UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd Newcastle Airport

ManxRed

Bylaws that do not appear to have been signed by the Sec. of State.

Coupon-mad

ManxRed wrote: »

My money's on the DVLA saying that they have reasonable cause under the bylaws, but let's see.

The rules still state that they need to be a member of, and abide by, an AOS and it's CoP.

Yep but they don't (as we all suspected anyway) because:

- the byelaws - which I've read as I know some others in the same boat - only state that they can either clamp or issue (specifically) 'parking charge notices'

and

- UKPPO chase these up as a debt, with ordinary threatograms, way beyond the 6 months allowed to lay a real penalty before Magistrates.

Myself and 4ConsumerRights know of people in the same position - two who have been refused a POPLA decision, case chucked out after 8 months of waiting, one who has a fairly new ticket like this OP. The two who've been waiting patiently for POPLA to decide in their favour, have had threatograms.

We plan a stronger BPA & DVLA complaint, to the effect that UKPPO have merely called what should be a parking charge notice a 'penalty' in order to avoid POPLA. We know that because the byelaws don't allow a penalty charge notice to be issued and because UKPPO have given the game away by chasing these as if they are civil debts, far too late. They can't have it both ways - this also happened briefly with Meteor at stations and they were told to decide which it was and if a parking charge notice, it had to be called just that, and allow POPLA. Trading Standards got involved in the Meteor furore I recall, we had a couple of very feisty victims who rattled cages galore.

If the BPA and DVLA don't agree with the sensible view about what UKPPO are doing here, it may be time to involve Trading Standards at Newcastle and also the ICO to investigate because the data is being used as if it's a civil debt = a no-no.

The BPA know this, they have local authority members and would come down on them like a ton of bricks if a LA started pursuing a penalty charge as if it was a 'civil debt', way beyond the 6 months they have to issue a NTO. The door closes after six months for penalties like this and the correct route has to be followed - or it ain't a real penalty after all.

bazster

C-m, don't forget, as I keep saying, the bye-laws (such as they are) don't apply anyway because these publicly-accessible roads are subject to the road traffic enactments. The road traffic enactments and the byelaws are mutually exclusive, and the byelaws can't take precedence because the road traffic enactments apply by statute.

bazster

keithlml wrote: »

I feel I am being forced into submission?

No you are not, you are simply getting the same brush-off as everyone does who complains to these spineless, corrupt organisations. Have you complained to your MP?

None of these clowns can force you to pay this stupid fake fine so for God's sake don't feel that you need to. UKPPO will do nothing beyond sending silly letters, because Cheetham has fewer legs to stand on than does a fish, and he knows it. So criminal is his operation that he will not risk it being brought to the attention of a court.

ManxRed

keithlml wrote: »

RE: UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd Newcastle Airport
///////
Jan Wilkins
To KEITH

Good morning

We are not a regulatory body nor a legal entity. If you feel there has been a breach of the Data Protection Act you should report this directly to the Information Commissioner’s Office as previously advised. Penalty charge notices are issued on behalf of Councils and Byelaws and are covered under the Road Traffic Act and statute. The BPA Code of Practice is not relevant to these tickets.


Yours sincerely
AOS Investigations Team
British Parking Association

This is the starting point of an official complaint to the DVLA.

1. They cannot obtain Registered Keeper data as part of an AOS, as they are acting outside of the BPA Code of Practice. Your evidence is above.
2. They cannot obtain Registered Keeper data as part of a bylaws enforcement as:
a. The bylaws in question have not been signed by the Secretary of State
b. Road Traffic Enactments apply on the road on which the incident took place, and as these are enforced under statute then they would take priority over any bylaws anyway.

Ergo, the DVLA have breached the Data Protection Act by releasing data in respect of incidents at this site, and you want it investigated. If they fob you off, ask how you can escalate it further. Eventually you'll get to the ICO, and possibly your MP. Stick at it, someone's dropped a real b*ll*ck here and you have a really good complaint.

keithlml

Hello again
Based on your inf I am about to fire this off to BPA and DVLA.

