Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - b789

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 36
Where is the original NtK? What you have shown us is a reminder. It also claims that the keeper has identified themself as the driver. Is this true?

Without seeing the original NtK to see if it is PoFA compliant, it is difficult to advise exactly on the next step. Did your sister make an initial appeal?

Private parking tickets / Re: Excel Parking PCN
« on: March 08, 2024, 02:14:38 pm »
The email has embedded headers which can be used to evidence which domain it was sent from.

Private parking tickets / Re: Excel Parking PCN
« on: March 08, 2024, 01:52:58 pm »
The email is "written" evidence. You don't need a "letter" also.

You should query why the debt recovery fee excludes the portion representing VAT. The lack of transparency is not acceptable and raises serious questions about the integrity and compliance with HMRC regulations of the debt collector. You should demand clarification on why the breakdown of the debt recovery fee fails to include the VAT component. This would appear to be an attempt to deceive you and HMRC.

Private parking tickets / Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« on: March 07, 2024, 04:12:25 pm »
The assumption of keeper = driver is a problem. Of course any assumption that the keeper is also the driver is a problem. It simply isn't allowed in civil law.

It would perhaps be a bit harsh for the DVLA to be culpable for a request. Why shouldn't the DVLA be held to the same standards as everyone else? They charge £2.50 for each request. In FY 2021/2022 private parking companies made 8.57 million out of a total of 32.17 million requests. You do the maths.

The DVLA has a responsibility to ensure that any disclosure of personal data is lawful and complies with data protection regulations.  If the operator did not have a legitimate reason for requesting the data, or if they used it inappropriately or unlawfully, they can also be held accountable for the breach.

There are also other areas. Perhaps a vehicle is abandoned on somebody's land. Who knows who abandoned it. It may be the case that my field is relevant land and the request for keeper details so the landowner can try and deal with it is ok. Again, irrelevant. Who is responsible for abandoning a vehicle on your relevant land? The driver, the keeper or the owner? Yes, the owner can be neither the driver or the keeper. Have a look at your V5C and read the words on the front:

Why would the keeper be responsible if they didn't abandon it there?

But if a driver abandons a vehichle in a station car park should the request definitively fail leaving a problem with how to deal with it. Likewise... why is the keeper responsible if they didn't drive the vehicle there and abandoned it?

There are probably many other areas where a landowner has reasonable cause, but no knowledge of driver. Without any valid grounds related to safety, legal obligations, or regulatory compliance, it is impossible to justify the request for vehicle keeper data as having reasonable cause. In such cases, the request should be considered unnecessary and/or unjustified, and so raises concerns about privacy and data protection.

Have a read of the latest KADOE contract and see for yourself:

Private parking tickets / Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« on: March 07, 2024, 02:31:03 pm »
It seems to me entirely reasonable to submit a keeper request to DVLA for any vehicle left on my land. The process seems to allow this as reasonable cause. I can fill in a form and do this. The content, however, of invoices sent to keepers for events on non relevant land is a problem.

It would perhaps be a bit odd if the terms of the Kadoe contract prohibited this.

Of course you have a right to request keeper details from the DVLA, as long as you have a valid contract with them and reasonable cause to do this AND your land is not under statutory control. No one is disputing this.

Using the subject data, reasonable cause or not, is the issue when the land is under statutory control. Having provided the subject data to the "customer", what can they then do apart from invite the subject to name the driver or pay the invoice themselves even though there is no requirement to do so.

If the operator has reasonable cause to believe that the driver of a vehicle parked on land (under statutory control) that they manage has entered into a contract with them and is now, allegedly, in breach of that contract, then they should apply an NtD to the vehicle. Only the driver is liable for the alleged breach of contract. The keeper has nothing to do with it... unless they were also the driver but the operator does not know that and cannot just assume or infer that the keeper was also the driver. As there is no obligation for the keeper to either admit to being the driver or to provide the operator with a drivers details, under GDPR, what right does the DVLA have to release the keepers data to a private company?

Private parking tickets / Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« on: March 07, 2024, 01:47:02 pm »
We know that KADOE B2(a) cannot be used by the operator if the "reasonable cause" occurred on land under statutory control.

Under B2(b) the DVLA can only provide subject data to their "customer" to enable them to seek recovery from a "driver". It is impossible to recover anything from a driver if the "reasonable cause" was on land under statutory control.

Just by adding in B2(b) "...or is not in a position to pursue the vehicle keeper by utilising conditions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012" is a contradiction in itself. If they are not in a position to pursue the keeper then why are they giving out the keepers subject data?

The only real remedy is for operators to put NtDs on the windscreen and invite the driver to pay.

Private parking tickets / Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« on: March 07, 2024, 01:23:45 pm »
KADOE B2(a) does not allow the DVLA to provide keeper data if the approved operator has reasonable cause or not if the alleged contravention occurred on land under statutory control.

KADOE B2(b) is their get-out clause. However, there can be no justification as the approved operator, operating on land under statutory control, already knows that there can be no reasonable cause to pursue a keeper in the first place. By requesting the keeper data and the DVLA in providing it, without reasonable cause, are breaching the keepers GDPR.

