PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Daily Mail campaign re private parking, “Stop the private parking sharks!”
southpaw82
post Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 16:02
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,684
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



The Daily Mail appears to have started another of its campaigns.

It wants:

- Drivers (presume they mean registered keepers) to be able to opt out of having their data sold to PPCs.
- The appeals process to be made fairer (by freezing charges during an appeal).
- The DVLA to investigate if it receives lots of requests for the same location, to ensure it’s “fair” (quite how that is in the DVLA’s remit I don’t know.

Demand 1 would seem to make all other demands redundant, though the Mail doesn’t see this

QUOTE
Deprived of the ability to sell personal details, it would become much harder for private parking firms to contact the registered keeper of a vehicle


I presume by “much harder” they mean “virtually impossible”.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 18)
Advertisement
post Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 16:02
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Fredd
post Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 17:35
Post #2


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,146
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 17:02) *
Demand 1 would seem to make all other demands redundant, though the Mail doesn’t see this

They've probably just chucked a few extra random nebulous demands in there to give themselves a chance of being able to claim "victory for the Mail" when #1 goes nowhere.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 17:51
Post #3


Member
Group Icon

Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz
Posts: 2,006
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 17:02) *
I presume by “much harder” they mean “virtually impossible”.


Actually, if all PPCs did was to stick PCNs on windscreens, and never bother to apply to the DVLA for keeper data, about 30% of people would pay up.

Another 10% would contact the PPC with some kind of half-arsed 'appeal', giving away the driver's identity.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.




--------------------
We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 17:54
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,684
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (bargepole @ Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 18:51) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 17:02) *
I presume by “much harder” they mean “virtually impossible”.


Actually, if all PPCs did was to stick PCNs on windscreens, and never bother to apply to the DVLA for keeper data, about 30% of people would pay up.


Fine but nothing to do with being able to contact the RK.

QUOTE
Another 10% would contact the PPC with some kind of half-arsed 'appeal', giving away the driver's identity.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.

I don’t - reading this forum alone is instructive.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 18:48
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 998
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 18:54) *
QUOTE (bargepole @ Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 18:51) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 17:02) *
I presume by “much harder” they mean “virtually impossible”.


Actually, if all PPCs did was to stick PCNs on windscreens, and never bother to apply to the DVLA for keeper data, about 30% of people would pay up.


Fine but nothing to do with being able to contact the RK.

QUOTE
Another 10% would contact the PPC with some kind of half-arsed 'appeal', giving away the driver's identity.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.

I don’t - reading this forum alone is instructive.

Indeed. See the thread above.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 20:03
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,941
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Actually, if all PPCs did was to stick PCNs on windscreens, and never bother to apply to the DVLA for keeper data, about 30% of people would pay up.

The parking companies will know the true figure that I suspect is approaching about double this figure
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 05:39
Post #7


Member
Group Icon

Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz
Posts: 2,006
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



QUOTE (Redivi @ Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 21:03) *
Actually, if all PPCs did was to stick PCNs on windscreens, and never bother to apply to the DVLA for keeper data, about 30% of people would pay up.

The parking companies will know the true figure that I suspect is approaching about double this figure


No, I think the 30% is about right.

There are some BPA meeting minutes in the public domain (can't find the link now), where one of the attendees said "we have to issue three tickets to get one paid".


--------------------
We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 09:26
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,941
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



I was probably thinking of my conversation at Parkex with ParkingEye who said that 65% were paid immediately and most of the remainder after a reminder letter


This was pre-Beavis
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 09:38
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,712
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 17:02) *
- The DVLA to investigate if it receives lots of requests for the same location, to ensure it’s “fair” (quite how that is in the DVLA’s remit I don’t know.

I would disagree, policing the ATA's IS the DVLA's remit, if its clear the ATA's aren't doing the job they should be doing then the DVLA (instead of its current head in the sand/lift the corner of the rug approach) should be investigating and if necessary taking action against the ATA
1/ Issuing a 'fix or else' notice
2/ Suspending the ATA's status and hence it's members ability to access data
3/ Remove the ATA status all together.

