Data Protection Act and PPC
Discussion
Ok, i am not one for 'illegal' parking on private land, BUT if someone is caught, and they get the dreaded letter, are there any legal 'loopholes' to use to avoid payment.
IE
Now, assuming the 'driver' is not the RK, the PPC asks for the name of the driver, otherwise the PPC chases the RK.
Now if you do give a name, say John Smith, can the PPC come back to you ,and request further details, or are you covered not to do so by the Data Protection Act. If this is the case, can they not further chase the RK, as the RK has fulfilled their part of the bargain, and the RK tells them chase the driver, i have given you the info.
Or am i just pissing in the wind?
IE
Now, assuming the 'driver' is not the RK, the PPC asks for the name of the driver, otherwise the PPC chases the RK.
Now if you do give a name, say John Smith, can the PPC come back to you ,and request further details, or are you covered not to do so by the Data Protection Act. If this is the case, can they not further chase the RK, as the RK has fulfilled their part of the bargain, and the RK tells them chase the driver, i have given you the info.
Or am i just pissing in the wind?
The Data Protection Act is widely and woefully misunderstood. Knowing someone's name and address does not render Joe Bloke subject to the Act. Look at your address book and ask yourself if you have registered as a data controller under the Act. Of course you haven't, and you don't have to. In any event, the Act does not prevent the legitimate use of information.
I will not reiterate all the usual blah about the limited effect of the recent change in the law about liability for parking charges.
Anyway, the needless stress of barrack room lawyering and internet nonsense can be avoided by not parking on someone else's land without permission and/or payment.
I will not reiterate all the usual blah about the limited effect of the recent change in the law about liability for parking charges.
Anyway, the needless stress of barrack room lawyering and internet nonsense can be avoided by not parking on someone else's land without permission and/or payment.
Widely covered on moneysavingexpert site. http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-p...
You have no legal obligation to inform a private organisation who was driving a vehicle at the time of any alleged breach of the Ts & Cs they have arbitrarily created for their car park.
Accepted advice is to ignore it, but you can also write back saying "please direct this to the driver of the vehicle at the time in question"
For the most prevalent organisations "Parking Eye" and similar, they work on a law of averages approach. 35 year old Doris with two kids will pay immediately and they do not bother following up with those who don't pay.
You have no legal obligation to inform a private organisation who was driving a vehicle at the time of any alleged breach of the Ts & Cs they have arbitrarily created for their car park.
Accepted advice is to ignore it, but you can also write back saying "please direct this to the driver of the vehicle at the time in question"
For the most prevalent organisations "Parking Eye" and similar, they work on a law of averages approach. 35 year old Doris with two kids will pay immediately and they do not bother following up with those who don't pay.
Edited by AndyLB on Friday 19th October 06:37
AndyLB said:
Widely covered on moneysavingexpert site.
You have no legal obligation to inform a private organisation who was driving a vehicle at the time of any alleged breach of the Ts & Cs they have arbitrarily created for their car park.
However, assuming the PPC have followed the regulations, they may now pursue the registered keeper for private fines in the absence of information confirming the driver (if different).You have no legal obligation to inform a private organisation who was driving a vehicle at the time of any alleged breach of the Ts & Cs they have arbitrarily created for their car park.
Oh yeah looks like the regulations changed on 1 October
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=4697...
Now accepted advice is to name a driver, and then ignore the PPC.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=4697...
Now accepted advice is to name a driver, and then ignore the PPC.
10 Pence Short said:
Then the PPC can fail to track down said driver and return to the RK. Proceedings are launched and the RK can keep up the charade and risk purjuring him or herself over a parking ticket or accept that maybe they should have parked properly in the first place.
I suggest you read the attached info. The RK only has to inform them of the driver, there is no clause stating "if driver does not respond RK somehow becomes responsible for the fine" If the above did occur the PPC would never commence court proceedings as the cost of doing so would outweigh the cost of the fine.
Also perjury can not be committed to a PPC.
Yes they should have parked properly in the first place, but they didn't , or they wouldn't be posting here.
Edited by AndyLB on Friday 19th October 07:10
AndyLB said:
I suggest you read the attached info. The RK only has to inform them of the driver, there is no clause stating "if driver does not respond RK somehow becomes responsible for the fine" Not to mention that the PPC would never commence court proceedings as the cost of doing so would outweigh the cost of the fine.
Do you believe the provisions of the PoF Act are so weak that simply naming a fictitious driver will render any action against the RK impossible?Really?
I'm very suprised nobody thought of that when drafting the legislation.
It would be lovely if the people of internet fora could be right by wishing it so, but on this occasion I'm not convinced they are.
When the PPC does a DVLA check on the named driver, and they don't exist, what do you think will happen? If the driver does exist and fails to respond, what do you think will happen? If the driver responds and denies liability, what do you think will happen?
Oh, and the perjury is when the RK lies in their defence in court in relation to the driver.
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Friday 19th October 07:14
10 Pence Short said:
Do you believe the provisions of the PoF Act are so weak that simply naming a fictitious driver will render any action against the RK impossible?
Really?
I'm very suprised nobody thought of that when drafting the legislation.
It would be lovely if the people of internet fora could be right by wishing it so, but on this occasion I'm not convinced they are.
When the PPC does a DVLA check on the named driver, and they don't exist, what do you think will happen? If the driver does exist and fails to respond, what do you think will happen? If the driver responds and denies liability, what do you think will happen?
Oh, and the perjury is when the RK lies in their defence in court in relation to the driver.
Lots of legislation has been drafted which hasnt been well thought out. For instance, until a few years ago you could get out of speeding tickets by simply not remembering who was driving at the time.Really?
I'm very suprised nobody thought of that when drafting the legislation.
It would be lovely if the people of internet fora could be right by wishing it so, but on this occasion I'm not convinced they are.
When the PPC does a DVLA check on the named driver, and they don't exist, what do you think will happen? If the driver does exist and fails to respond, what do you think will happen? If the driver responds and denies liability, what do you think will happen?
Oh, and the perjury is when the RK lies in their defence in court in relation to the driver.
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Friday 19th October 07:14
I'm not suggesting a fictitious driver, nor does the info in that link.
The O/H used to work for a large PPC, I know the business model and it's not to take people to court.
Anyway, I'm sure this guy now that he has links to all the info can make his own, informed decision.
Suggesting that drivers could until recently get off speeding tickets by not remebering who was driving is an example of misinformation. I would also suggest that giving PPCs misinformation to escape parking tickets is equally misinformed.
The business model of PPC will have changed since your OH worked for them, as legislation now gives teeth where they might not have been there before.
The business model of PPC will have changed since your OH worked for them, as legislation now gives teeth where they might not have been there before.
10 Pence Short said:
Suggesting that drivers could until recently get off speeding tickets by not remebering who was driving is an example of misinformation. I would also suggest that giving PPCs misinformation to escape parking tickets is equally misinformed.
The business model of PPC will have changed since your OH worked for them, as legislation now gives teeth where they might not have been there before.
Have to have the last word don't you.The business model of PPC will have changed since your OH worked for them, as legislation now gives teeth where they might not have been there before.
On the first point, i'm not sure about being misinformed, but until a couple of years ago, if you could not remember who was driving, there was no statutory follow up, obviously that changed with the "failure to furnish" and the 6 points for not giving driver details. Point is your assumption that all legislation is always solid and well thought out is incorrect. It often isn't.
Secondly, it's still basic economics if the potential cost to pursue outweighs the benefit of doing so the company wont do it. In the case of non-responding RKs it may very well transpire that the new legislation means they will be more successful. However in the case of an RK nominating a driver who then doesnt respond, well I think you'll find that they'll quickly give up. They have no stomach or admin resource for protracted and lengthy litigation/
If you read the legislation, the "creditor" (as he's called in the Act - i.e. the person entitled to recover unpaid parking charges) can serve a notice to keeper (under para 8 of sched 4 of the Act) essentially requiring the keeper to pay up if the creditor does not have a name and "address for service" for the driver.
So making up a name doesn't get the RK off the hook.
As above, the best advice is: don't park where you shouldn't.
So making up a name doesn't get the RK off the hook.
As above, the best advice is: don't park where you shouldn't.
Gruber said:
If you read the legislation, the "creditor" (as he's called in the Act - i.e. the person entitled to recover unpaid parking charges) can serve a notice to keeper (under para 8 of sched 4 of the Act) essentially requiring the keeper to pay up if the creditor does not have a name and "address for service" for the driver.
So making up a name doesn't get the RK off the hook.
As above, the best advice is: don't park where you shouldn't.
There is no doubt that many drivers do take the pSo making up a name doesn't get the RK off the hook.
As above, the best advice is: don't park where you shouldn't.
s and park where they shouldn't. Generally its not difficult to avoid parking tickets and I have never received one in over 25 years of driving. However cars are not much use if they cannot be parked at their destination and there is no doubt that an industry has arisen to profit from this.As most car parks charge relatively small amounts of money to park, even for a day, and most out of town shopping parks are free to park, the incentive for many car park operators is to establish ways of 'fining' those parking, and this practice was certainly on the increase.
This involves poor signage, arbitary/strictly applied rules, the more common use of 3rd party management companies with no connection to the parks customers and completely disproportionate fines.
The regulations have for the most part been drafted to protect motorists from being ripped off. Therefore IMO motorists should use any provisions/loop holes in these rules to fight back. You can bet the cark park operators will find and use any they can.
AndyLB said:
Have to have the last word don't you.
On the first point, i'm not sure about being misinformed, but until a couple of years ago, if you could not remember who was driving, there was no statutory follow up, obviously that changed with the "failure to furnish" and the 6 points for not giving driver details. Point is your assumption that all legislation is always solid and well thought out is incorrect. It often isn't.
