Free Traffic Legal Advice

This is getting tedious. You now say you have ‘received a letter that wasn’t sent to you’… what on earth does that mean? Is the letter addressed to you at your correct address or is it addressed to you at your family members address and it was subsequently passed to you?

If the V5C is in your name but not your address, why didn’t your family member tell you about the original PCN instead of letting you be ambushed?

If you are the registered keeper but not the day to day keeper, why doesn’t your family member register the car in their own name? The V5C is not proof of ownership. You can own the car but be neither the driver or the keeper.

I’d suggest you do one of two things… throw your family member under the bus and tell CEL they were driving or… irrespective of ‘exceptional circumstance’, you could still email CEL and show that the NtK was sent to the wrong address and they should send you the original as per BPA CoP 23.8.

You need to sort out the V5C if you want to avoid all sort of problems in future.

offense in a local car park connected to a council run leisure Centre.

This is the only mention of 'council', no suggestion it's anything other than a private PCN.

OP, pl stick to answering the last post and to repeat an earlier post of mine - post the docs, what ever they are, and tell us to whom they're addressed.

I have conducted some research of my own.

The Leisure Centre website says it is managed in partnership with East Herts Council by Sports and Leisure Management Limited https://www.everyoneactive.com/centre/hartham-leisure-centre/

The audited accounts of that company describe its business as the management of sports and leisure facilities on behalf of local authorities:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02204085/filing-history

East Herts Council is a district council and therefore a traffic authority as defined in POFA paragraph 3.

Therefore (notwithstanding HCA’s reservations) I think it’s likely that this car park is provided or controlled by a traffic authority and therefore excluded from the POFA definition of relevant land.

All of which means that the registered keeper can write to the Data Protection Officers of CEL and DCBL along the following lines:

“Dear Sir or Madam

Re [        ]     

I have received correspondence from your organisation in relation to the above referenced parking charge.

Please note that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so.

As there is no presumption in law that the registered keeper of the vehicle drove it on any particular occasion CEL cannot pursue me for the parking charge as driver.

As the car park in question is provided or controlled by East Herts Council it is not ‘relevant land’ as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. So CEL cannot pursue me as keeper.

As CEL has no legal entitlement to pursue me for this parking charge I require your organisation to erase my personal information from its records.

I have attached a copy of a [recent utility bill][my vehicle V5C registration document] to show that I am the correct data subject that your organisation must delete along with the rest of my personal information.

Failure to act in accordance with my erasure request may open your organisation to a claim for compensation under data privacy law. Continuing to press me to pay this parking charge may open your organisation to a claim for compensation under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

I will vigorously defend any claim brought against me in pursuit of this parking charge and will seek costs and counterclaim from compensation if such a claim is brought.

Yours faithfully,”

The email addresses are

dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk

dpo@dcbltd.com

A very minor correction, I belive it is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 rather than of

Still reserved and with good reason IMO.

The only references to 'council' are from the OP who instead of posting docs simply gives us their interpretation and despite me asking to see whatever they have, the OP has ignored.

So, what is the sum of the OP's contribution on this point?

offense in a local car park connected to a council run leisure Centre.

V5 address correct. Location..council run leisure Centre car park in Hertford.

Miraculous change.

OP, post the only documents you have pl.

The only references to 'council' are from the OP

Prompted by the OP’s claim at Reply # 11 that it’s a ‘Council owned car park’I did some research of my own. I reported the results at Reply #19. Those results support the proposition that it’s a Council owned car park without relying on the OP’s word.

The fruits of that research are persuasive but not conclusive so I asked the question directly via a FOI request to East Herts District Council. I’ll post the reply when it comes in.

According to the council themselves "The centre is owned by East Herts Council and managed by Everyone Active".

Let's see what the FOI comes back with.

To everyone (except HCA who has bowed out):

The question is whether the Leisure Centre car park is “provided or controlled” by the Council; not whether it’s “owned or operated” by the Council.

I’m aware of a number of local authorities who have handed over the operation of Council car parks to private operators in the (in my view) erroneous belief that they have thereby converted a council car park into a private one (examples include the City of London and Transport for London).

Be interesting to see what the FOI returns.

Similar, locally there are facilities run by a third party company, on council land (buildings once were also owned by the council, and still is owned by the council on the land registry), who also have private parking companies in situ. There is however no council orders in relation to those car parks, and FOI sent to said council returned an excerpt of lease contracts handing over control of the land for X period. My friend paid the ticket before I could get dug further into it unfortunately, even with the offer of me paying for the whole thing if they eventually took them to court and won.