Arguably for me this is the biggest issue with the current situation, the two ATA's are not behaving in the same manner now as when they were obtaining ATA status, CoP's have been softened, they aren't policing members robustly and the appeals services have both degraded (the IAS the day after ATA status was granted) and for me that is a significant failing by the DVLA, they seem to treat granting ATA status as a one off event and not a rolling responsibility. The mentioned review of high ticket count locations would be one way to make an easy audit.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 16:39
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,684
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 10:38) *
policing the ATA's IS the DVLA's remit

Where does it say that?


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 17:11
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,217
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Personally, I'd prefer a campaign on the iniquities of council-run PCN enforcement, (parking, bus lanes, and others in London). There is a helluva lot of councils gaming the system to their own advantage in the full knowledge that there are no sanctions on them for doing so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 17:22
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,712
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 17:39) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 10:38) *
policing the ATA's IS the DVLA's remit

Where does it say that?

They audit them, they give them the ATA status, so they should be policing them as well. Certainly no other body is involved.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 17:25
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,684
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 18:22) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 17:39) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 10:38) *
policing the ATA's IS the DVLA's remit

Where does it say that?

They audit them, they give them the ATA status, so they should be policing them as well. Certainly no other body is involved.

Right. I just wasn’t sure whether it was your opinion or something else.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trampilot
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 15:30
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 318
Joined: 8 Oct 2010
Member No.: 41,129



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 18:11) *
Personally, I'd prefer a campaign on the iniquities of council-run PCN enforcement, (parking, bus lanes, and others in London). There is a helluva lot of councils gaming the system to their own advantage in the full knowledge that there are no sanctions on them for doing so.


I quite agree. Councils expect everyone to follow their rules 100% and to the letter, yet often seem incapable of following their own rule book. Councils might think twice about taking people to appeal and beyond with the danger of losing and then having to pay the car owner/driver the equivalent fine amount to cover costs and by way of apology. Researching traffic orders and previous cases can take hours of work.

By multiple people in some cases!

This post has been edited by Trampilot: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 15:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 10:59
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,712
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 18:25) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 18:22) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 17:39) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 10:38) *
policing the ATA's IS the DVLA's remit

Where does it say that?

They audit them, they give them the ATA status, so they should be policing them as well. Certainly no other body is involved.

Right. I just wasn’t sure whether it was your opinion or something else.

Having found no FOI's on the matter, I've now FOI'd the DVLA for
1/ The ATA approval process
2/ When the BPA and IPC were both last audited
3/ The frequency of audits
4/ the results of the last audits

Lets see how seriously DVLA take this!


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 08:56
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,182
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



They'll probably say something along the lines that they believe that the mere ability to audit is sufficient enough to ensure that these ATA's NEVER step out of line. They don't need to actually carry out an audit.

And as we all know the ATA's NEVER abuse the data they get from the DVLA so it clearly works.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 12:31
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,712
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



It would raise a good GDPR question though, if you use form V888 you have to show reasonable cause and the form is audited, ATA members are expected to have reasonable cause by virtue of following their ATA CoP, if they demonstrably don't and the ATA isn't enforcing properly and the DVLA are not auditing then that could, AIUI represent then a GDPR breach by the DVLA as their 'reasonable cause' GooJF card would be invalid.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Today, 07:41
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,112
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



In New Zealand the registered keeper can opt out of their version of DVLA releasing data to non Govt authorities.

This post has been edited by kommando: Today, 07:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
henrik777
post Today, 17:12
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,123



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 13:31) *
It would raise a good GDPR question though, if you use form V888 you have to show reasonable cause and the form is audited, ATA members are expected to have reasonable cause by virtue of following their ATA CoP, if they demonstrably don't and the ATA isn't enforcing properly and the DVLA are not auditing then that could, AIUI represent then a GDPR breach by the DVLA as their 'reasonable cause' GooJF card would be invalid.


If the supreme court throws the CoP in the bin, why would anyone else deem it other than bog paper ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 20th October 2018 - 18:12
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.