Private parking tickets / Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« on: March 07, 2024, 12:10:02 pm »
Technically, they are breaching KADOE rules by requesting keeper data for alleged contraventions on non relevant land, knowing that they cannot pursue the keeper unless the keeper admits to being the driver.

In other words, the DVLA have breached your GDPR. Good luck trying to get them to admit it though. I know of one case where they are being sued in the county court for this but it has taken time to get this far and has not yet been allocated to a local court. Whatever the outcome, it will have little effect unless it is appealed and subsequently won.


You are where you are, and IMO you should write to the creditor, tell them you reject the finding of their IAS and will not be paying until unless ordered by a court.

Critical point highlighted above.

One of the main legal points that the IAS assessor failed to respond to, unsurprisingly, is that this is a “penalty”.

What's my next step? just wait for a court date?

Yes. However, they may never bother to go that far. They now have up to 6 years from the contravention date to issue a claim.

You will, in the meantime, receive a flurry of debt collector letters which you can safely ignore. They try to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into capitulating into paying them by using scary words such as "CCJ" and "bailiff" etc. Feel free to use the as kindling or lining for the bottom of hamster cage.

If/when they send you a LoC, that is when you need to become active again. Come back and you will be guided through the process. A response to an LoC and then a robust defence using a well worn template will likely see them off. Even if it ever got as far as a hearing and you lost, there would be no CJ as you would just pay it within 30 days of judgment. Also, losing a claim invariably means you would pay less than the initial claim. However, that is a very worst case scenario. These shysters are easy to beat.

Private parking tickets / Re: Excel Parking PCN
« on: March 06, 2024, 02:02:55 pm »
i just spoke to someone from Customer Services as Iceland, they seemed very sympathetic and agreed the ticket should be cancelled.
You do realise that evidence of a phone call is about as much use as the paper it isn't written on.

Any promise by anyone at Iceland about getting the PCN cancelled should be backed up by written evidence. Can you follow top your phone call with an email to them asking for confirmation of what they have said?

Private parking tickets / Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« on: March 06, 2024, 01:36:00 pm »
If you have received a CCJ and paid it in full within 30 days of judgment, there is no record of it. Why would you have to "declare" it? It is not a criminal matter. It is a simple matter of civil law. Stop overthinking this.

If you are still able to appeal then ignore the complaint to GA. Appeal as the keeper. You can simply use this:

I am the registered keeper. Your NtK is for an alleged breach of contract on land under statutory control which means that I cannot be liable for the charge as the keeper. NCP have no hope of being successful at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

NCP cannot hold a registered keeper liable. As a matter of fact and law, NCP (as a longstanding BPA Parking operator) will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions to hold a keeper liable because Cambridge North Station car park is not 'relevant land'. If Greater Anglia wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Railway Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because NCP is not the station owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for NCP’s own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and NCP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The registered keeper cannot be presumed to have been the driver nor pursued as such under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.

Please let us know when this is cancelled.

Private parking tickets / Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« on: March 06, 2024, 12:31:19 pm »
Even if you were to lose a case that went to court, what makes you think that it would have any effect on your credit record? As long as a CCJ is paid within 30 days of judgment there is no record of it.

This is highly unlikely to ever reach a court because there is no way they can identify the driver unless the keeper identifies themself to be the driver. They are not allowed to infer that the keeper was the driver.

How on earth do you think they are going to "prove" that the keeper was also the driver? You are dealing with shysters (Hansard) who are only interested in the easily picked, low-hanging fruit, who pay up without a fight. There are plenty of them around and it is not worth their effort to go chasing anyone who has more than a bit of knowledge about the difference between keeper and driver liability.

Are you too late to appeal? If not, then your message is not a complaint. It is simply an appeal as the keeper pointing out that you are not liable for the charge and they should go chase the driver.

Private parking tickets / Re: Excel Parking PCN
« on: March 06, 2024, 11:24:18 am »
Ugh! I'll actually have a read bit later and get back to you. However, I've let ChatGPT describe to you how it feels about it's own creation:

A ChatGPT generated letter that is dripping with condescension and laden with unnecessary words. It's like wading through a swamp of verbosity, each word more superfluous than the last, while being patronisingly guided by a tone that suggests you couldn't possibly grasp the point without being spoon-fed every syllable. Your stomach churns, your brow furrows, and a sense of revulsion washes over you, as if you've stumbled into a conversation with an overbearing know-it-all who thinks they're enlightening you but is really just drowning you in linguistic quicksand. It's an assault on your intelligence and your patience, leaving you itching to escape the suffocating embrace of verbosity and condescension.  :o

If you do use ChatGPT, you must also remove all the AmricaniZed spellings which are another dead give away. Please go in and at least edit it to make it sound more human-like. Use whatever ChatGPT regurgitates as a guide and don't rely on it blindly.

Another dead give away is the supposed sentient nature of the message. Since when can a non-sentient message hope it can find someone well?

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 36