No breack of kadoe according to DVLA

Howard_Ino

Ive been complaining to the DVLA that care parking are in breach of their KADOE contract because the metrolink is not prescdribed land under the POFA, it seems the DVLA disagree with me!







Dear Mr Ino





Re. Care Parking (Anchor Security Services)





Please accept my apologies for the length of time taken in providing a response to your complaint that Care Parking (Anchor Security Services) where breaching the KADOE contract by requesting data and utilising the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on land you believe is covered by byelaw.





The legal representatives for Transport for Greater Manchester have now confirmed that they have satisfied themselves the only provision of the byelaws for parking is in clause 14, which relates to the parking of vehicles in such a position or manner as is likely to cause or does cause obstruction to any vehicle or to the System or to Persons using or intending to use the System.





They have also satisfied themselves that parking restrictions in the Metrolink car parks are not covered by the byelaws and therefore are considered relevant land under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.





The DVLA cannot provide you with legal advice or opinions on the byelaws and ultimately, if you dispute the opinion of the landowner or their agent, you may wish to test this in a court of law.





You should be aware that the DVLA releases data under Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, where it can be demonstrated the landowner or their agent have reasonable cause to that data.





The DVLA considers the allegation that a breach of terms and conditions of parking/use of private car park / land constitutes reasonable cause and is released to allow the landowner and/or their agent to pursue their legal rights.





In respect of your complaint that the DVLA check compliance with the relevant Code of Practice prior to the release of data for each request; unfortunately, the DVLA is not is not in a position to check Code of Practice compliance, which is the responsibility of the relevant Accredited Trade Association (ATA).





The ATA has the responsibility to investigate any claims of non-compliance to their Code of Practice and to take corrective action where any breaches are identified. In circumstances, where deliberate and sustained breaches have been identified, the ATA may award sanction points and inform the DVLA where the continued access to DVLA data may be reviewed.





It would be inappropriate for the DVLA to comment on definition or evidence for Genuine Pre-Estimate of Cost (GPEOL) claims as it not something we have mandate to regulate or monitor. It would be more appropriate that these disputes are addressed with the litigator and possibly in a court of law.





It is worth noting that the DVLA conducts regular audits both remote and visited to provide assurances that data is being requested appropriately and that the data is processed fairly. Companies, who process data, are also required to be registered with the Information Commissioners office and to comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. There is no evidence supplied to suggest that the data is being used unfairly in this case.





Whilst you may not agree with my response, which is of course is your right, it is the DVLA’s opinion that no breaches of the KADOE contract have been identified and no evidence of a breach of the Code of Practice has been supplied. Therefore, no further action will be taken in this case.





Yours sincerely,








Brian Dodge


Vehicle Data Customer Assurance and Compliance Practitioner


Data Sharing Team

daveyjp

Far easier to say:.

There has been no breach. If we admitted there was I would be out of a job as DVLA wouldn't earn millions a year charging for access.

Yours

Brian Dodge (by name and nature)

Howard_Ino

So is what they are saying correct and Ive been barking up the wrong tree or are they talking rubbish?

Redx

they are saying that they are covering their backs, until told different

nobody can tell you if its correct or not, as their hasnt been an adjudication or government directive

as usual in the legal world, the waters are murky and they choose the easy route of fobbing you off and raking in the cash as well

I had a similar "fob off" from the query I raised through my MP last year

it needs a decisive decision, similar to the Beavis outcome, where its in black and white (or if they fudge the issue, it will still be grey)

so in simple terms , you are asking questions that require clarity on your part, that match your perception of the matter (mine too)

but its not as simple as 2 + 2 = 4

if you watch re-runs of YES MINISTER or YES PRIME MINISTER, you will see how civil service speak fudges the issues and stops these matters from being resolved

Fight_the_good_fight

Another angle dependant on the location of each site,is many of the metro sites are converted railway stations and later owned by the local borough councils.When the metrolink first came to being the 10 local boroughs of Manchester formed an alliance currently named as TfGM.

My understanding if correct and I will bow to people with greater knowledge that the sites are still in effect owned by the local authorities and receive public funding.In addition they receive private investment but this is for the actual running of the metrolink network (currently a French company ).

Surely if the actual land is owned by the 10 local authorities this will make the sites public not privately owned land and PoFA irrelevant.

In addition I recall a thread where the various draft copies of the contract between TfGM and Care Parking where there was much to'ing and fro'ing between the two which was heavily redacted but the final signed copy the only noticeable alteration was the removal of the word " private land"

Coupon-mad

Howard_Ino wrote: »

So is what they are saying correct and Ive been barking up the wrong tree or are they talking rubbish?

Clearly this is land where parking is 'under statutory control'. How can they be right if they say in one line that a byelaw does apply to parking:

'The legal representatives for Transport for Greater Manchester have now confirmed that they have satisfied themselves the only provision of the byelaws for parking is in clause 14, which relates to the parking of vehicles in such a position or manner as is likely to cause or does cause obstruction to any vehicle or to the System or to Persons using or intending to use the System.'

...yet then in another line they contradict it!

POPLA would be likely to agree with you as you will see when you check out the fairly recent posts on the 'POPLA decisions' thread. Edna posted only this month about a relevant decision re 'not relevant land due to byelaws'.

However this is only Care Parking - flippin' easy to beat them at POPLA on other points such as 'no keeper liability' due to the rubbish wording on the NTK, as long as people don't appeal admitting the driver.

prjohnsonnn10

I had many exchnages with DVLA / BPA and MET parkig over the Chiltern railways fiasco... MET were found to be mixing regimes there ie trying to claim invoice charges when it was definitley rleveant land. This situation persists although they had to change all the signage up the line and also the phraseology on the letters. It s a mess all over the place and DVLA will NOT put themselves in the poisition of taking any lead in giving opinions.. they 'hide'behind the trade body argument and that fact that they will allow anyone with a reasonable cause to obtain data from the,m .. ehich of course the parking company does as it is contrracted to 'manage'the car park. the fact is even in the case of MET in Chiltenr car parks all parties have AGREED that is is out sid eof PoFA and is Bye law 14 land but DVLA still issue keeper details to MET on the grounds that they have a reasonabel cause to find out the keepr even though the letters then go out syaing that they 'want to know 'the name of the driver. DVLA say this is OK and so thats a benchmark for you here i wld suggest

Cornucopia

"Brian Dodge" - I love it when public servants have appropriate names.

Marktheshark

Cornucopia wrote: »

"Brian Dodge" - I love it when public servants have appropriate names.

From the department of deliberate and misleading lying...

Cornucopia

It's sad isn't it.

I'm sure we all recognise the practical difficulties in upholding the truth, but it does seem more and more that public servants and senior staff in commercial organisations seem to treat the truth as wholly negotiable.

The notion of the spirit of rules and their letter being one and the same also seems to have gone by the board, with what I call weaselly pedantry more often being called into play.

ManxRed

They've recently taken to coming up with their own interpretations of the English Language in order to avoid being caught out.

Stopping and Parking having the same meaning now.

Convenient, huh?