats in an open sewer.

HO87

Once again the DVLA draw the veil. Anything that might cause a corporate user of their services to baulk is avoided and individual rights and the application of both common sense and existing law can go hang. Or at least that's how it seems.

And how is this "No Stopping" rule enforced? Either by using red lines - that anyone outside of London is most unlikely to have encountered, even less understand, or double-yellows - that any fule kno specifically allows for the setting down and boarding of passengers as well as unloading. Or at least it does where double-yellows are used elsewhere and how is the average motorist to know to the contrary?

Perhaps there isn't any fule in Morriston? And as for Speke and Tinsley, well, it seems there has been an outbreak of selective blindness caused by the prospect of making far too much money. Quite common I understand.

nigelbb

nigelbb wrote: »

There are already cases of VCS pursuing keepers when the driver stopped at a zebra crossing to allow pedestrians to cross.

fisherjim wrote: »

You cannot be serious has this been in the press?

I have seen a case where a driver was issued with a 'fine' when they stopped at a zebra crossing and the pedestrians who were crossing got into the car.

esmerobbo

nigelbb wrote: »

I have seen a case where a driver was issued with a 'fine' when they stopped at a zebra crossing and the pedestrians who were crossing got into the car.

The crossing is just yards from the free pick up drop off area, so if there are a few cars there you would need to stop there anyways.