UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd Newcastle Airport

Herzlos

You need a list of points that you feel the DVLA hasn't answered correctly. Keep it as clear as possible.

You want to show the ICO how the DVLA has been trying to fob you off, ignore your points and haven't taken the due diligence (like how they seem to think a dormant company is able to pursue a byelaw issue through the civil courts).

Make it as clear as possible, as I'm pretty sure the DVLA will see the ICO correspondence.

HO87

I think one of the central issues here is that it seems the byelaws themselves are being enforced in areas to which they do not apply and there appears to be no intention whatsoever on the part of the airport owners to issue proceedings in the Magistrates Court although they like to use that as a threat.

The dormant/active status of the various companies is, with respect, almost something of a side issue given that neither of the legal entities identified in the contract are those that are involved in the enforcement.

In other words we seemingly have two companies neither of which are contracted to one another (a requirement of the usual KADOE contract) enforcing byelaws ultra vires. Nevertheless having been informed of the situation the DVLA continues to disclose keeper data.

As Herzlos has suggested keep it simple.

bazster

Dear ICO,

The issue is, quite simply, that the DVLA did not have "reasonable cause" for releasing my personal details and accordingly has breached the Data Protection Act by doing so.

They did not have "reasonable cause" because:

(i) UKPPO claims to be enforcing byelaws, but this is a pretence.

Firstly, UKPPO is not a local authority, nor the airport operator, nor indeed any other kind of authority that is empowered to enforce byelaws.

Secondly, there are no applicable byelaws: the roads in question at Newcastle Airport are publicly accessible and therefore subject to the road traffic enactments (see Road Traffic Act 1988 192(1)).

Accordingly they are not subject to the airport byelaws (see Airports Act 1986 63(2)(d), and the Newcastle Airport byelaws section 6).

So, since UKPPO cannot be enforcing byelaws and yet is not alleging trespass or contractual agreement it had no reason for requesting data and DVLA had no reason to provide it.

(ii) UKPPO did not and could not adhere to the BPA Code of Practice when it requested my details, and yet it is a DVLA (and ICO) requirement that any parking operator requesting keeper details is both a member of an Accredited Trade Association and adheres to its Code of Practice.

UKPPO could not adhere to the Code of Practice because, at the time, the independent appeals service PoPLA was refusing to "hear" appeals concerning supposed bye-laws offences. Accordingly UKPPO was unable to offer a PoPLA appeal as demanded by the Code of Practice.

(iii) UKPPO does not have landowner authority to operate at this site. The contract they produce when challenged to do so Attachment not found.is a company called "UK Parking Patrol Office Limited" but it is registered at Companies House as dormant (as has been so for years). It is my belief that the operator is in fact a sole trader who has failed to declare his true identity, contrary to company naming law, and that "The UK Parking Patrol Office" is merely a trading name.

Accordingly it is not and never has been a member of an ATA. The BPA member at the time my details were release was "UK Parking Patrol Office Limited" i.e. the dormant limited company.

Furthermore the other party to the contract, "Park & Fly Ltd.", simply doesn't exist: it was dissolved in March 2006! A similarly-named company, Park and Fly Ltd., was dissolved in March 2010! Accordingly there can be no authority for UKPPO to operate at the site since the company supposedly giving the authority doesn't exist.


Is summary, UKPPO is not issuing, and cannot issue, penalties pursuant to byelaws. It is a private parking enforcement operator misrepresenting its authority in order to issue private parking charges falsely dressed up as byelaw penalties, and it is doing so without conformance to an ATA's Code of Practice, and without the landowner's authority. Accordingly it is not entitled to request and receive registered keeper details from the DVLA, and for it to do so, and for the DVLA to comply, are clear breaches of the Data Protection Act.

bod1467

It's the entity seeking your data that needs to show reasonable cause, not the DVLA. So I'd reword the start like this:

The issue is, quite simply, that the DVLA did not confirm that UKPPO had "reasonable cause" for seeking the release of my personal details. Accordingly the DVLA has breached the Data Protection Act by doing so.

They did not have "reasonable cause" because:

keithlml

Thanks People. I am on it tonight and reply will go to ICO soon.

keithlml

I replied to ICO yesterday including the points raised in the forum and included the contact at Newcastle Airport.

Thanks for that people

This arrived today from DVLA.
"
Mr ///////////



I’m sorry if I have not previously made our position clear, to re-iterate, the DVLA are satisfied that UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd (UKPPO Ltd), who trade as UK Parking Patrol Office, are the organisation that issued the ticket to you and are legally enforcing restrictions in Newcastle airport on behalf of Park and Fly Limited. Also, UKPPO Ltd were BPA members at the time the ticket was issued, but are now a member of the Independent Parking Committee (another ATA for the private parking industry) – this does not affect the reasonable cause for the release of data, and the UKPPO are still able to pursue charges issued under a previous ATA membership.



I do not agree that your attachment is proof of any wrongdoing, as advised UKPPO Ltd trade as UKPPO, and a check on the Companies House webpage shows Newcastle Park and Fly Limited are an active company.



Finally, the DVLA accepts that some companies use debt recovery agencies to recover unpaid parking charge notices. The information provided to the private car park enforcement company is passed to the debt recovery agent to initiate civil proceedings.



Regards



Mark



Mark Lewis

Data Sharing and Protection Policy

Strategy, Policy & Communications Directorate| D16 | DVLA | Swansea | SA6 7JL

Twitter://///

Any help out there to deny or confirm his
Information on the legality of this companies operation.

Umkomaas

I've not trawled back through your thread to check - I've read each post as it has arisen, but can't remember - but are you following this parallel thread on PePiPoo?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=102097

Herzlos

That highlights a lot of the problems. "UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd" is Dormant so can't be trading as anything, "Newcastle Park and Fly Limited" aren't on any of the contracts, and the DVLA is talking about using debt collectors to pursue Parking Charge Notices, whereas this apparently a byelaw based "Penalty Charge Notice".

I'd be tempted to reply with a copy of their text, highlighting every statement that is either incorrect or irrevelant. I think the only word you can leave unmarked is "Regards".

The_Slithy_Tove

But Newcastle Park and Fly Limited don't have a contract with any version of UKPPO, so whether they are active or not is immaterial. IIRC, it's plain old "Park and Fly Ltd" (who are not trading) who have the contract.

Somehow a letter needs to be constructed which spells it out in words of one syllable, which allows them no room for fudge, as this is clearly what they are doing.

keithlml

Hello and yes I have seen this thread. But not sure if it can help me. It seems to contain anecdotal evidence and lately a video link.
I have a debt collection letter which expires today.
?