...almost.
Proserve has applied for a judicial review of this decision. This is extremely expensive; they may well be looking at a £40,000 bill if they lose. This should take place in the near future. The rules are that it should take place "without undue delay and in any case within 3 months."
Until that process is complete the DVLA will continue to abdicate its responsibility to the motorist and provide keeper data to Proserve.
If Proserve win the judicial review then there will be no need for other car parking companies to remain members of the BPA and IPC. There would be a huge financial incentive for them to leave because they can then charge what they like (Proserve charge up to £250 per hour of trespass), they will not have to pay expensive ATA affiliation fees, and they do not have the bother and expense of running a legitimate appeals service, or funding an independent appeals service.
This could then lead to consumer pressure to get the keeper liability provisions removed, due to widespread abuse.
There are of course legitimate ways to enforce landowner wishes which would not have caused all these problems, but which Proserve and the landowner have chosen to ignore. One way to resolve most issues would be for the landowner to use a company which is a member of an ATA, which uses sensible signage and which charges the landowner's true loss for any act of trespass. The company should proactively patrol, and attempt to genuinely resolve problems in a way which does not involve issuing as many charges as possible.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
A JR application doesn't necessarily mean it will be accepted.
ReplyDeleteIf the court thinks it's a pointless or worthless exercise it'll refuse to hear it.
Methinks this is such a case.
Indeed, and at least the DVLA have done something and forced Proserve's hand.
ReplyDelete