Free Traffic Legal Advice

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, 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. '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'

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.



 

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.

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.

Driver has not been "outed".
 
P&PM are not POPLA members, but it's been appealed to IAS with predictable results.

If it isn't and it goes to court and the question is asked unless the answer can be no that is unhelpful.

What question, and what's unhelpful about an answer other than 'no'?

 

Presumably they are using keeper details which were provided by the OP in the original challenge of the windscreen ticket.

That's my assumption.

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.

Probably none. But why does it matter?

I think the judge can probably ask whatever they like. I believe it has been asked.

Probably none. But why does it matter?

It matters hugely if a court may or may not compel me to do something which no law permits them to do.

I think the judge can probably ask whatever they like. I believe it has been asked.

And if when asked I ask if there is a law which compels me to answer?
 
If there isn't (and so far I've only found that there is wrt prosecution for RTA offences), and I respond that as I am not compelled to I decline to?

One wonders then what is the point of them pursuing me on the grounds that PoFA says they can hold me liable.

One wonders then what was ever the point of Schedule 4 of PoFA if they can just initiate proceedings against the keeper and succeed in court because on the balance of probabilities the keeper would have been the driver.

The purposive approach has its roots in legal systems based on civil codes. It is a method of statutory interpretation which considers the purpose of the provision and interprets the provision in accordance with that purpose.

One of many definitions you will find.