PCN for Tower Road, Newquay

Umkomaas

The request was made on 28/10/2016 and they received the data on 29/10/2016. This means that when they made the request, it was already too late for them to serve a Notice to Keeper that would meet the POFA deadline.

Surely this is the critical point that blows PE's

"the operator... has confirmed the charge was due to be delivered within the timescale required"

out of the water?

You could complain to ISPA, but most of the board has resigned, and they all confess 'conflict of interest' as they are remunerated by the BPA.

http://ispa.co.uk

Coupon-mad

I would NOT let that lie!

I would reply to both and reiterate it in two lines (keep it short and sweet this time) and ask them to read the evidence again because it cannot be concluded that the PCN was due to be served in time, because it was already too late when the DVLA data was obtained. Attach a copy of the PCN.

I would end by saying that their replies are going to be collated into a formal complaint to be sent off in the first week of January to Marcus Jones at the DCLG, so perhaps they need to reconsider their maths before giving a final response. It beggars belief that it appears that neither the DVLA nor the BPA can count to 14.

LeedsMat

Thanks, I've been formulating detailed responses in my mind, but will do as you suggest instead.

LeedsMat

POPLA appeal was succesful, ParkingEye didn't contest it. Gives me more ammunition when the BPA and DVLA come back to me with more derisory nonsense.

Many thanks to Coupon-mad for help with the appeal, and to all those who give their time to help out others on this forum.

Umkomaas

Well done you.

If you now want to turn the tables you could sue them for misuse of your data under the DPA. It's not for the faint hearted or for those who think it's an easy run as the forums will do most of the work - they won't. If you're prepared to put your back into this, here's a couple of apposite blogs from the Parking Prankster to set you thinking.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/liverpool-business-park-motorist-wins.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/smart-parking-settle-out-of-court-for.html

On PePiPoo, regular contributor 'Lynnzer' seems to be taking a lead in pushing for the pursuit of DPA breaches by PPCs. He has written a number of well constructed Letters Before Claim requiring the PPC to pay the motorist between £250 and £750 as compensation for the stress they have been put under by the PPC, or risk the matter resulting in a formal claim at the Small Claims Court. .

Do a search there to get the hang of what this is all about and whether you might want to take this fight back to the PPC.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=60

kensiko

Apologies for hijacking this thread but I thought it would be good to know someone else with the same issue. I have attached an image of a diary which the OP is welcome to use as a template if they would like to. It might also help some of these companies count to 14 as has been previously mentioned.

I have the similar issue where I think DVLA should not have given keepers details as it was too late for POFA 2012 timescales.

I would like a second opinion if possible to ensure I am not going mad and I can create a new thread if that is easier. I am hoping when the initial appeal fails that it will be successful at POPLA as this one was. The important date on the attached is the 8th December as I just feel it would be very straightforward for DVLA to deny keepers details as it can be calculated if any notice couldn't possibility reach the keeper in the POFA 2012 timescales.

LeedsMat

So the BPA seem to think POFA (or POPLA as they appear to have renamed it) requirements are malleable and also seem to be somewhat confused about grace periods. Their latest reply:

Further to our recent dialogue, we have been in contact with Parking Eye who have advised that they cancelled your ticket on 30 December - copy of cancellation attached.

We believe that this is appropriate action on behalf of the operator as the issuing of the Notice to you was right on the cusp of the deadlines specified in POPLA.

With regards to the matter of the Grace Period, it is our contention that Parking Eye are not in breach of the Code as we believe that the parking period begins as the motorist enters the car park and ends as the motorist leaves - in this instance you were 13 minutes over the allotted time and as a consequence the parking notice was appropriately issued..

We have now closed the case.

So the initial grace period starts before you enter the car park, and then you are allowed 10 minutes to leave once you have left? Lol...

Also ParkingEye didn't "cancel" my ticket, they merely didn't contest my POPLA appeal knowing they'd have difficulty making it stick.

I'm actually quite happy they've replied with such utter nonsense so that I can highlight to Marcus Jones the level of competence of those supposedly regulating the parking industry.

Coupon-mad

Show Marcus Jones the article by the BPA with the distinct TWO periods of allowance (before parking, then another one after) that completely contradicts their current U turn on grace periods:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

Shows they move the goalposts when it suits their members.

'On the cusp' indeed, an absolute lie. It was already too late before they had even got the DVLA data!

LeedsMat

Got another reply back from the DVLA:

DVLA can confirm that the notice to keeper should be delivered by the 31st of October but as previously stated, the DVLA would be unable to comment on whether a notice was delivered within the relevant timescales.

Schedule 4 to that Act is clear in that it prescribes conditions that must be complied with in order to take advantage of the powers in that Schedule to pursue the keeper for payment. One of these is that the company must issue the notice to keeper so that it is delivered within 14 days. If that timescale is not met, the keeper liability powers do not apply; however, the company is still able to pursue payment of the charge through the means open to them prior to the introduction of PoFA, and therefore they have reasonable cause to receive that data. DVLA is not entitled to impose unlawful restrictions on the disclosure of data to those who have a legitimate claim to receive it.

Is this actually true? DVLA seem to be saying that PPCs can request keeper data whenever they feel like it, even when they haven't complied with POFA. I guess this would be true IF the PPC hadn't claimed on the PCN they were exercising rights granted by POFA. The lack of reasonable cause issue still stands though; ParkingEye haven't complied with the BPA Code of Practice with regards to grace periods, but as has become apparent, the DVLA automatically assumes reasonable cause if the PPC is a member of an ATA, whether or not in reality they are complying with the CoP.

Apart from that, DVLA are STILL ignoring the evidence I sent that shows the NTK couldn't have been delivered in time.

I'd very much appreciate some clarity on the data access issue from the experts on this forum, if you have the time, so that my complaint to Marcus Jones is accurate.

Coupon-mad

Yes it is true, they can get the data outside of POFA deadlines but they cannot then tell a keeper they are liable. In your case, they misled you on the PCN and you may have grounds to allege data misuse, to claim compensation for the distress of being informed as keeper, that you were liable for a PCN that you were not.

Can you show us that email in full please? I think it would be useful to be able to quote the sender and the date of the email, for other people who have only had data released on this basis:

''the company is still able to pursue payment of the charge through the means open to them prior to the introduction of PoFA,''

I like that wording, it will be useful I think to have that in your case and in other cases. Can you possibly scan or photograph the email with the person's name on (cover up your ID & subject line)?

You could then host the scan in Dropbox or tinypic or photobucket, but change 'http' to hxxp' in your reply here showing us the linked scan/photo.