Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

Redx

I doubt that the bylaws say that. more likely to say OWNER

HOWEVER, IF TWENTY SOMETHING PEOPLE BEAT UKPPO IN COURT ON THESE MATTERS, WITH THE SAME TOPICS, WHY WOULD YOURS BE ANY DIFFERENT ? IT WOULDNT


what matters is what a judge says , in court

KeithP

Woppy101 wrote: »

...and the Bye-laws also state that the Registered Keeper is liable.”

Do they?

I've not seen these Bye-laws but I suspect whoever wrote that is wrong.

I have seen bye-laws that suggest that the owner may be liable, but that's all.

The Registered Keeper is not necessarily the owner, and vice versa.

Woppy101

Redx wrote: »

I doubt that the bylaws say that. more likely to say OWNER

HOWEVER, IF TWENTY SOMETHING PEOPLE BEAT UKPPO IN COURT ON THESE MATTERS, WITH THE SAME TOPICS, WHY WOULD YOURS BE ANY DIFFERENT ? IT WOULDNT


what matters is what a judge says , in court

That’s good to hear, so it’s just a case of sit tight ignore everything they send and wait for court papers, they do mention this at the bottom of the email
“ If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.”

Woppy101

KeithP wrote: »

Do they?

I've not seen these Bye-laws but I suspect whoever wrote that is wrong.

I have seen bye-laws that suggest that the owner may be liable, but that's all.

The Registered Keeper is not necessarily the owner, and vice versa.

Yeah it’s a mobility car and they are the owners I’m the registered keeper

Redx

disregard the debt recovery procedures

they say MAY, not WILL

but if they do , the info you need to fight it and defend yourself is in this thread, over twenty people won , so as we know that UKPPO lie and cheat in these matters I believe you will prevail, if you prepare well

you do not owe a penny unless a judge says so, in court

YorkyDave

Woppy101
Best not to give any indication as to who may have drove the vehicle.
Edit your post.

Edislaw

the bye-laws in force were approved by the Minister of Transport in 2009. Application to review the Bye-laws was made in 2016 and the Ministry of Transport are still waiting for Newcastle Airport to make application for changes. there is no time limit on when that application may be made.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ak329S-3nrw_g-hKpD2B2dmdFvNX6g?e=IGHHgH

Bounty Hunter and his group made an excellent job of researching this ,matter to the point where twenty or more people succeeded in rejecting the charge. It appears the ultimate achievement was the extraction of a number of people with immediately pending cases to a private WhatsApp Group.

I would be very interested to hear from anyone who has a pending case, not necessarily immediately pending, who would like to discuss a joint strategy for dealing with a number of cases.. Please PM me if you'd like to be included.

Edislaw

Response received from DVLA following an enquiry to ascertain what had been requested from them

"Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, SAR Team, Swansea SA99 IBX

Thank you for your email regarding the release of information from the Driver and VehicleLicensing 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.

The minimum evidence required to demonstrate 'reasonable cause. was agreed by the Department for Transport and can be found on our web-site under how to get information from the DVLÄ. This situation has changed with the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation which came into effect in May 2018."

Edislaw

The request for information appears to be a standard one which could leave UKPPO open to prosecution by the information commissioner if it does not accurately describe the reason for the request.
It refers to a "private car park". the roads surrounding Newcastle Airport are clearly not a private car park so any claim for money following such a request for information which relates to an incident outside the regulated car parks on the airport site is directed to an owner whose details have been obtained illegitimately.
I suggest everyone who receives a PCN should automatically request sight of the information requested in connection with the offence from DVLC and if the request is in any way inaccurate a complaint is made to the information commissioner.

Edislaw

My post of Feb 5 provides a link to the current byelaws. They define airport car parks as ""Airport car parks" means together the Short Stay Car Park, the Short Stay Fast Track Car Park, the Long Stay Car Park, the Pick Up and Drop Off Car Park, the south side parking and the Park and Fly Offsite Car Park;"

It then defines the penalty authorised for contravention of byelaws:
"3. PENALTIES 3.1 Any person contravening any of the following byelaws or anyone assisting or procuring others to do so shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine which, in respect of a contravention of: 3.1.1 byelaws 4.11 or 5.19 shall not exceed level 2 on the standard scale; 3.1.2 byelaws 4.1, 4.2,4.26,4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.14, 5.8, 5.11, 6.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.7, 6.8 or 6.12 shall not exceed level 4 on the standard scale; 3.1.3 any other byelaw shall not exceed level 3 on the standard scale. "
It is my understanding that byelaws are enforced through the magistrates' court and contravening a byelaw can result in a fine upon successful conviction. 

The sections of the byelaws relating to parking are:
"6.16 Parking in designated areas only Park a vehicle other than in a place designated by the Company for that purpose.  
6.2 Parking in Time restricted Areas Leave or park a vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by notice. 6.3 Parking in Prohibited Areas Wait in, leave or park a vehicle where waiting or parking is prohibited by notice."

I think this means that any vehicle parked on an airport road in contravention of a notice prohibiting this is subject to a fine on summary conviction. Until a judge finds someone guilty there is no amount due and therefore any additional charges over the amount found owing is irrelevant. 

Paragraph 6.7 "Road Traffic Enactments Use or cause or permit to be used any vehicle which fails to comply with any braking, steering, lighting, tyre or electrical requirements which would apply to that type of vehicle " implies that some of the roads to which the byelaws apply are subject to the Road Traffic Act.