Scotland; PCN/NTK after receiving "privacy notice" put on car

RandomName

Hi,

Little confused from reading the newbies guide as the advise seems to be to appeal to the retail outlet or ignore. Searching for previous instances like this doesn't come up with anything similar.

In Scotland, I am the keeper of the vehicle however not the driver, driver overstays in a private car park that is marked as free for 30 minutes.

Sticker is then placed under the window wiper that states it is a privacy notice, no details on it other than they will possibly send a charge.

6 days later a letter is received from vehicle control.

The two photos attached are taken 1 minute apart but the contravention time is 47 minute later, it says I can go online and enter a code to view more photos, I have not done this as they will know the photos have been viewed.

Scotland, so POFA does not apply, I am also not the keeper, this was not a retail park but instead an unusual array of side streets around various commercial buildings with odd placed parking bays where the road was wide enough.

Would I appeal to the business that was being visited in the first instance? The driver was on a course in their premises and spending money, however they only rent a small space in one of the buildings and likely have no weight over the company that is operating everything so I doubt this would work.

Vehicle control are members of the BPA.

Thanks for any help, hopefully someone can advise.

RandomName

XXttps://i.imgur.com/h2UvNcU.jpg
XXttps://i.imgur.com/x2ZpZ8h.jpg

XXttps://i.imgur.com/AeOaEqj.jpg
XXttps://i.imgur.com/8nWMg9b.jpg

XXtps://i.imgur.com/RgTGYoB.jpg
XXttps://i.imgur.com/zO5IDQ0.jpg

Umkomaas

https://i.imgur.com/h2UvNcU.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/x2ZpZ8h.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/AeOaEqj.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/8nWMg9b.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/RgTGYoB.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/zO5IDQ0.jpg

I’m not sure where we are with keeper liability in Scotland (it seems to be on its way), but the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) isn’t law in Scotland.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Complain to the DVLA that VCS are misrepresenting this to the keeper (based in Scotland) in order to unlawfully attempt to extort money from them.

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk (or) KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

RandomName

Thanks for linking the images, don't have enough posts here to create links.

I'll contact the DVLA.

Worth contacting VCS in any way? Even just an email to state I am not the driver and have contacted the DVLA about their misrepresentation/extortion attempt?

KeithP

https://i.imgur.com/h2UvNcU.jpg

That image is of a forbidding sign.

It simply says that if you do not have a permit you cannot park here.

There is no way that that can be the basis of a contract.

Vehicle control are members of the BPA.

Yes they are, but that doesn't matter.

The significant point is that they are members of the IPC's Accredited Operator Scheme and are therefore bound by their CoP.

Not worth contacting VCS. In fact post #1 of the NEWBIES thread clearly says not to do that.
Read the answer to this question there:

Q - ''I'm in Scotland/NI, so is the advice different?''

RandomName

It looks like the Transport (Scotland) Bill passed on 10/10/19, does this change anything as on page 91 it talks about something amounting to keeper liability, I would link but the forum says I am not allowed to post links...

XXX.parliament.scot/S5_Bills/Transport%20(Scotland)%20Bill/SPBill33BS052019.pdf

I have emailed my MSP to ask clarification on this and also contacted the DVLA.

Additionally, is it worth contacting trading standards seeing as the two images of evidence they have provided are taken 1 minute apart, and also that the signage at site is illegible as it is so high up?

twhitehousescat

KeithP wrote: »

https://i.imgur.com/h2UvNcU.jpg

That image is of a forbidding sign.

It simply says that if you do not have a permit you cannot park here.

There is no way that that can be the basis of a contract.




Yes they are, but that doesn't matter.

The significant point is that they are members of the IPC's Accredited Operator Scheme and are therefore bound by their CoP.

Not worth contacting VCS. In fact post #1 of the NEWBIES thread clearly says not to do that.
Read the answer to this question there:

https://www.parliament.scot/S5_Bills/Transport%20(Scotland)%20Bill/SPBill33BS052019.pdf


2) It is immaterial for the purposes of this Part whether or not the vehicle was permitted to be parked (or to remain parked) on the land

so no "the signs were forbidding defense"

Umkomaas

https://parliament.scot/S5_Bills/Transport%20(Scotland)%20Bill/SPBill33BS052019.pdf

I’m viewing this on an iPad and the relevant paras commence on page 97 (maybe you’re viewing on a PC/laptop) ....

However, it’s very early days in the implementation of this law, so we’ll need to see just how things play out. You’ll be one of the first who might be affected, so keep in touch with the forum.

RandomName

58Z6 Notices to keeper: accompanying evidence
(1) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations prescribe evidence which must accompany a notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of section 30 58Z2(1)(a) or section 58Z2(1)(b) (as the case may be).
(2) The regulations may, in particular, make provision as to—
(a) the means by which any prescribed evidence is to be generated or otherwise produced (which may include a requirement to use equipment of a kind approved for the purpose by a person specified in the regulations), or
35 (b) the circumstances in which any evidence is, or is not, required to accompany a notice to keeper.

The whole thing reads incomplete, 'may by', 'the means by which', 'may include'. There are no guidelines for what is actually required regarding evidence or for signage etc.

RandomName

Just received a reply from the DVLA stating that they have contacted VCS and they have provided evidence in the way of photos and that POFA was not quoted when the parking charge notice was issued therefore they will not be doing anything.

nosferatu1001

Privacy notice? Id suggest a typo but you did it twice...

twhitehouse - no, thats not what that means. Its just saying that establishing keeper liability doesnt have anything to do with whether the vehicle was alowed to be parked there - it just sets out whether they can chase the keeper or not. You can then as keeper provide the usual defences.

It means they dont have to write legislation covering the sitatuion where the vehicle IS allowed to be there and where it ISNT.