Private Car Park - Yellow Bays

[crem]

*Starts post with the standard Hello to all; I'm new here; found site coz I just got my first ever private car park "ticket(invoice)" *

 

Hi all, been reading this forum for the past couple of days since picking up an "invoice" for parking at our local shopping centre and I must say it makes interesting reading. I really appreciate the useful information in these forums as my initial reaction was, after cussing them with many expletives, to make a payment then move my trade elsewhere.

 

I use the town centre car park in Washington near Asda if anyone is familiar with it. It's an entirely free carpark, and in recent times they have increased the yellow bays outside Asda from about 10 bays to something over 40 (in fact it is now the entire "small car park" outside the shop with the next car park been a 100metre walk from the shop). *Could this be an amazing co-incidence that it coincided with the centre management asking Hadrian Traffic Management to run the car park for them??*

 

Now I don't normally advocate parking in yellow bays, and I don't do it during the day, so I'm not looking for a morality debate on it here. But on an evening when I often go, around 7:30 to 10pm when the shop closes, these 40 bays are sufficient and convenient for ALL potential shoppers to use without affecting blue badge holders.

 

I have decided now that my first course of action should be to ignore it and await their contacting me using the DLVA keeper information. Following that I will use the very helpful template letter by B the B about "I'm the keeper, write to the driver".

 

I think a letter to the DLVA asking why they have agreed to release KEEPER information to a private company regarding a DRIVER invoice would be helpful (unlike a genuine PCN where the keeper is the guilty party in law). I would be grateful, as I am sure others would be too, if one of our eloquent members could add a suitable template letter that we could all use to fire off to the DVLA and/or MP regarding this contravention of the Data Protection Act. Failing that, I will possibly add the letter I eventually write to the DVLA here but don't guarantee it's quality.

 

Anyway, to the preemptive points I wanted to get a bit of background on here if I may, I have seen mention around the forums of the in-validity of marking bays as disabled bays within a private car park, (at least within the definition of the Road Traffic Act), but can't seem to find the threads again having browsed many many threads in 2 days. Also, if they do claim to have evidence such as video that I was the driver at the time *disclaimer; please do not take this as a suggestion that I was driving as it could have been someone else* how do I proceed against that evidence?

 

Thanks to all in advance.

 

crem

[green_and_mean]

I think a letter to the DLVA asking why they have agreed to release KEEPER information to a private company regarding a DRIVER invoice would be helpful (unlike a genuine PCN where the keeper is the guilty party in law). I would be grateful' date=' as I am sure others would be too, if one of our eloquent members could add a suitable template letter that we could all use to fire off to the DVLA and/or MP regarding this contravention of the Data Protection Act. Failing that, I will possibly add the letter I eventually write to the DVLA here but don't guarantee it's quality.[/quote']

 

A waste of a stamp in my opinion, the DVLA are allowed to divulge your details so its not unlawful to do so, by registering a vehicle with them you are agreeing to this.

[crem]

Thanks for that g and M. As your comments tend to be negative within the forums, I'll await a more diverse response if I may.

 

I fail to see how any involvement of the DRIVER entering an implied contract with a private company would legitimatise the DVLA releasing my details as KEEPER to said company when no offense has been committed under the terms of the Road Traffic Act.

 

Perhaps what is allowing this to continue is the fact that no-one is challenging this breach of the Data Protection Act coz they don't want "to waste a stamp" as you put it.

[patdavies]

Yellow bays, like any other markings on a private car park have the same legal validity as graffiti. IOW, meaningless.

 

Likewise, Blue Badges have no validity, are are not issued for use, in private car parks.

[Mossycat]

As Pat has already said no markings on a private car park have any validity, so it's really up to you what you do to handle this matter.

 

I probably wouldn't waste my time writing to the DVLA, you won't be the first to complain about them providing RK details when it is the driuver they need to contact but the DVLA makes money from selling these details on so they will keep on doing it and keep trotting out excuses to allow them to do this.

 

What it would take would be a Court Case, ie where a RK sues the DVLA for providing personal information to a PPC on the basis that they have infringed their right to privacy as well as the costs they have incurred in replying to the PPC.

