POFA '12 not valid?

KeithP

Lockable said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Then your witness statement will absolutely cover this. Do you ha e your comms with them saved so you can exhibit them?

Is there a window for them to apply to DVLA for keeper details?

Six months from the parking event.

Lockable

KeithP said:

Lockable said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Then your witness statement will absolutely cover this. Do you ha e your comms with them saved so you can exhibit them?

Is there a window for them to apply to DVLA for keeper details?

Six months from the parking event.

Even tho they have no more than 56 days to deliver an NTK if there's been a windscreen ticket? The NTK arrived months later. April of the following year.

KeithP

Lockable said:

KeithP said:

Lockable said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Then your witness statement will absolutely cover this. Do you ha e your comms with them saved so you can exhibit them?

Is there a window for them to apply to DVLA for keeper details?

Six months from the parking event.

Even tho they have no more than 56 days to deliver an NTK if there's been a windscreen ticket? 

Where did you get that from?
That is only significant if they want to hold the keeper liable for the driver's alleged transgression.

Their ATA allows them up to seven months to serve a Notice to Keeper.


Para B5.2 of their KADOE agreement says:

The Customer may request Data relating to events that occurred on
the day that the request is made, or in the preceding 26 weeks.

Redx

POFA is not mandatory , it possibly should be , but it's not

They have 6 months under their Kadoe contract with the DVLA to obtain keeper details

Neither Excel or VCS claim that they complied with POFA or issued under POFA rules

They haven't complied with POFA , ever , AFAIK

nosferatu1001

You presume that they are only allowed to obtain the keepsr details if they can hold the keeper liable. That is a mistake on your part

Where they have likely broken the DPA is by continuing to process your data once you denied being the driver. But that's for a court to decide

if you can provide al this info, what happened when you said you weren't the driver? Did they comment at all? It would help to know if they ignored you - that won't look good in court ! - or something else. 

Lockable

nosferatu1001 said:

You presume that they are only allowed to obtain the keepsr details if they can hold the keeper liable. That is a mistake on your part

Where they have likely broken the DPA is by continuing to process your data once you denied being the driver. But that's for a court to decide

if you can provide al this info, what happened when you said you weren't the driver? Did they comment at all? It would help to know if they ignored you - that won't look good in court ! - or something else. 

I see. I've always denied being the driver, they knew this from the very first response to the NTK where I also pointed out that wouldn't be able to rely on POFA. I still have the full trail of correspondence, which I imagine they won't have. 
Am I right in thinking they can't prove I was the driver & they're unable to rely on POFA to establish keeper liability, therefore they won't be on strong ground as & when it comes to small claims court or is there a line that they might be able to take that could influence the court's decision? 

Redx

You are correct in those assumptions , which rarely stop them anyway

If you get a win in court , you can then look at the misuse of your data from the point of when you told them you were not the driver , as mentioned above

Fruitcake

Whilst it is not right, the scammers could say that you have never provided proof that you were not the driver and therefore on the balance of probabilities you were. 
However, you will show a copy of your insurance cert with more than one name on it, and a witness statement (which is evidence) that you were not the driver, and there are X-number of people who could have been driving.
Relatives, friends, local garage, all should be included (if it is true). 
Two named people on insurance = 50:50 chance it was your. Three named people = 1 in three chance which is below the balance of probabilities.
Add in other people over seventeen with a licence who live in your home, and the probability it was you goes down.

unforeseen

Fruitcake said:

Whilst it is not right, the scammers could say that you have never provided proof that you were not the driver and therefore on the balance of probabilities you were. 
However, you will show a copy of your insurance cert with more than one name on it, and a witness statement (which is evidence) that you were not the driver, and there are X-number of people who could have been driving.
Relatives, friends, local garage, all should be included (if it is true). 
Two named people on insurance = 50:50 chance it was your. Three named people = 1 in three chance which is below the balance of probabilities.
Add in other people over seventeen with a licence who live in your home, and the probability it was you goes down.

Nobody else needs to be on the insurance. I drive my wife's car. I'm not named and we are happy that there is only TP cover when I'm driving. 

nosferatu1001

If they cannot prove their claim, it must fail 

can you answer my question please. It's an obvious route to go down.