Author Topic: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs  (Read 3096 times)

0 Members and 247 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #15 on: »
NCP are becoming a lot less stubborn than they used to be. Good result and thanks for the update

Quote
Surely accepting these appeals is an admission of the fact of law that NCP are not able to pursue keepers for these NtK's on non-relevant land, and therefore shouldn't be sending out these NtK's or contacting DVLA for the registered keeper's details in the first place?
If you read the notice carefully, they don't actually say that you are liable as the keeper. The fact that they are unable to use the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act on non-relevant land does not prohibit them from contacting the keeper to send them a charge, it just means they cannot recover the charge from the keeper if he declines to tell them who was driving.

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #16 on: »
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.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2024, 12:13:39 pm by b789 »
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #17 on: »
There is a difference between asserting that a charge is due due to acceptance of a contract and them actually having any viable method of enforcing that.



« Last Edit: March 07, 2024, 01:13:41 pm by slapdash »
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #18 on: »
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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #19 on: »
I'm not sure I agree that a lack of ability to pursue the keeper under PoFA equates to a lack of reasonable cause to contact the keeper regarding a parking charge, as long as they are not misrepresenting their position re. keeper liability (or lack thereof).

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #20 on: »
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.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2024, 01:49:32 pm by b789 »
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #21 on: »
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.

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

The content, however, of invoices sent to keepers for events on non relevant land is a problem.



Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #22 on: »
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?
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #23 on: »
The assumption of keeper = driver is a problem.

If it is a breach of GDPR is it the DVLA's the parking companies or both ?

It would perhaps be a bit harsh for the DVLA to be culpable for a request.

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.

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.

There are probably many other areas where a landowner has reasonable cause, but no knowledge of driver.

I don't have any real idea of how the question gets settled and how broad an answer is obtained.

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #24 on: »
I don't have any real idea of how the question gets settled and how broad an answer is obtained.
At any rate I'll suggest that any further discussion of the broader issue might be better placed in the Flame Pit, unless the OP in this case is planning on taking any further action (which, given the charges he had been sent have been cancelled, I'd be surprised if he is).

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #25 on: »
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 Ł2.50 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:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cfaclu7gvydl85znx8w2n/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf?rlkey=0ic3ou1xgm0b8pndplqfrydrl&dl=0
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #26 on: »
Unless the OP decides he's suing NCP and/or DVLA, any further debate on this in the Flame Pit.

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #27 on: »
Very interested thread and comments, does feel like would be a breach of GDPR in most other circumstances, however I do not have the inclination or time to sue NCP unfortunately!

More importantly another update - more identical Ntk’s have been received today as originally feared when I started this post  >:( 

NCP have issued 3 new PCN NtK’s for separate dates in December 2023 last week, all on the same day the previous two PCN’s were cancelled! Presumably, this is just the same NCP ‘machine’ churning out the same charges from months ago and they will cancel these PCN’s also?

@b789 in the first instance would you recommend appeal each individually using the same wording?

Extremely irritating and unreasonable and feels like there should be grounds for complaint, wondering as before if/when more NtK's will be sent out.

Thanks for the feedback.

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #28 on: »
Each will need to be appealed separately.

Can you show us the new notices you have received? Their may be additional grounds of appeal apparent in the notice that could beef the appeals up yet further.

Re: Cambridge North NCP Car Park - 2x PCNs
« Reply #29 on: »
Here is one redacted copy if it helps, the other two PCN's are identical and for the 6th and 12th December.

Checked and they are also the same as the original PCN's received for dates in November 2023.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]