VCS Ltd at Bristol Airport - PCN for stopping at level crossing in no-stopping zone + passenger exit

deficit

Coupon-mad said:

Because the POFA doesn't apply so it makes no sense. The NTK wasn't 'non-compliant' with an Act VCS didn't even use.

I've not declared or denied who was driving, i've been pursued as the keeper, I thought POFA would apply, i dont understand why it doesnt.  Either i've been pursued as the keeper under POFA or VCS had absolutely no legal grounds to pursue the keeper whatsoever, so it must be under POFA, no?

KeithP

The last part of the last sentence in both your current paragraphs 7 and 9 is wrong...
...has breached the Data Protection Act 2018 by requesting the keeper’s details from the DVLA.
Nothing wrong with them doing that.
How else can they get anywhere close to finding out who was driving?

You appear to have established that this alleged parking event took place on 'not relevant land'.
It follows from that that POFA is not relevant.
That in turn means that your explanation about dates in your paragraph 9 has no relevance.

Coupon-mad

No.

Search the forum for Edward Gargan Smith

deficit

KeithP said:

The last part of the last sentence in both your current paragraphs 7 and 9 is wrong...
...has breached the Data Protection Act 2018 by requesting the keeper’s details from the DVLA.
Nothing wrong with them doing that.
How else can they get anywhere close to finding out who was driving?

You appear to have established that this alleged parking event took place on 'not relevant land'.
It follows from that that POFA is not relevant.
That in turn means that your explanation about dates in your paragraph 9 has no relevance.

fair enough, i can imagine a judge saying that, for both paras 7+9.  I'm leaving the DPA reference in para 5, i think it makes sense there.

Coupon-mad

But you need to do the search I suggested.

I did so for a reason; far more relevant wording exists to add to your Defence.

deficit

Coupon-mad said:

But you need to do the search I suggested.

I did so for a reason; far more relevant wording exists to add to your Defence.

I have, a couple of times ocver the last couple of days, but I'm not really getting what you're shooting at, are you able to be more specific?

Le_Kirk

deficit said:

Coupon-mad said:

But you need to do the search I suggested.

I did so for a reason; far more relevant wording exists to add to your Defence.

I have, a couple of times ocver the last couple of days, but I'm not really getting what you're shooting at, are you able to be more specific?

What came up when you searched as suggested?

Jenni_D

I tried a search and quite quickly found this post:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80423449/#Comment_80423449

Is this the one meant?

Le_Kirk

That is one of many (and a good one) but I was hoping the OP would tell us what went wrong so we/I could help them using the search function in future.

Jenni_D

I did it as a test to see if I found it problematic ... to see if I encountered what the poster may have found. Doing the search and then selecting Threads from the results narrowed things down to individual threads (rather than a multitude of posts). Scrolling down the results led me to a thread that seemed suitable, and scrolling down that page led me to the post linked above.

I rarely use the search utility here - the test showed me that it has improved quite a lot since I last used it.