Didn't receive initial fine until court papers arrived

Coupon-mad

Yes. This poster seems to know about it too:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5964764/bwlegal

FuzzyDuck1

Thank you. I have read the thread you provided me. Interesting... In this instance NCP aren't legally allowed to access DVLA records for keeper information so have therefore breached data protection regardless of if they were unaware as they had no right to request my keeper details. I've applied to access the commercial land registry details which I should be able to access within the next 24hrs. I'm not at liberty to share the information that I find due to the licencing laws I had to agree to but should I find that NCP do not hold leasehold title, can I therefore proceed claim against them for data protection breach? Also, do I report them to the DVLA, BPA and any other authorities?

Coupon-mad

NCP aren't legally allowed to access DVLA records for keeper information

They are, but they are not allowed to say the keeper is liable.

FuzzyDuck1

How is this possible when the BPA doesn't cover the public land which is owned as per the details you sent to me regarding the ombudsman? If the BPA doesn't cover it they can't access my data through being BPA member surely?

nosferatu1001

The KADOE contradct covers it.

Coupon-mad

FuzzyDuck1 wrote: »

How is this possible when the BPA doesn't cover the public land which is owned as per the details you sent to me regarding the ombudsman? If the BPA doesn't cover it they can't access my data through being BPA member surely?

Who said the BPA doesn't cover that land? This is nothing to do with BPA/not BPA.

The BPA CoP allows private firms to operate on any land they rock up on, including under statutory control sometimes. The BPA also covers Council decriminalised parking, not just private firms.

I said it sounds like the land doesn't fall under the POFA - the law for keeper liability - thus a PPC can't tell a keeper that they are liable.

The PPC can get the rk's data from the DVLA, for the purpose of asking who was driving, in a non-POFA case.

Read the Ombudsman's decision again. His view was that the land was not relevant land, thus the Council should compensate a KEEPER who was misled into thinking he/she was liable UNDER THE POFA.

It's all about misleading the keeper about their liability or lack of liability.

FuzzyDuck1

KADOE

B2. Purpose For Which Data Is Provided
B2.1. The DVLA shall provide each requested item of Data to the Customer
via the KADOE Service for the Reasonable Cause of enabling the
Customer to:
a) seek recovery of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the
Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice, and using the
procedure in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(where the vehicle was parked on private land in England or Wales on
a particular date); and
b) otherwise seek recovery from a driver of unpaid Parking Charges in
accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice
(where the vehicle was parked on private land in Scotland or Northern
Ireland by that driver on a particular date, or where the Customer has
chosen not to pursue, or is not in a position to pursue the vehicle
keeper by utilising conditions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012).

The land on which they operate is not private land it is public land. From my understanding only the Borough council as landowner would therefore be able to obtain Keeper details from the DVLA and not NCP?

The BPA:

2.13 The Code does not cover on-street or off-street car
parking control and enforcement led by local authorities
and regulated by, for example:
• the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
• the Road Traffic Act 1991
• the Traffic Management Act 2004.
These are covered by detailed statutory control and
regulation and can include:
• immobilisation
• removal of vehicles
• issuing penalty charge notices and excess charge notices.

I have been issued with a PCN based on them obtaining my details from DVLA when they have no legal entitlement to enforce under Schedule 4 as it is Public land and they are not Landowner. (please note at this stage that BW Legal in one of their letters detailing their clients position actually referred to this as a PENALTY charge notice regardless of whether or not this was a typo by BW Legal.

If someone has no right to act on the information provided by the DVLA against the person who is registered, it is my view that this information should not be obtained in the first instance. Why should they have access to my details for no legal reason?

nosferatu1001

Youre not readni tgthe para correctly
THe first "private land" clearly doesnt apply, and noone said it did

"b) otherwise seek recovery from a driver of unpaid Parking Charges in
accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice
(where the vehicle was parked on private land in Scotland or Northern
Ireland by that driver on a particular date, or where the Customer has
chosen not to pursue, or is not in a position to pursue the vehicle
keeper by utilising conditions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012)."

My bolds

The parens are not even binding, because thats what the parens is for. IT is giving here a non exhaustive list of erasons under which it can be recovered in accordnace.

FuzzyDuck1

I think what i am trying to say is that the private parking company couldn't apply to the DVLA through PoFA rules as it was on public owned land. BW Legal have stated in there letter that they obtained the information through Schedule 4 of the PoFA. The BPA also stipulates that the operator needs to be operating on private land. Is there an abuse of their membership therefore obtaining the information as member of BPA when this particular land on which they are operating doesn't seem to be covered under the BPA?

Coupon-mad

BW Legal have stated in there letter that they obtained the information through Schedule 4 of the PoFA.

Well BW Legal are wrong - if this is not relevant land - and have just used template words.

I say ''if'' because as I said before, NCP may have title/possession:

but if they have leasehold title then they are the owners with possession, with some rights over the land.

Hence why it's important to know what the Council mean by the word 'lease'. Might just mean they have 'let' them have a licence to operate, in which case the info I showed you does apply.

The BPA also stipulates that the operator needs to be operating on private land.

The BPA will probably say this is private land leased by NCP. And anyway, the BPA certainly lets parking firms operate on non-relevant land.

the private parking company couldn't apply to the DVLA through PoFA rules

When a PPC makes a KADOE application for data, they don't have to say whether they are applying under POFA rules or not.

A PPC or landowner (and arguably, NCP might be both here) CAN get data in non-POFA cases, to ask the keeper who was driving. There is a DVLA FOI somewhere held by Auntie Google, saying just that.