NTK/NTO on Raiway bye law land

The_Deep

My son in law has received an out of time NTK/NTO from APCOA for parking waywardly in a car park covered by bye laws.

I am uncertain whether, by applying for his details from the DVLA, they have breached the DPA/KADOE. I am pretty sure they have a legitimate reason, (to request the name of the driver), but would like confirmation from a member more learned in this area than my good-self.

pappa_golf

this may be one for pepopoo as its being discussed , however I think with with the latest popla comment , either the DVLA have accepted , or ,,,,,,,,

if this was in the time bylaw cases were on hold ,, that would be a different story as they were told NOT to continue untill told differently

Umkomaas

PePiPoo TD? Bit of bad luck there for you! Oops.:(

pappa_golf

sorry TD , did,nt think ,

a question could be asked tho ,,,,,,,,,,

regarding your question

1: we wont know what happens untill POPLa put their foot in it and some stupid PPC attempts a court claim , doing this and loosing would kill the golden goose

2: PPCs cannot pass data to TOC

3: PPCs only have 6 mths to apply to the DVLA ,but after 56 days , no POFa **

4: not sure about TOC , but suspect 6 mths



*** POFa ??? its bloody bylaws!!!Q

The_Deep

The "event" occurred 61 days ago. The NTK/NTO looks OK, but I have not been through it with fine tooth comb, (no need to) . Their signs are a bit iffy too, T&Cs written by Tolstoy in tiny white letters on a pale blue back ground.

Redx

they cannot request details about the "DRIVER" because they have no idea who the driver is (so keep it that way) and neither do the DVLA know who was driving either, they can apply for REGISTERED KEEPER details (correctly or incorrectly , its what they do) but as its byelaws CM said on here only this week in an Indigo thread that only the OWNER can be taken to the magistrates court.

The RK may (or may not) be the OWNER of the vehicle , so neither the keeper , the driver , or the registered keeper could actually be the OWNER

this is all a part of the smoke and mirrors that these parking companies use for their falsehoods , which may bite them back if they get taken to court for breaching the DPA or their KADOE contracts

the drivers details should not be divulged

Umkomaas

Post #18 from this PePiPoo Flame Pit forum thread explains how most of the 6 months time limit can be ridden out by strategically timing appeals etc.

Omitted from that suggested process is the engagement of the PPC in answering tricky questions, then playing ping-pong with them by waiting a couple of weeks (each time) after they reply to a question, by then asking a supplementary or seeking further clarification about their previous answer. One question at a time, by 2nd class post, will soon see 6 months disappear.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106604&st=0

@TD - I presume you still have reading privileges over there? :rotfl:

Handbags-at-dawn

Railway Byelaw 14(4)(i) says the owner of the vehicle may be liable for a penalty as displayed in the area. But as no-one apart from the Court has the power to impose a penalty, any penalty displayed in the area is for entertainment purposes only. Read, enjoy, and move on. No-one, not even the owner, has to pay it. So that is the extent of any possible owner liability.

However, if the DRIVER parked in contravention of the Byelaws then he can be prosecuted. No-one else can be prosecuted because no-one else can commit the offence. Similarly, if the NtK talks about a parking charge for breach of contract rather than a penalty, only the driver can be liable (POFA not applying).

APCOA don't know who the driver is and no-one is under any obligation to tell them. If the NtK insists on the keeper telling them, they are acting aggressively (contrary to the Consumer (Protection from Unfair Practices) Regs 2008 as amended). This would also be in breach of the DPA, Principle 1: data shall be processed lawfully.

Having said all that, POPLA have got themselves confused about "owner liability" and have been allowing appeals on the basis the owner hasn't been identified. Wrong law, but what the hell? C-M has got this one down to a fine art, and long may it continue now that POPLA are open for Byelaw business again.

The_Deep

Thanks all. Do not worry, no-one has any intention of telling anyone who was driving, in fact, when I asked yesterday, neither son-in-law nor passenger could remember. Ownership is also a bit of a mystery, they could own it jointly, or it could be owned by one of their companies.

Life is soooo complicated

Yes, I can read peppipoo, but for some unaccountable reason, they do not wish me to adorn their pages with my estimable contributions, their loss.

The_Deep

I have now received a reply from the DVLA to my complaint that Apcoa accessed my son in law's details without due cause.


They say that afatwc, the PPC had a tight to know who the car was registered to. Reluctantly I have to concede, bit I will right complaining that having accessed the details, they are misusing now misusing them.


Just keeping the ball in play!

twhitehousescat

They say that afatwc, the PPC had a tight to know who the car was registered to. Reluctantly I have to concede,

I disagree , as they could not offer or defend a POPLa appeal , and are told that charges must be made for trespass





you do know of the new ruling by the BPA regarding railway bylaw land?