Here is the link to the new transcripts
Old transcripts are still available here
CS042 VCS v Mr M. C9DP2D6C (Data protection breach by VCS as parking charge invalid)
DDJ Britlin rules that a data protection breach occurs if a parking company pursues a parking charge which is not valid, as the data is not used fairly or lawfully. £250 awarded
CS043 Excel v Lamoureux C3DP56Q5 proceedings to judgment. (No keeper liability)
DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds examines Excel's notice to keeper and finds it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 sch 4 (POFA).
Some interesting quotes
THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Has there been any decision on whether this notice complies with—
MR LAMOUREUX: Excel admit it doesn’t comply.
MR PICKUP: Well, I have done many of these cases, madam, and whilst I appreciate they are all different and they are only persuasive, I have never had a judgment where the judge has said that this notice does not comply.
THE DISTRICT JUDGE: What puzzles me, Mr Pickup, is why Excel argues it does not have to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act and they do not have to rely on it. I find that difficult.
This puzzles everyone except BW Legal and Gladstones.
MR PICKUP: But they are not using the Act. They say they are just using it through—
THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Sorry, this company Excel sometimes relies on that?
MR PICKUP: No.
THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Other companies do?
MR PICKUP: Yes.
THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Yes, helpfully, I do know that there is case law that says the keeper is not the driver and there is no such assumption, but helpfully, Mr Lamoureux has produced part of an extract. It is R (on the application of Duff) v Secretary of State for Transport  EWHC 1605, but there is other case law to this effect. There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. It is trite law. I do not even need to rely on R (on the application of Duff v Secretary of State for Transport. Everybody knows that you cannot assume that the keeper is the driver which is why most parking companies, such as Parking Eye, always rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the notice should comply. Any other points in there that you say do not comply, Mr Lamoureux?
Everyone knows, apart from Excel, Mr Pickup and BW Legal
DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds judgment explains that there is no liability if the keeper is not the driver and POFA is not used.
CS045 R (on the application of Duff) v Secretary of State for Transport  EWHC 1605 (Admin)
The case law quoted in Excel v Lamoureux C3DP56Q5, although this actually might be a misquote from the POPLA annual report..
This was the ill-fated attempt of Stephen Duff to try and extract keeper details from the DVLA without belonging to an appropriate trade association.
R is presumably Ransomes Park.
CS046 CPS v AJH Films  EWCA Civ 1453
The leave to appeal refusal used by some parking companies to assert that at all times the driver is an agent of the keeper. This argument favoured only by legal minnows is rebuffed by judges who point out that it is not appropriate, while presumably trying to stop laughing and keep a straight face.
The Parking Prankster