 

Mossycat

[crem]

I've just found this comment of yours on another thread Mossycat and I guess that's the type of letter I was thinking of writing to DVLA if/when this invoice is pursued via that method.

 

I was thinking about writing to the DVLA stating that whilst I am the registered keeper of vehicle X I am not the only driver of it. And whilst they do have the right to inform Police and other authorised agencies of my details they do not have the right under the data protection act to pass my details to private parking or clamping companies until such time as the person enquiring has identified the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, which may or may not be me, because private parking is a contract between the driver at the time and the parking company. Should it therefore transpire that I was not the driver by passing my details wrongly they are involving me in something I shouldn't have to deal with.

 

Any-one got any comments on whether this would work

 

Mossycat

[Mossycat]

I've just found this comment of yours on another thread Mossycat and I guess that's the type of letter I was thinking of writing to DVLA if/when this invoice is pursued via that method.

 

When I posted that I was under the impression that it might have an effect at the DVLA, I now seriously doubt it would given how much money they rake in from selling details.

 

However don't let that dissuade you from doing it, there are some very eloquent writers on this forum, I'm certain that if you post up your draft letter one or more of them would be happy to suggest possible improvements.

 

Good luck

 

Mossycat

[Mossycat]

[quote=crem;1554840 Also, if they do claim to have evidence such as video that I was the driver at the time *disclaimer; please do not take this as a suggestion that I was driving as it could have been someone else* how do I proceed against that evidence?

 

Thanks to all in advance.

 

crem

 

OK once they identify the driver they then have to show that the driver knowingly entered into a contract with them and was fully aware of the terms and conditions.

 

If the driver could get to the parking space without seeing any of the signs (if indeed there are any) then the driver can argue that they were unaware of the terms and conditions and had they been aware they would not have parked there, (so it might be prudent to revisit the car-park and look at entrances etc for location of signage).

 

If (and it's a big if) it is accepted that the driver must have been aware of the conditions and had indeed entered into a contract then the only liability the driver has is for the loss incurred (ie what the parking would have cost), anything else is punitive and as established under the 'Dunlop' case it isn't enforceable.

 

My own gut feeling is once you don't roll over and pay up they will send you the usual threatening letters before moving on to their next victim.

 

Mossycat

[lamma]

how does the video 'identify' the driver ?

I submit that it does not. 'Identification' is quite different.

 

if anyone thinks a video does identify people then please web to here

 

Crowd Control - stock photography images. Royalty free pictures and photos on disc or for download by Brand X Pictures.

 

and name the people in the photos - it should be easy if you are correct.

[crem]

There are signs around the car park that I am sure, although I don't admit to having read, do refer to the punitive charges they may attempt to impose.

 

If (and it's a big if) it is accepted that the driver must have been aware of the conditions and had indeed entered into a contract then the only liability the driver has is for the loss incurred (ie what the parking would have cost), anything else is punitive and as established under the 'Dunlop' case it isn't enforceable.

 

I guess this is the more appropriate line. i.e. If they can establish who the driver was then I think it is reasonable that this driver *should* have been aware of the signage. However, the charge they impose of £100 could be argued to be punitive and unreasonable (and in excess of the maximum allowable charge by their own membership body) and therefore not found to be acceptable by the driver. As I said in the opening post, the carpark is a free parking area and therefore their "loss" for someone parking in that bay is nil.

[green_and_mean]

Thanks for that g and M. As your comments tend to be negative within the forums, I'll await a more diverse response if I may.

 

I fail to see how any involvement of the DRIVER entering an implied contract with a private company would legitimatise the DVLA releasing my details as KEEPER to said company when no offense has been committed under the terms of the Road Traffic Act.

 

Perhaps what is allowing this to continue is the fact that no-one is challenging this breach of the Data Protection Act coz they don't want "to waste a stamp" as you put it.

 

I take it by negative you mean its not what you want to hear?

 

Regulations allow the DVLA to release information to the police and

local authorities to assist with the investigation of offences and parking violations.

Information can also be released to anyone else who can demonstrate

‘reasonable cause’ for his or her request.

