Duff's arguments found to be duff. Proserve must join an ATA to get keeper data

The judgment in the case of Duff v DVLA has now been handed down, and is available here.

In a nutshell, the judge found that the DVLA had ample reason to require Proserve to join an ATA, and brought attention to his previous failings in signage, charge level and access to independent appeals services.

I agree with the Deputy High Court Judge who refused permission on the papers, prior to its grant at an oral hearing. She observed that this claim for judicial review is really a merits challenge to the decision rather than a true public law claim. The claimant does not agree that he should be subject to a requirement that he should join an ATA if he wishes to be able to access large amounts of data from the register in order that he can profit by recovering sums of money from the keepers or drivers of vehicles which have trespassed on his clients' land. He is no doubt entitled to that view. However, the Secretary of State took a different view and his decision is plainly not irrational and there is no other arguable basis for quashing it.

Full costs were awarded against Duff.

In light of the above The Prankster expects the DVLA to stop providing data to other companies such as ACE Securities and ANPR Ltd who also operate car parking enforcement without belonging to an ATA.

Background

The Prankster
Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster