Daily Mail campaign re private parking, “Stop the private parking sharks!” |
Daily Mail campaign re private parking, “Stop the private parking sharks!” |
Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 16:02
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 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”. -------------------- Moderator
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. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 16:02
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 17:35
Post
#2
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
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 __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 17:51
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,012 Joined: 28 Jun 2004 From: High Wycombe Member No.: 1,353 |
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. |
|
|
Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 17:54
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
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. -------------------- Moderator
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. |
|
|
Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 18:48
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
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. |
|
|
Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 20:03
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 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 |
|
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 05:39
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,012 Joined: 28 Jun 2004 From: High Wycombe Member No.: 1,353 |
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. |
|
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 09:26
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 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 |
|
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 09:38
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
- 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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 16:39
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
policing the ATA's IS the DVLA's remit Where does it say that? -------------------- Moderator
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. |
|
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 17:11
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,919 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.
|
|
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 17:22
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 17:25
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
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. -------------------- Moderator
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. |
|
|
Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 15:30
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 319 Joined: 8 Oct 2010 Member No.: 41,129 |
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 |
|
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 10:59
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 08:56
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 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.
|
|
|
Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 12:31
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Sat, 20 Oct 2018 - 07:41
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,167 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: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 - 07:42 |
|
|
Sat, 20 Oct 2018 - 17:12
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,825 Joined: 16 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,123 |
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 ? |
|
|
Sat, 20 Oct 2018 - 19:59
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
The Supreme Court called it effectively binding 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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 08:54 |