This means that vehicle keeper data can be used lawfully for a variety of other

purposes. These include:

• Traffic surveys and research by the Department for Transport

• Investigations by insurance companies, finance houses and members

of the public who can demonstrate reasonable cause

• The enforcement of congestion charging initiatives

• The investigation of benefit fraud by other government bodies

• The enforcement of court orders

• The enforcement of parking restrictions on private property

• Safety recalls by motor manufacturers.

 

Parking on private property or private car parks has been deemed 'reasonable cause'. If you consider a letter will make them change their policy and lose £3 million per annum income from selling on details then go ahead don't let me stop you!

[green_and_mean]

Perhaps what is allowing this to continue is the fact that no-one is challenging this breach of the Data Protection Act

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Tescoparking/

 

Maybe you could ask the 1545 people who signed this petition if it made the DVLA change its mind before you buy your stamp!? ;-)

[patdavies]

 

Also, if they do claim to have evidence such as video that I was the driver at the time *disclaimer; please do not take this as a suggestion that I was driving as it could have been someone else* how do I proceed against that evidence?

 

 

So they are claiming "video evidence" that identifies the registered keeper - I think not somehow. Have they visited to compare you with the image on the video?

 

 

As posted above, it does not even 'identify the driver' It is merely an unnamed picture of the alleged driver at the moment.

[lamma]

As a "thought experiment" for readers. I should point out that if there is video of the RK who was the driver at the time AND the case goes to Court the video is easily defeated. I leave it as an exercise for the readers to work out how.

[Mossycat]

I leave it as an exercise for the readers to work out how.

 

Oh that's helpful on a forum where people come for advice, imagine if everyone else posted the same kind of unhelpful posts 'I know how you can defeat the PCN you have been given but I will leave it for everyone else to work out'

 

Mossycat

[green_and_mean]

As a "thought experiment" for readers. I should point out that if there is video of the RK who was the driver at the time AND the case goes to Court the video is easily defeated. I leave it as an exercise for the readers to work out how.

 

 

Tell the court ....

 

you have an identical twin

the driver is registered blind

the driver is Polish and couldn't read the contract

you have been cloned by aliens

 

 

am I warm yet??

[lamma]

you can always PM me with your answer. Or just make a mental note that there is a solution in case these circumstances ever come up in a PPC case that goes to court - and needs the video to be discounted. chances of that are quite small.

 

It would be even more unhelpful to the victims of PPCs if I posted the answer bearing in mind the number of PPCs who post and read here. Let the PPCs find out the hard way !

[Mossycat]

Tell the court ....

 

the driver is registered blind

 

roflmao

 

Yep that would work

 

Mossycat

[Mossycat]

It would be even more unhelpful to the victims of PPCs if I posted the answer bearing in mind the number of PPCs who post and read here. Let the PPCs find out the hard way !

 

Are you being serious?

 

If it is a guaranteed way to defeat video evidence then it matters not when the PPC finds out about it, in fact if it is a golden bullet then it could well dissuade them from going down that route in the first place.

 

I would imagine that thanks to the information available here that many PPC's are now realising that the public is gradually getting wise 'enmasse' to the fact that they don't have to pay because so many people are now aware of how to defeat their tickets (sorry invoices), I doubt that would have happened if the likes of BarnsleyBoy, BernieTheBolt and PatDavies (to name but a few) had posted replies stating that they knew how to get something dismissed but didn't want to share it.

 

I fail to see your logic

 

Mossycat

[crem]

It would be even more unhelpful to the victims of PPCs if I posted the answer bearing in mind the number of PPCs who post and read here. Let the PPCs find out the hard way !

 

If it involves a method that the PPCs could then look at producing a counter argument to, then I accept lamma's reasoning for not posting it on the general forum. If it were indefensible then telling us all would be warmly welcomed.

 

I suspect lamma is implying it is the former.

[patdavies]

Just to confirm. I have had a PM conversation with lamma and can state that the method is best kept off the board away from prying PPC eyes for now.

 

Forewarned of it, there is a chance they could circumvent it.

[lamma]

Thank you Pat.

[green_and_mean]

How do we know they are already not aware of it!?

[patdavies]

How do we know they are already not aware of it!?

 

We obviously don't; but there's no point in gift-wrapping it:D

[PPC Buster]

We obviously don't; but there's no point in gift-wrapping it:D

Agreed. Perky would wet himself if he found out thru here.