Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

Edislaw

• copies of correspondence between the Department of Transport and Newcastle Airport with regard to the review of their byelaws currently underway
The information you requested is being withheld in reliance on the exemption in section 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because the information was sent to the Department in strict confidence by Newcastle Airport. We have checked with Newcastle Airport and they have confirmed that it is not appropriate for this information to be released

• When did this review commence?
o The first revised version of the Newcastle Airport’s byelaws was received on 23 August 2016.

• When is it anticipated the review will be completed and byelaws updated?
o The Department remains in discussion with Newcastle Airport regarding approval of new byelaws. There are no set time limits for this process.

• Do the byelaws of Newcastle Airport apply to the road system which connects the airport and its car parks to the A696 dual carriageway

o The area covered by Newcastle Airport’s existing byelaws can be found on the Newcastle Airport website at: https://www.newcastleairport.com/about-your-airport/airport-byelaws/.

Computersaysno

Edislaw wrote: »

• copies of correspondence between the Department of Transport and Newcastle Airport with regard to the review of their byelaws currently underway
The information you requested is being withheld in reliance on the exemption in section 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because the information was sent to the Department in strict confidence by Newcastle Airport. We have checked with Newcastle Airport and they have confirmed that it is not appropriate for this information to be released

• When did this review commence?
o The first revised version of the Newcastle Airport’s byelaws was received on 23 August 2016.

• When is it anticipated the review will be completed and byelaws updated?
o The Department remains in discussion with Newcastle Airport regarding approval of new byelaws. There are no set time limits for this process.

• Do the byelaws of Newcastle Airport apply to the road system which connects the airport and its car parks to the A696 dual carriageway

o The area covered by Newcastle Airport’s existing byelaws can be found on the Newcastle Airport website at: https://www.newcastleairport.com/about-your-airport/airport-byelaws/.

Typical civil service responses....don't actually answer your queries!!


I'd suggest an appeal against refusal to release [google for arguments against them using that exemption clause]


Then ask to see the reviewed version dated 23/8/16..might be interesting.

Edislaw

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, SAR Team, Swansea SA99 IBX
Thank you for your email regarding the release of information from the Driver and Vehicle
Licensing Agency's (DVI.A) vehicle register. DVLA takes very seriously its duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 to protect the privacy of the motorists whose details it holds for the purposes of registering and licensing vehicles, and to comply With the Act’s guiding principles. However, the Act exempts from its non-disclosure provisions the release of data Where the law allows it and DVLA is not in a position to refuse those who have a legitimate right to receive information.

Regulation 27 Of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations requires DVLA 10 release information from the vehicle register to the police. to '(Val authorities for purposes associated with the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention, and to anyone Who can demonstrate 'reasonable cause. to have it. 'Reasonable cause' is defined in legislation and requests are considered on (heir merits.

We have been advised that requests from private car parking enforcement companies are considered to meet the 'reasonable cause. criteria. Unauthorised parking on private land is a
problem many landowners experience and providing them with information is necessary to
allow them to enforce their rights to their property. Since the 23" November all car park enforcement companies who require information from the DVLA must be members of an Approved Operator Scheme. Members of this scheme must adhere to a code of practice for the operation of their company.

You may also be interested to know that anyone making a false declaration in order to obtain information may he leaving themselves open to prosecution under the Data Protection Act. and the Information Commissioner is keen to follow up any such incidents.

Please see below the information requested.

VRM requested by UK Parking Patrol Office
Enquiring Reason Breach of Terms and Conditions of a private car park

As these requests were made electronically this would have generated automatic resposes
which would have been sent electronically to the relevant company the following working day

The DVLA does not record the location of the alleged contravention. The notice issued should provide the full location details.

You have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office if you believe that the DVLA has not handled your subject access request appropriately. Please write to Information Commissioners Office. Wycliffe House. Water Lane. Wilmslow SK9 5AF.

Edislaw

I spoke to the Information Commissioner's Office and explained that the vehicle was not in a car park at the time of the alleged incident which is inconsistent with the reason given for the request for the information. I was encouraged to write to UKPP and point out their error and if not satisfied with their response to complain to the information commissioner.

It would clearly be advantageous for anyone facing a charge for stopping outside a car park to request the information from DVLA and to complain if the same inconsistent reason is given.

Edislaw

The Code of Conduct of IPC with which ~UKPPL must comply states in regard to the notice that it must (amongst other things)
"(f) state that the Creditor does not know the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver; "

So far as I can see the standard PCN does not mention this unless I've missed something. Can anyone point to where this is stated on the PCN please?

RobinofLoxley

Edislaw wrote: »

The Code of Conduct of IPC with which ~UKPPL must comply states in regard to the notice that it must (amongst other things)
"(f) state that the Creditor does not know the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver; "

So far as I can see the standard PCN does not mention this unless I've missed something. Can anyone point to where this is stated on the PCN please?

They only need to state that on the PCN if they are going to rely on POFA to transfer the charge to the keeper.

AFAIA they are not using POFA, they are pursuing the keeper under byelaws as below.

3.3.1.1 A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) may be issued in respect of the vehicle. The PCN will specify:
3.3.1.1.1 the sum the registered keeper is required to pay; 3.3.1.1.2 the time within which the payment must be made; and 3.3.1.1.3 the address to which the payment must be sent.
3.3.1.2 The PCN will also explain that unless payment is made in accordance with its terms, court action may be commenced to recover sum due from the registered keeper under the PCN together with costs, interest and any other sums legally recoverable.

BountyHunter

As we are only waiting on a few outcomes I thought it would be useful to summarize the group progress so far.

The group ended up with 25 members – which at times was quite time consuming to keep up with but worth it in the end. The outcomes are currently:

1 Contested jurisdiction, which was settled by the claimant, including a refund of the £100 application fee, and the claim dropped.

1 Struck out – due to BWL not meeting the WS deadline

9 Discontinued

6 dismissed at hearings, including 1 for inadequate signs, 1 that Byelaws don’t apply, and 4 for lack of/inadequate contract

1 TBC as the defendant cannot currently access their post – expected to be another discontinuance

1 TBC only just transferred to local court (no reason given for the additional delay)

1 group member is only in the early stages pre Claim form

2 gone quiet/ awol from the group

1 was considering paying in the early stages as their spouse was the RK and they didn’t want to go to court, and hasn’t contributed since.

That accounts for 23…….

BountyHunter

Nobody that attended a hearing lost, however 2 defendants were unlucky due to different circumstances:

1 Didn’t realise they had the wrong address on MCOL from a previous claim and missed deadlines without realising. Default judgement was made against them (if that’s the correct terminology).

1 defendant couldn’t make the hearing date at the last minute due to self-employed work commitments, they had written to the court to explain, but with hindsight they perhaps should have completed n244 form? Additional costs were added to the claim for not attending.

Umkomaas

Whichever way you look at it, that's some success rate. Well done on a well managed and well won fight - on so many fronts. Super job.

BountyHunter

Also not forgetting the numerous people that have commented that they also won on the back of advice provided in this thread but were not in the group.