DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 12068--------------------------------------------------
DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: guest968
Date: December 7, 2023, 5:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I won't go through the ins & outs of the parking event, as this
is pretty much a generic question, but I will list the key
dates. The full details are on pepipoo for anyone who wants to
look,
HTML http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=149771
but
the specifics of the alleged contravention are not what I'm
writing about here.
My question is when a keeper asks the DVLA for details of third
parties who have made requests for keeper information, do they
always get it right in their replies? Never miss anything?
Timeline:
21/03/23 Notice fixed to windscreen from Parking & Property
Management
13/04/23 Appealed as keeper
19/04/23 Appeal rejected
03/05/23 NTK issued
10/05/23 I requested enquirer details from DVLA
23/05/23 I provided more identity confirmation details to DVLA
re Data Protection Act
05/06/23 DVLA replied, showing that my details had been
requested -
16/02/2022
06/01/2023
and neither request came from P&PM
26/08/23 I made another request to the DVLA
18/09/23 DVLA replied, showing that my details had been
requested -
16/02/2022 (same as before)
06/01/2023 (same as before)
09/06/2023 (not P&PM)
The reason I may come across as a bit paranoid is that I have
told both P&PM and their debt collectors, BW Legal, that my
details were clearly not requested from the DVLA by P&PM, at any
time, let alone within the timescales laid down in PoFA, I have
pointed out that that is undeniably a failure to comply with
PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 11, which is a mandatory condition
required if someone is to have the right to claim unpaid parking
charges from the keeper of vehicle as provided in Schedule 4
Paragraph 4.
I did not just assert this, I sent them a copy of the DVLA
letter of 5th June showing that P&PM did not request my details.
And yet they persist. The latest letter I've had from BW Legal
said
You have stated that our Client has no rights under the
Protection of Freedom Act 2012, Schedule
4, Paragraph 4 to recover any unpaid charges from you. Your
reasons for this are that our Client
failed to request his details from the secretary of state via a
Subject Access Request, to the DVLA
within a specified period
a. We maintain that the PCN was rightly issued under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2021 (sic) and
are Client is legally entitled to pursue you as the Registered
Keeper of the vehicle for this
balance.
b. Our client's signage confirms they may request registered
keeper's details from the DVLA
for the purpose of issuing a PCN. As an approved car park
operator, our Client is able to
obtain details from the DVLA in the event the Terms and
Conditions of the Car Park have
been breached. The extract below from the DVLA Release of
Information document affirms
our Client's position. [FONT=courier new]'DVLA's vehicle
register holds the details of a vehicle's registered
keeper. These details may be disclosed to law enforcement
authorities, private litigants and
organisations as a first point of contact to establish where
liability for an incident or event
may lie. Disclosure in these circumstances does not breach the
DPA and the Information
Commissioner's Office is fully aware that data held on the
DVLA's records is released in this way'[/font]
I don't dispute (b), but they simply didn't do that and
therefore regarding "a. We maintain that the PCN was rightly
issued...", either
i) BW Legal are not taking note of anything I tell them, or
ii) No actual solicitor there has read what I'm telling them,
it's just some office admin person replying from a script, or
iii) They know full well that their client screwed up but are
ploughing on regardless, maybe hoping to bully me into caving
in.
So I just want to be sure, before I press on, that there's no
chance that the DVLA could have messed up, and that P&PM did
actually request my details, but that fact has got lost somehow.
PS - I'm going to post this on Pepipoo as well, as I'm still not
clear to what extent ftla has taken over, or what the overlap of
community experts is.
#Post#: 12071--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: December 8, 2023, 3:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What difference do you think it would make if they accepted it?
The would still pursue you on the 'reasonable assumption' the
keeper was driving.
Have BWL issued a letter of claim or acting as mere debt
collectors (as seems likely), if the latter then why are you
wasting breath on them, they don't know any facts and will just
say anything in the hope you'll pay.
If it gets to court, will lack of PoFA compliance help you in
the event they ask who was driving? Don't answer here, but
consider that issue.
#Post#: 12074--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: slapdash
Date: December 8, 2023, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If it hasn't gone to popla/ipc, and the driver hasn't been outed
then not doing a DVLA request surely means they have not
complied with POFA and that might (should) get a cancellation at
that point.
If it isn't and it goes to court and the question is asked
unless the answer can be no that is unhelpful.
Presumably they are using keeper details which were provided by
the OP in the original challenge of the windscreen ticket.
#Post#: 12088--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: guest968
Date: December 8, 2023, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: The Rookie link ---
>
> What difference do you think it would make if they accepted
it?
--- End Quote ---
The difference that a solicitor should advise his client that
continuing to claim he has done something which he demonstrably
has not will not go down well in court.
--- Quote from: The Rookie link ---
> Have BWL issued a letter of claim
--- End Quote ---
No.
