dcb legal - CCPC (you know the drill)

blackdog2220

yup , your link is actually the full list of aos and corporate members , you had me thinking I had screen shotted wrong link the other night ! 

you can clearly see by the formatting that my pics are the ATA link 

I wonder if they will go and alter your link , because we all know the name there is a non entity 

blackdog2220

beamerguy said:

I noticed the change above

The BPA must now make a statement about this and if they made a mistake or they were misled they must say.  The BPA as an ATA are on trust to the government

The important question is how the BPA had capitol carpark control LTD listed in 2009 when the company was only formed in August 2020

Mr terry towel was listed with them as a sole trader I have seen the printouts from dvla in the past they read terry towel trading as capitol carpark control , and use his personal ICO number 

has anyone got a kodoe monthly printout , showing details used to dvla ?

LJB179

I'm not clear how either list really helps though - the only breach could be applying for my details to DVLA without a licence to? I guess if that is the case it could be important.

Umkomaas

LJB179 said:

I'm not clear how either list really helps though - the only breach could be applying for my details to DVLA without a licence to? I guess if that is the case it could be important.

If they're an AOS member of an ATA, they have access to the DVLA database as a result. Whether the BPA should have done anything at the time of them joining (and ongoing) is a question of a different order, but as I see it, it is irrelevant in the context of their AOS status gave them legitimate access to your data. 

LJB179

Umkomaas said:

LJB179 said:

I'm not clear how either list really helps though - the only breach could be applying for my details to DVLA without a licence to? I guess if that is the case it could be important.

If they're an AOS member of an ATA, they have access to the DVLA database as a result. Whether the BPA should have done anything at the time of them joining (and ongoing) is a question of a different order, but as I see it, it is irrelevant in the context of their AOS status gave them legitimate access to your data. 

Yeah, so there is nothing in this really that could benefit my particular case, it just perhaps looks a bit strange and points to the fact that the way he has ran the operation is a bit chaotic.

LJB179

The big two salient points seem to be that the NTK doesn't look compliant and that I was not the keeper at the time. Of course, it is interesting that he is now operating under the banner of a ltd company, but aside from using the same website and email address there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is not still taking this forward as a sole trader. I do not see anything more to it than that, presently.

KeithP

LJB179 said:

Of course, it is interesting that he is now operating under the banner of a ltd company, but aside from using the same website and email address there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is not still taking this forward as a sole trader. I do not see anything more to it than that, presently.

I tend to agree.

Umkomaas

The big two salient points seem to be that the NTK doesn't look compliant and that I was not the keeper at the time. 

I can't trawl back over 9 pages to check this, but are you sure on that?

LJB179

Umkomaas said:

The big two salient points seem to be that the NTK doesn't look compliant and that I was not the keeper at the time. 

I can't trawl back over 9 pages to check this, but are you sure on that?

SORRY, I meant not being the driver. I was definitely the keeper.

LJB179

Someone in Legal Beagles has suggested that I make an effort to contact the landowner (I think they were my former landlords, although they may only own the leasehold to the flats, not the freehold to the land) to check that it was a legitimate exercise with their permission, but again, playing the percentages, this is unlikely to be the case and form any defence.

I have though checked the original ticket again and it only makes mention to 'Capital Carpark Control' which is nor the sole trader's name, nor the name of the current ltd company. This is the same with both of the the NTK ones.