Forum know it all |
Forum know it all |
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:14
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 277 Joined: 29 Aug 2017 Member No.: 93,755 |
On anofher site i was telling a guy who hd a ticket on his car to wait until day 26 before replying and 'amending name/address slightly , just in case they do not contact DVLA a prescribed in the Act. only with this 'misprint' can you be certain they did not comply
This chap insists this is fraud as it is an attempt to not pay the contract 'by deception' and depreive the PPC of their money I said that all you are doing is making sure the PPC act within POFA, he feels different..ant thoughts or reasons i can correct him |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:14
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:21
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,397 Joined: 12 Jun 2008 From: West Sussex Member No.: 20,304 |
"depreive"?
Anyway, if at all worried, why not just ask the DVLA who has requested your details (and when)? |
|
|
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:22
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
The PPC must access the DVLA to stand a chance of KL (regardless of a 'timely' appeal). Their greed in saving £2.50 usually takes priority.
This post has been edited by Jlc: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:23 -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:50
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 277 Joined: 29 Aug 2017 Member No.: 93,755 |
The point he was making is that by putting down Smyth instead of Smith, that is the act of fraud
Apart from me spelling deprive wrongly! Am i correct in what i told the chap with the windscreen ticket ( who is not the one having a hissy fit that mis spelling a name s a bit 'iffy'). |
|
|
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 09:59
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
How is it and attempt to deprive them, it doesn't change their ability to make the keeper liable unless they choose to.
That assumes they are entitled to anything anyway, signage, standing, contract all have to be in place as well. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 11:09
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
A good rule of thumb is that it is impossible to use reason to correct idiots
You're also fighting the battle that you have completely different starting positions His position is that a contract and therefore a debt exists that the parking company is unconditionally entitled to recover Providing a fake name is misleading the parking company regarding the identity of the driver that it contracted with This situation is covered by case law I'm not convinced that he understands that parking companies can only recover the payment from the keeper if they meet conditions Your position is that a debt, owed by the driver, may or may not exist The issue is whether or not the parking company has a right to recover this payment from the registered keeper The Protection of Freedoms Act sets out the steps that the parking company must follow Small variations of the name or address do not in any way mislead the parking company if the person and address can still be identified They are nothing more than a simple check where it obtained the information to issue the Notice to Keeper If the parking company saved itself £2-50 by using the information on file instead of meeting the first POFA condition, it has only itself to blame for the consequences As an aside, I've seen a parking company succeed at POPLA (the independent appeal body) with an argument that it didn't have to apply to the DVLA because the keeper had already provided the information |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 16:01 |