POPLA APPEAL - TPS - Jubilee Retail Park, Weymouth

ampersand

Proof-read+tweaks, P -
#
There is no ambiguity in the arbiter's statement [possessive apostrophe]

POPLA is the superior authority, not the DVLA, in judging whether or not a BPA AOS accredited operator does indeed have authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices on the land in question. The fact that your response does not accord with this is concerning.

....TPS has failed to meet the standard of "reasonable use" defined...

with ''evidence'' asserting otherwise. [don't use 'proving'. DO place inverted commas around ''evidence'', ''proving'' etc, indicating contentious use.]

This adjudication shows that TPS deliberately lied.

Further, it shows that TPS knowingly fabricated evidence to ''prove'' that they do have the required authority. TPS presented this fake ''evidence'' to BPA's officially recognised arbiter and I have no doubt that TPS would treat the DVLA with similar contempt by proffering this same fabricated ''evidence'' to them

In light of the above, I hereby make a Freedom of Information Request under the rights afforded to me by[too many 'the's] The Freedom of Information Act 2000


I require full relevant response to each and every point raised in the foregoing list within the time scale that is allowed to you by the act.

Yours faithfully [always y/f in formal correspondence]

#
I'm unsure you should be quite so tendentious in the preamble.

Precision

tyvm for the proofing &, I've incorporated your recommendations

Umkomaas

I'd number each of your specific requests for information, otherwise they may well try to wrap a number together in a single paragraph and possibly sidestep the tricky ones. You should then get a response with answers cross-referenced to each of you queries. No hiding place for them that way.

I'm just wondering whether you should be more upfront in asking for the agreement/contract to be made available (rather than hoping they might provide it under your 'attachments' request).

However, by asking for attachments it might smoke them out if they don't forward a copy of the agreement/contract, that gives you the possibility of painting them into a bit of a corner (would they be covering something up?).

A decision for you. Excellent FOI draft by the way. Keep us posted.

Precision

FOI response - pretty fruitless tbh


Dear x

Freedom of Information Request

Thank you for your e-mail dated 25 September requesting information under the
terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

You asked for:

1. Details of every request, received by the DVLA, to supply information
about the vehicle with the registration xxxx xxx (of which I am
registered keeper), between the dates of 28/05/2015 00:00 to 24/09/2015
00:00 inclusive.

The information should include:
The date and time of the request
State whether the request was approved or denied
Name the person / company that made the request
Show the data that was supplied

DVLA considers the information you are requesting to be personal information and
as such can neither confirm nor deny that it holds this information. The duty to
confirm or deny whether the information you have requested is held does not apply
by virtue of section 40(5)(a) of the FOIA. This should not be taken to be evidence
that the information you asked for does or does not exist.

You should be aware that information released under the FOIA is available for all to
see and to release personal information under the terms of the FOIA would be a
breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

2. Copies of all documents in possession by the DLVA, on the date
28/05/2015 00:00, in relation to TPS and JRP, that can used to meet the
standard of "reasonable use" under Section 27 (1)(e) of the Road
Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002.

This information is not held. Total Parking Solutions Ltd makes registered keeper
detail requests electronically. No documents are held.

3. Copies of all correspondence between the DVLA and TPS, from the date
28/05/2015 00:00 to 24/09/2015 00:00 inclusive.
This information should include:
All written correspondence
All email correspondence
All attachments to said correspondence
Any evidence supplied by TPS in defence of: the complaint I lodged
against them, and your investigation of said complaint.

4. Copies of all internal DVLA correspondence relating to the complaint
that was lodged by myself on 21/09/2015 against TPS.
In relation to your questions 3 & 4, DVLA considers the information you are
requesting to be personal information and as such can neither confirm nor deny that
it holds this information. The duty to confirm or deny whether the information you
have requested is held does not apply by virtue of section 40(5)(a) of the FOIA. This
should not be taken to be evidence that the information you asked for does or does
not exist.

You should be aware that information released under the FOIA is available for all to
see and to release personal information under the terms of the FOIA would be a
breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 allows individuals access to information
held by DVLA. DVLA’s Driver and Vehicle Records Enquiry (DVRE) Group will be
writing to you under separate cover in response to Q3 and Q4.

The information which follows concerns the procedures for making any complaint
you might have about the reply. Please quote the reference number of this letter in
any future communications about it.

Yours sincerely

Robert Toft

Head of Data Sharing Policy & Freedom of Information Team

bod1467

A nice bit of slopey shoulders going on there.

Precision

Very slopey indeed: more wasted paper by the DLVA:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fhg8CUDypdYB4jXzsEQkrDwJ53KMLa7FE7FqWSufop8/edit?usp=sharing

That, followed by 9 pages of guff.

no incoming correspondene from TPA

only an outgoing email, to someone called Tito, (Who i assume from context is TPS as there are no email addresses) asking for "Landowner / managment agreements" that are in place

henrik777

So essentially they want £10 for a subject access request and 40 days to provide your personal information.

Precision

Yea I guess, but it appears they're going to keep the contracts private either way; as requested by TPS.

This shouldn't need a SAQ to view as it's not personal. Their basically saying, we have proof that they're allowed to operate on this site but we wont show you, because the Operator asked us not to?!

Guys_Dad

I hate to be a wet blanket on your latest and admirable efforts, but I fear that you have made an incorrect assumption.

You wrote to the DVLA stating

To be specific, I will quote the previously supplied POPLA adjudication: "..the Operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices"


What the adjudication actually said in full was

The Appellant has made a number of submissions which I do not intend to
deal with and will only elaborate on the reason why I am allowing this appeal, namely that the Operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices.

The Appellant has asked to see proof that the Operator has the authority to issue parking charges.

The Operator has provided a witness statement, however, this witness statement is made and signed by their own employee and therefore not valid.

The Operator has failed to provide a copy of the contract between themselves and the landowner to show that they have the authority to issue parking charge notices and therefore I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission.

The onus is on the Operator to prove their case against the Appellant and on this occasion they have not done so.


That adjudication first of all highlights the appeal point that you made "the Operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices".

It then goes on to say that the PPC did not provide POPLA with evidence that they had the authority and therefore allowed the appeal point. That does not mean that the PPC did not have the correct authority, only that they did not produce it. If you think about it, POPLA could only determine that they did not have the appropriate authority if they saw a copy of the unredacted contract and determined from the contract that they did not have authority.

Now it may very well be that they sent an unredacted copy to the DVLA to satisfy them without showing it to anyone from "the public", although my money would be on the discredited witness statement reappearing.

But well done for your tenacity and taking the interpretation of the adjudication in your benefit.