Parked in a disabled Bay, no ticket

wibblebibbleboo

I'm surprised at there being less than 500 signatures, but i think perhaps the wording is putting people off.

My first thought when reading "I was pursued by a parking company for an alleged parking violation. When it went to court, the claim was dismissed.", was that petition didn't apply to my circumstances.

I've had 2 PCN, both unfairly issued and defeated at POPLA stage.

Nellymoser

I'm surprised too at the low number of signings @wibblebibbleboo

My take on the petition wording is if there was a Govt CoP he wouldn't have ended up in court.

Not everyone's unfair pcn gets cancelled at POPLA and some have to appeal to IPC IAS.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/excel-parking-judge-dismisses-case-against-pensioner-after-18-month-dispute-4252331

LDast

Sadly, this is not going to get anything done any quicker. At just over 500 signatures at this stage shows that there is not enough knowledge about this situation outside of a few dedicated forums.

The only way that anything is going to affect these rogue companies is if they get payed at their own game. Not a single one fully complies with the new PPSCoP and each and every breach of the PPSCoP should result in a formal complaint to the operator and a follow up complaint to the DVLA pointing out that any failure to comply with the PPSCoP invalidates the operators KADOE contract.

Once there are enough complaints registered, an FOI to the DVLA will reveal the complacency of the DVLA in taking action over these breaches in their pursuit of income from this lucrative source. Then you can really get your MPs interested.

Nellymoser

@LDast Well of course its not going to get anything done quicker. It's a number count in support of an action and a simple way to tell Govt and your MP you support the proposed action.

I do see the importance of complaining and raising issues but the problem with your plan is the DVLA only retain complaints not upheld for 3 months then they are deleted. Infact they actually tell the complainant to contact the ATA about the CoP breach. So a FOI request isnt going to reveal much apart from a glaring poor standard of record keeping from DVLA. The ICO said it's for individual companies/authorities to decide on their record retention policy. And on the balance of probabilities blah blah blah 

Both Govt and DVLA talk about finding the balance between protecting the motorist and allowing the private parking industry to trade. For some unknown reason both seem to allow the balance to swing high in favour of the industry. Proving this imbalance is present is the only way I feel Govt and DVLA will make changes required to protect motorists.

LDast

I don't disagree with you. However, you are only going to get a trickle of people signing that petition through this forum and it needs at least 20 times more signatories for anyone to even read it that could have an influence on anything happening.

LDast

Are you sure they only keep recored of complaints that have not been upheld for three months? I find that a bit hard to believe.

I have just submitted an FoI request for the following from the DVLA:

The following information regarding complaints made to the DVLA about private parking companies, specifically in relation to their access to and use of DVLA vehicle keeper data. I would appreciate it if you could provide the following information:

1. Retention Period: How long does the DVLA retain records of complaints made about private parking companies concerning their access to or misuse of DVLA data, particularly where the complaint has not been upheld?

2. Total Number of Complaints: The total number of complaints received by the DVLA regarding private parking companies' use of DVLA data over the past three years (or the latest period for which records are available).

3. Complaints Outcomes: Of the total complaints received, how many were upheld and how many were not upheld?

4. Breakdown by Company: If possible, a breakdown of the number of complaints received per private parking company over the same period.

Let's see what they come back with.

Nellymoser

I'm sorry the petition bothers you @LDast. I feel its better to have 500 signings than none. It's evidence. Not sure if you know about the UK Parliament Petitions Committee, 11 MPs who manage the petitions decide which to accept reject refer for debate onto another Committee etc It's not quite the same as other online petitions.

LDast

Why are you trying to say I said something I have not said? Where have I mentioned that the petition “bothers me”? I think it is a good idea. I am just trying to be realistic and the trickle of signatures so far is not going to bet tot the minimum 10k required for the petition to be considered even.

Nellymoser

Your right you didn't mention it bothers you that's what I took from your posts. Probably because I'm aware of the points you made. IMO sharing the petition isn't only about increasing the signing count it's an opportunity to raise posters awareness of Govt CoP, MPs role in it and to encourage motorists participation which is greatly needed.

I very much doubt Mr Luckhurst will be hoping his petition signings reaches 10k just so he gets a one para response "in due course" from the MHCLG. 

Nellymoser

@LDast you could do FOI request for copy of DVLA Information or Record Retention Policy (can't recall the exact wording on their doc.) and/or the complaints procedure/policy for a specific department.

My FOI request was about 3 yrs ago. It concerned one PPC. And yes their retention policy did state 'emails' were deleted after 3 mths but this was not applied to upheld complaints DVLA retain these. 🤷

I think you'll get the info requested. I did get numbers but didn’t receive all the requested copies of the 36 complaints/outcome/action due to DVLA's odd deleting practice. It's a bit rich really when DVLA demands PPCs ATAs retain their complaints for 2 yrs.

I do hope your FOI request enables you to demonstrate inaction by DVLA. They will pass the buck to ATAs saying DVLA "expects ATAs to investigate code breaches" so steer it towards DVLA's responsibility to ensure ATAs investigate and manage members code breach effectively. Not good enough for DVLA just to expect need to make damn sure it's happening.

I think this agreement is still in place: "ATAs monitor their members and DVLA monitors the ATAs"