Any points I've missed

---

"Hello Again

Thank you for your reply .

In this situation I believe that one of your operators is misusing their KADOE contract and association to pursue tickets which are unlrelated to byelaws and are managing to bypass both systems and bring the parking industry into disrepute.

Byelaws that do not appear to have been signed by the Sec.of State.

The byelaws – which I've read – only state that they can either clamp or issue (specifically) 'parking charge notices'

The bye-laws (such as they are) don't apply anyway because these publicly-accessible roads are subject to the road traffic enactments. The road traffic enactments and the byelaws are mutually exclusive, and the byelaws can't take precedence because the road traffic enactments apply by statute.

I have been refused a POPLA decision for this "incident".

UKPPO have merely called what should be a parking charge notice a 'penalty' in order to avoid POPLA. The byelaws don't allow a penalty charge notice to be issued and UKPPO have given the game away by chasing these as if they are civil debts.

I have contacted Trading Standards at Newcastle and also the ICO to investigate, because the data is being used as if it's a civil debt.



Keith Longstaff

bazster

You've somewhat missed the point there. What ManxRed was getting at is this:

DVLA requires parking enforcement companies to be members of an ATA and to adhere to its Code of Practice. Any company that is not a member of an ATA or is not following its Code of Practice is not entitled to receive registered keeper data.

DVLA recently went to great lengths to defend the lawfulness of this position in successfully defending a Judicial Review initiated by Steven Duff.

The BPA has now categorically told you that UKPPO in its operation at Newcastle Airport is not following the Code of Practice. Accordingly, by the DVLA's own "rules", UKPPO is not entitled to receive registered keeper details, and by supplying such details the DVLA is in breach of the Data Protection Act.

UKPPO cannot hide behind the pretence that it is issuing byelaw penalties. 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 (Road Traffic Act 1988 192(1)); accordingly they are not subject to the airport byelaws (Airports Act 1986 63(2)(d), and the Newcastle Airport byelaws section 6).

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 with its ATA's Code of Practice (as confirmed by the BPA). Accordingly it is not entitled to request and receive registered keeper details from the DVLA.

This is a complaint to DVLA only. Don't send it to the BPA, they've already done their bit by gifting you the admission that UKPPO is not complying with the CoP.

bod1467

Have you read the byelaws?
Have you contacted ICO and TS?

If you haven't, please don't play the cut-n-paste game and tell lies.

ManxRed

Maybe try this:

Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for your response.

In this particular case the parking operator is not acting on behalf of a council. It is also not acting under bylaws as (a) the bylaws in question as published on Newcastle Airport's website do not appear to have been authorised by the Secretary of State, (b) the bylaws that do appear there (unauthorised) only make provision for the issuing of 'parking' charge notices ('penalty' charge notices are not mentioned) and (c) in any case, as these roads are publicly accessible they would fall under Road Traffic Enactments which - as they are based on statute - would take precedence over any bylaws actually in place.

As you have confirmed that this company are not acting under your AOS Code of Practice, it is therefore my belief that they are obtaining Registered Keeper data from the DVLA without any 'reasonable cause'.

Furthermore, their paperwork indicates that they would be pursuing the charges under a 'civil debt' procedure, which is something that does not apply to bylaw enforcement of a penalty charge notice.

I would suggest that this company are using the word 'penalty' to attribute a false statutory authority to these tickets which they simply do not possess. It also enables them to avoid offering the motorist the independent appeals process normally catered for in your Code of Practice. Although UKPPO's paperwork states that POPLA is available, POPLA have confirmed that they do not preside over these tickets.

As the DVLA usually refer such matters of access to Registered Keeper data to yourselves, I would like you to investigate further, paying particular attention to the fact that (a) UKPPO are not acting on behalf of a Council, and (b) that bylaws do not apply in this location, and that they are trying to pursue a civil debt as a private parking operator and member of the BPA AOS scheme.

Yours,

ManxRed

CC it to the DVLA.