VCS CCJ successfully set aside Leeds Crown Street

Coupon-mad

 I did not realise the importance of this, so I am at fault in this respect.

Yes and no.  Are you reading what I am saying about the DVLA breaking GDPR?

Ferrybird

@nosferatu1001
I only updated the V5 2 weeks ago i.e 5 years after I moved. Like many others I didn't realise this had to be updated. 
I must have mentioned this to at least 10 colleagues and friends in the past week, all of whom had no idea V5 needed updating. I'd like to see a poll measuring awareness of this in the general population! Unless my friends were humouring me and thinking 'what an idiot'......
Anyway, it's my error and I hold my hands up. I corrected it on finding out. 

Ferrybird

@Coupon-mad
Yes, I absolutely agree with you. Also, MOT and vehicle tax has been registered to my current address for the past 5 years.  Therefore the DVLA had 3 things pointing to my new address and only one pointing to my old address.
I'll look over GDPR and add relevant extracts to my draft defence. 

Coupon-mad

Yes, it's about the DVLA not following the data protection principles; this needs addressing as part of the Wider Framework of the two Government consultations that everyone must add their two penn'orth to this month.

henrik777

Coupon-mad said:

That is definitely true but in my replies to the consultation on the Wider Framework to support the new PAS, I am suggesting that there needs to be a new, specific PAP for PPC cases, that requires PPCs to ask the DVLA again for the last known address of the data subject they previously had the address for under KADOE.   

I realise that would be a first, but an important step to prevent default CCJs.

And I am saying that a PPC must re-offer the Single Appeals Service at LBC stage, if not already used by the Defendant.

And I am suggesting that the DVLA are currently breaking the GDPR and DPA 2018, by failing to update all the address data of someone they KNOW has moved house.  When I complained to the DVLA this year, they told me that it's because the V5C Dept is not the same people as the driving licence Dept.  Not good enough, no excuse for breach of the data principles...that has to stop.

The problem with accessing the DVLA again is that people who don't keep their V5 up to date mainly do so in ignorance and many believe the driving licence does the same job therefore many times the problem would remain.

I do believe the current CPR covers this but is poorly implemented and, maybe worse, not understood. (or it could be me?)

The trouble is that "reason to believe" doesn't appear to have strong judicial guidance.

henrik777

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

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

Ferrybird

henrik777 said:

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

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

So if I'm interpreting this correctly....
If my CCJ is set aside this Friday, then it goes back to defence stage, VCS will inherently be non-compliant with POFA as they will be well outside of notice periods / not served on current address. 
 
 I can submit a defence that I was not the driver including proof I was 200 miles away.
I'm  undecided about revealing the driver. The advantage is that they have proof of paying via an app, but on the wrong VRN. 
The VCS v Quayle case makes me think I should remain tight lipped. 

henrik777

 beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given

Their notices have an incorrect warning "please be warned ..." It's wrong. It's a statutory requirement laid down by parliament. It's non negotiable.

Ferrybird

henrik777 said:

 beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given

Their notices have an incorrect warning "please be warned ..." It's wrong. It's a statutory requirement laid down by parliament. It's non negotiable.

POFA (2012) - Schedule 4
Part 8

(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

VCS wording on my NTK (which went to my old address but VCS have submitted in their bundle) states:

"Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the issue date of this notice, the amount of the unpaid PC specified in this notice has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the drive, we will have the right to recover from you, the keeper, any unpaid balance of the PC"

To me this looks like their wording is compliant - I've read and re-read this. Am I overlooking something?

henrik777

 after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the issue date of this notice,

28+1

 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given

28 + at least 2 (A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.)