NTK/NTO on Raiway bye law land

The_Deep

But they did offer POFA. In any case, surely any landowner has the right to know who owns any vehicle parked on their land.

twhitehousescat

The_Deep wrote: »

But they did offer POFA. In any case, surely any landowner has the right to know who owns any vehicle parked on their land.

"landowner" , yas landowner , and use WHAT method to stop illigal actions on the land ?

give you a clue , m the protection of the bylaws

the PPC could not proceed to CC , and could not give info to TOC , so whats the point in getting details?

Timothea

The PPC can obtain registered keeper data from DVLA to ask the RK to identify the owner or driver. This is probably 'reasonable cause' under the Data Protection Act 1998, as amended. However, the RK can decline to provide this or any other information.

The RK can require the PPC to stop processing the RK's data by sending the PPC a Section 10 Data Subject Notice. Please see this thread for more information. If the PPC ignores this notice, the RK would have a good chance of suing the PPC for compensation.

twhitehousescat

Timothea wrote: »

The PPC can obtain registered keeper data from DVLA to ask the RK to identify the owner or driver. This is probably 'reasonable cause' under the Data Protection Act 1998, as amended. However, the RK can decline to provide this or any other information.

The RK can require the PPC to stop processing the RK's data by sending the PPC a Section 10 Data Subject Notice. Please see this thread for more information. If the PPC ignores this notice, the RK would have a good chance of suing the PPC for compensation.

why , they have no valid cause , because they are not legally allowed to operate as a PPC on this land

the BPA/POPLa are snookered , POPLa are telling the "punter" one thing whilst the truth is

written by the soon to be ended ISPA

"page 4

2. POPLA and appeal process for Railway Land
There is a meeting on 27th January 2017 to discuss this issues. John Gallagher decided to
make a decision on the outstanding cases as they could not stay adjourned, he concluded
that he would allow them all. He has invited the Operators to withdraw them and will allow
the rest. He is meeting with with the DVLA, DCLG and the Railway Operators on the 27
January 2017 to agree the process including the appeals.
If you park in a railway car park it will be a criminal case and they will allow clamping, which
does not seem good practice.
One possibility is the DVLA to say that operators can continue to use POPLA but this means all
appeals will be dismissed. Currently they are bound by the decision where the appellant is
not. The alternative will be to take POPLA out of the equation and then it is pursued through
the criminal system"

!!!!! footing along instead of clearly stating "you have no rights on this land STOP!"

Timothea

You are correct but, until the BPA or DVLA take enforcement action, the PPC will just carry on anyway and a DPA claim would be risky. A Section 10 Data Subject Notice forces the PPC to:

1. Stop processing the RK's personal data (i.e. comply); or
2. Justify why it will continue to process the RK's personal data (i.e. lie); or
3. Be in breach of the DPA (i.e. ignore).

This puts the RK in a much stronger position, IMHO.

twhitehousescat

the dvla will listen to the BPA (the PPC has a valid contract) , the BPA is a "boys club" and looks after members , as its fee paying they cannot say no , or the PPCs move to the IPC

The_Deep

Are we agreed on the following

Apcoa had just cause to obtain my son in law's RK details.

They were acting lawfully in asking him who was driving.

They were acting unlawfully in demanding that he, as RK, pay this money.

If they send him a PoPLA code they may, (or may not), be acting within the law.

What a mess.

twhitehousescat

The_Deep wrote: »

Are we agreed on the following

Apcoa had just cause to obtain my son in law's RK details. NO

They were acting lawfully in asking him who was driving. NO

They were acting unlawfully in demanding that he, as RK, pay this money.

If they send him a PoPLA code they may, (or may not), be acting within the law.

What a mess.

this is a huge mess , now as the first case goes to POPLa and is declined , and the reason stated , they KNOW from that date on that they cannot win a POPLa case and are %tuffed


oh why why why are POPLa making that statement on their website , but yet hiding the ISPA ruling !!