--- Quote from: The Rookie link ---
> or acting as mere debt collectors (as seems likely), if the
latter then why are you wasting breath on them, they don't know
any facts and will just say anything in the hope you'll pay.
--- End Quote ---
I'd hope that common sense would prevail, and that them knowing
the facts, attested to by the DVLA, would make them and the
parking company give up this nonsense of pursuing me as keeper
on the basis of a "right" which they failed to establish by
failing to follow the legal process.
#Post#: 12089--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: guest968
Date: December 8, 2023, 10:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: slapdash link ---
>
> If it hasn't gone to popla/ipc, and the driver hasn't been
outed then not doing a DVLA request surely means they have not
complied with POFA and that might (should) get a cancellation at
that point.
--- End Quote ---
Driver has not been "outed".
P&PM are not POPLA members, but it's been appealed to IAS with
predictable results.
--- Quote from: slapdash link ---
> If it isn't and it goes to court and the question is asked
unless the answer can be no that is unhelpful.
--- End Quote ---
What question, and what's unhelpful about an answer other than
'no'?
--- Quote from: slapdash link ---
> Presumably they are using keeper details which were provided
by the OP in the original challenge of the windscreen ticket.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's my assumption.
#Post#: 12093--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 8, 2023, 10:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your timeline..
...03/05/23 NTK issued
After which you don't seem to have engaged with the creditor
within their stipulated timeframes.
Is this correct?
In which case either:
1. You will bluff the creditor out of initiating legal
proceedings because of their apparent failure, or
2. They will press on to court.
As regards 1, who's to know? If you could give them any case law
which showed that if they did not obtain the keeper's details
from DVLA then a court would find in your favour, fine. Do you
have this? Does anybody?
As regards 2, what would a judge find? Yes, in theory the
claimant should have used DVLA data, buy IMO they could take a
more purposive approach to their interpretation and application
of PoFA and conclude that the purpose of the DVLA provision is
simply to ensure that the correct person is issued with a NTK
and that because you had already admitted that you were the
keeper(although we haven't seen the exact text) then them not
contacting DVLA would not deny them the opportunity to pursue
you as keeper given that you'd already claimed to be as much.
I would think hard about going to court simply on this basis.
#Post#: 12094--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: slapdash
Date: December 8, 2023, 11:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As intimated by rookie a judge may ask "well, were you driving".
I think your argument is simple: "They have not complied with
PoFA and therefore cannot persue me in my capacity as keeper."
That may be true. But until you receive a statement of claim and
skeleton argument you won't know what they are arguing. You
would also need to keep the argument confined to that point.
Equally does an inability to persue you keeper prevent them from
persuing you as driver ? The underlying contract was formed by
the driver, whoever that may be.
Yes, of course you can state "but they don't know who the driver
was", but if the judge ask the question it's a problem.
#Post#: 12135--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: guest968
Date: December 9, 2023, 12:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What law compels a keeper to identify the driver?
#Post#: 12136--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: slapdash
Date: December 9, 2023, 1:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Probably none. But why does it matter?
I think the judge can probably ask whatever they like. I believe
it has been asked.
#Post#: 12138--------------------------------------------------
Re: DVLA SAR data reliable?
DIR By: guest968
Date: December 9, 2023, 2:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Your timeline..
>
> ...03/05/23 NTK issued
>
> After which you don't seem to have engaged with the creditor
within their stipulated timeframes.
>
> Is this correct?
--- End Quote ---
I appealed to both the alleged creditor and the IAS within the
timescales for those appeals.
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
> In which case either:
> 1. You will bluff the creditor out of initiating legal
proceedings because of their apparent failure, or
> 2. They will press on to court.
>
> As regards 1, who's to know? If you could give them any case
law which showed that if they did not obtain the keeper's
details from DVLA then a court would find in your favour, fine.
Do you have this? Does anybody?
--- End Quote ---
I don't have any, I can't speak for others.
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
> As regards 2, what would a judge find? Yes, in theory the
claimant should have used DVLA data, buy IMO they could take a
more purposive approach to their interpretation and application
of PoFA and conclude that the purpose of the DVLA provision is
simply to ensure that the correct person is issued with a NTK
and that because you had already admitted that you were the
keeper(although we haven't seen the exact text) then them not
contacting DVLA would not deny them the opportunity to pursue
you as keeper given that you'd already claimed to be as much.
--- End Quote ---
So you're suggesting that someone could go to court and claim
that they had a right to recover a debt from me because of an
Act which says that they have such a right even though the Act
says that they only have that right if they obtained my details
from the Secretary of State, and they did not obtain my details
in that way because what they did was good enough? That
essentially the provisions in the Act did not apply to them
because I'd appealed against the PCN?
Interesting.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page