UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd Newcastle Airport

keithlml

Mark Lewis states :-
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.
Also a check on the Companies House webpage shows Newcastle Park and Fly Limited are an active company.
How can I find evidence to refute this ?

Umkomaas

The PePiPoo thread is currently dissecting the trading statuses of UKPPO and P&F, which would most certainly be of help (in at least understanding what can and can't be done by trading companies). In your shoes I'd be all over that thread as there is some expertise being dispensed there.

I have a debt collection letter which expires today.

As many hundreds of others have - debt collectors are powerless. Missing a deadline date will only result in another letter from them - with, guess what, another deadline date.

The_Slithy_Tove

keithlml wrote: »

I have a debt collection letter which expires today.

After 9 pages of this thread, you don't really think a debt collector's deadline is important in any way, do you?

HO87

The DVLA's response is wholly consistent with the approach they have previously adopted and having now taken a stance the probability of them ever shifting from it is minimal, I'd suggest.

Some years ago after many months of determined and focussed badgering the DVLA eventually admitted that they didn't scrutinise any keeper checks carried out via the EDI (despite the fact that right up to that point they continued to claim that each check was carefully examined - something that Churchill would have described as "terminological inexactitude"). It therefore followed - as we all knew - that it was impossible for them to establish that such checks had the necessary "reasonable cause" - as required by Reg 27(e).

Quick as a flash, out of its top hat the DVLA argued that by establishing a condition (of the KADOE contract) that PPC's would need to belong to an ATA that they need not therefore have to go through the pesky, tedious job of checking each enquiry - even though the law required it.

An argument was then put to the ICO that by failing to adhere to the requirements of Reg 27(e) the DVLA were therefore in breach of the DPA. Guess what? The ICO found in favour of the DVLA and invite us - mere mortals (who still have to abide by the bl**dy law not bend it when it suits us) that if we thought they were wrong we should take them to Judicial Review. Is this the reality of the Government's commitment to the protection of personal data?

I'm beginning to wonder whether piecemeal nibbles aren't something of a waste of time and effort and whether there isn't a better way to tackle things - and I'm not recommending any form of direct action - but rather that we focus efforts on our representatives in the Commons. The BPA invested a great deal of time and effort at wooing mandarins and MP's and succeeded in getting s.56. Would we be better doing the same?

bazster

Dear DVLA,

You continue to wilfully ignore the substance of my complaint. Please address each of the following numbered points individually and in sequence.

1. You have still not addressed the point about the non-applicability of the airport byelaws. The law is clear: any publicly-accessible road is subject all the normal road traffic laws. See the Road Traffic Act 1988 192(1), definition of "road". So, for example, if someone were to drive on those roads without insurance they would be committing an offence even though the roads are privately owned.

It is further clear that where a road is subject to the "road traffic enactments" then it is not subject to airport byelaws. See see the Airports Act 1986 63(2)(d), and the Newcastle Airport byelaws themselves, section 6.

It couldn't be clearer. The Newcastle Airport byelaws do not apply to any publicly-accessible road, therefore UKPPO cannot, as it claims, be enforcing them. Accordingly it had no "reasonable cause" to request my details.

If you are still struggling to grasp this point I strongly recommend that you take legal advice.

Your response to this point should be numbered "1".

2. Even if the byelaws were applicable (which they are not) UKPPO, as a private company or individual, has no power to enforce them. Again, then, UKPPO had no "reasonable cause" to request my details.

If you are still struggling to grasp this point I strongly recommend that you take legal advice.

Your response to this point should be numbered "2".

3. It is entirely irrelevant that a company named "Newcastle Park and Fly Limited" exists. The company named on the supposed contract with UKPPO is not "Newcastle Park and Fly Limited", it is "Park & Fly Ltd.", a company that does not exist. Accordingly the supposed contract is invalid and UKPPO cannot demonstrate any authority to operate at Newcastle Airport, hence it had no "reasonable cause" to request my details.

If you are still struggling to grasp this point I strongly recommend that you take legal advice.

Your response to this point should be numbered "3".

4. In any case Newcastle Park & Fly Limited is neither the landowner nor the airport operator. The airport is owned and operated by Newcastle International Airport Limited. Accordingly only Newcastle International Airport Limited could enter into a contract authorising any activity on the airport roads. UKPPO is unable to produce a contract with Newcastle International Airport Limited, therefore it had no authority to operate and no "reasonable cause" to request my details.

If you are still struggling to grasp this point I strongly recommend that you take legal advice.

Your response to this point should be numbered "4".

5. The question as to the status of the legal entity calling itself UKPPO is not whether a dormant company could be trading, but whether this dormant company was trading when the supposed contract was signed, and I suggest to you that it was not.

The most recent accounts submitted to Companies House by UKPPO Ltd. were for the year ending 31st December 2013. They were headed "Dormant Accounts", and claimed dormant company exemption under Section 480 of the Companies Act 2006. No accounts have been submitted more recently.

It is a requirement of company law that a company shows its registered name, registered number and registered address on all its official documents. If it uses a trading style it must still show the aforementioned details, and state "trading as...". I have received nothing from UKPPO carrying these details, and nor are they to be found on the supposed contract with the non-existent Park & Fly Ltd.

Accordingly I conclude that UKPPO is not a trading style of the limited company and is merely a trading style of, probably, a sole trader.

Accordingly the legal entity operating at Newcastle Airport is not a member of the BPA.

Your response to this point should be numbered "5".


I would remind you that, as a government agency, you are accountable to all citizens of this country and not merely private parking companies. Accordingly I expect you to give the above points the proper consideration they merit and provide me with a detailed response to each.

ManxRed

Dear bazster.

There IS a contract, you have included it in your previous correspondence. This allows UKPPO to enforce bylaws via a Civil Court.

Therefore I can find nothing wrong at all. Therefore, no breach of the DPA has occurred at all.

Q.E.D.

Yours,
DVLA.

bazster

Maybe, but it all adds to the pressure if Keith keeps escalating, as I hope he will.

ManxRed

The DVLA's heads are now firmly in the sand in full 'la la la la la' mode.

I think they've obviously twigged the 'NEWCASTLE Park & Fly Ltd' gaffe and know they are on very shaky ground. Their nonchalant brush off of this just indicates that they are simply not going to back down at all.

I too hope the OP continues to escalate, they are painted into a corner now - but it will need to be someone else who acts - The ICO maybe, or an MP. The DVLA are simply going to keep responding as per my spoof letter above.

bazster

ManxRed wrote: »

The DVLA's heads are now firmly in the sand in full 'la la la la la' mode.

I think they've obviously twigged the 'NEWCASTLE Park & Fly Ltd' gaffe and know they are on very shaky ground. Their nonchalant brush off of this just indicates that they are simply not going to back down at all.

I too hope the OP continues to escalate, they are painted into a corner now - but it will need to be someone else who acts - The ICO maybe, or an MP. The DVLA are simply going to keep responding as per my spoof letter above.

I agree, but if/when someone is prepared to act the DVLA's refusal to respond to reasonable questions put to it will not look good.

ManxRed

Agree totally.

I'm just being my usual cynical self.