Secondly, it's still basic economics if the potential cost to pursue outweighs the benefit of doing so the company wont do it. In the case of non-responding RKs it may very well transpire that the new legislation means they will be more successful. However in the case of an RK nominating a driver who then doesnt respond, well I think you'll find that they'll quickly give up. They have no stomach or admin resource for protracted and lengthy litigation/
It's not about having the last word, it's about people not being misinformed.On the first point, i'm not sure about being misinformed, but until a couple of years ago, if you could not remember who was driving, there was no statutory follow up, obviously that changed with the "failure to furnish" and the 6 points for not giving driver details. Point is your assumption that all legislation is always solid and well thought out is incorrect. It often isn't.
Secondly, it's still basic economics if the potential cost to pursue outweighs the benefit of doing so the company wont do it. In the case of non-responding RKs it may very well transpire that the new legislation means they will be more successful. However in the case of an RK nominating a driver who then doesnt respond, well I think you'll find that they'll quickly give up. They have no stomach or admin resource for protracted and lengthy litigation/
Failure to provide driver details has been an offence for many years. All that has changed in recent times is that the typical penalty for doing so has risen from 3 penalty points to 6. This was in response to a growing number of people taking 3 points for failure to notify over speeding or other incidents where the punishments would have been higher.
With regards to PPCs, why do you think the law was changed this year? Political pressure demanded clamping was banned, and in return the PPC industry lobbi for the ability to hold the RK responsible. This removes the missing link where inability to identify the other party to the contract could lead to fines being unenforceable.
For you to now suggest to people that it will be okay to ignore notices or provide false driver details under the new legislation is misconceived, as it will not automatically remove the PPC's recourse to the registered keeper.
Contrary to what's presumed, it does not need to be expensive to launch proceedings for such a matter and I don't doubt PPCs will now begin to take RKs to court when they do not cough up either the actual driver or the wonga.
10 Pence Short said:
It's not about having the last word, it's about people not being misinformed.
Failure to provide driver details has been an offence for many years. All that has changed in recent times is that the typical penalty for doing so has risen from 3 penalty points to 6. This was in response to a growing number of people taking 3 points for failure to notify over speeding or other incidents where the punishments would have been higher.
With regards to PPCs, why do you think the law was changed this year? Political pressure demanded clamping was banned, and in return the PPC industry lobbi for the ability to hold the RK responsible. This removes the missing link where inability to identify the other party to the contract could lead to fines being unenforceable.
For you to now suggest to people that it will be okay to ignore notices or provide false driver details under the new legislation is misconceived, as it will not automatically remove the PPC's recourse to the registered keeper.
Contrary to what's presumed, it does not need to be expensive to launch proceedings for such a matter and I don't doubt PPCs will now begin to take RKs to court when they do not cough up either the actual driver or the wonga.
My understanding is that for PPC's fines are always unenforceable as they have no rights to issue fines.Failure to provide driver details has been an offence for many years. All that has changed in recent times is that the typical penalty for doing so has risen from 3 penalty points to 6. This was in response to a growing number of people taking 3 points for failure to notify over speeding or other incidents where the punishments would have been higher.
With regards to PPCs, why do you think the law was changed this year? Political pressure demanded clamping was banned, and in return the PPC industry lobbi for the ability to hold the RK responsible. This removes the missing link where inability to identify the other party to the contract could lead to fines being unenforceable.
For you to now suggest to people that it will be okay to ignore notices or provide false driver details under the new legislation is misconceived, as it will not automatically remove the PPC's recourse to the registered keeper.
Contrary to what's presumed, it does not need to be expensive to launch proceedings for such a matter and I don't doubt PPCs will now begin to take RKs to court when they do not cough up either the actual driver or the wonga.
They can claim reasonable losses due to breach of a presumed contract. The main issue is that such claims are almost never fair and reasonable, hence why the whole issue has ended up with new laws and why so many people get wound up and angry.
If the contract between the landowner and the PPC is worded correctly that in itself will not present a problem in enforcing 'fines'. There was a well publicised issue with on company, no doubt new contracts have been drafted.
As for the terms, I don't think generally the terms will fall foul of being described as unfair in the meaning of the Unfair Contract Terms.
What you may allude to is losses, which you may find are described as reasonable if in the same ball park as those claimed by Local Authorities for similar transgressions. Until a case is put before a high enough court to create a proper authority this will not be set in any kind of stone.
There is far too much waffle on motoring forums from people describing how they'd like it to be rather than how it might actually be.
As for the terms, I don't think generally the terms will fall foul of being described as unfair in the meaning of the Unfair Contract Terms.
What you may allude to is losses, which you may find are described as reasonable if in the same ball park as those claimed by Local Authorities for similar transgressions. Until a case is put before a high enough court to create a proper authority this will not be set in any kind of stone.
There is far too much waffle on motoring forums from people describing how they'd like it to be rather than how it might actually be.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff