wrongly given private parking ticket by MET parking services

esmerobbo

dataprotector wrote: »

HO87, i disagree, the carpark cctv will be owned by McD's, the company merely operate the parking arrangements.

"Because MET Parking Services operates its own ANPR System in-house, all the data collected
remains secure. All photographic records and correspondence remain on the secure MET servers
and are not shared with any third party. We have full control of the software, installation, processing,
auditing and reporting mechanisms".

http://www.metparking.com/our_services/parking_enforcement/anpr.html

dataprotector

"not shared to a thrid party" unless its your details and you request them!! also if you were "INSIDE" mcdonalds, request their cctv to prove you came in twice, this will cause them problems doing this! they must also comply, the internal cctv will not belong to MET!

April5138

dataprotector wrote: »

"not shared to a thrid party" unless its your details and you request them!! also if you were "INSIDE" mcdonalds, request their cctv to prove you came in twice, this will cause them problems doing this! they must also comply, the internal cctv will not belong to MET!

I only used the drive thru, I presume McDs would have CCTV monitoring the payment window?! I will ask the manager, if I receive another letter from MET I shall be contacting her again!

dataprotector

they will also have cctv of the drive thru---its normally sited on the roof to monitor the drive thru....

HO87

dataprotector wrote: »

HO87, i disagree, the carpark cctv will be owned by McD's, the company merely operate the parking arrangements. You could easily cause the business a problem by requesting this, such as the problem you have been caused by there car park management company, make the request and they will have the ticket removed. As for being able to see footage of other individuals going about there business, such as who they were meeting in McDonalds etc, yes they would have to have it pixilated! By offering to assist in identifying yourself, i mean such as providing details of what you bought, what you were wearing etc. Why would seeing the raw footage be a breach of DPA but giving you an unedited version of the footage not be?? MAke the request and watch your PCN disappear. Lastly these companies are doing decent people a bad turn, so get them back by making a request for the info, not only the easily searchable databases(i know very well how these systems work) but for info such as there contact with the Dvla re you car and any other correspondance, it causes them a problem and will cost them more than the ten pounds it will cost you, also, are they likely to reply??? if they dont and you report them they could lose their data protection registration, resulting in them not being able to obtain any future dvla data (this is a requesrement by dvla)... replies on a postage stamp please!

I bow to your obvious, extensive and detailed legal knowledge together with an appreciation for the technical operation of ANPR/VNPR systems and what is clearly the fullest understanding of the private parking world.

I consider myself entirely chastened. It is plain to me that my qualifications and many years professional experience are as for nought in the face of your demonstrably superior knowledge in these fields.

dataprotector

HO87, my post was in now way any form of slagging to you however you have seen fit to try and mock me, perhaps you may enlighten us as to your experience/qualifications are??

For other who have doubts as to my posts read the following which will take a little time however would cause major problems for large supermarkets, fast food outlets etc, see specifically access by data subjects

http://www.cctv-information.co.uk/i/The_Data_Protection_Act_and_CCTV

esmerobbo

dataprotector wrote: »

HO87, my post was in now way any form of slagging to you however you have seen fit to try and mock me, perhaps you may enlighten us as to your experience/qualifications are??

For other who have doubts as to my posts read the following which will take a little time however would cause major problems for large supermarkets, fast food outlets etc, see specifically access by data subjects

http://www.cctv-information.co.uk/i/The_Data_Protection_Act_and_CCTV

What is the point of going through all that? I had CCTV when I owned pubs, and was SAR requested a few times when accidents or incidents occurred. You can make it very difficult for someone who wants this information! They have to identify themselves, prove who they are, give you details of the times they where present, what they were wearing!
Then if they could be identified I could give them a copy of the images obtained from the times they claimed they where present!
Then if everything could be proven and we could find the images they could have a 25p DVD for £10 a good profit for me really!
Didn't need to smudge third parties as the images were crap anyway!

I could see the point if a company had reams of information on you which would take sometime to get together, but a few minutes driving through a McD's would take ten minutes to supply! MET or any other PPC would hold two still images one of car going in, one of car going out, and a printout of their DVLA electronic link or V888 request. So again £10 would turn them a profit.

I used to partake in baiting these companies but it really is just much simpler to ignore them. As for the company who employ these PPC's just don't spend in them and let them know why!

HO87

dataprotector wrote: »

HO87, my post was in now way any form of slagging to you however you have seen fit to try and mock me, perhaps you may enlighten us as to your experience/qualifications are??

For other who have doubts as to my posts read the following which will take a little time however would cause major problems for large supermarkets, fast food outlets etc, see specifically access by data subjects

http://www.cctv-information.co.uk/i/The_Data_Protection_Act_and_CCTV

My reply was meant with tongue firmly in cheek but if you feel bruised I apologise.

I first became involved in dealing with PPC's nearly seven years ago when I was taken to court by one who fancied their chances. They lost. Badly. I have since gathered a reasonably in-depth knowledge of PPC World, the companies, the individuals involved and their practices. I have relevant professional qualifications which I have no intention of quoting here as they are too easily misunderstood.

Please re-read my original post. You may be right in some areas which I fully allowed for in what I said. However, my purpose was to warn others (you included) that making a SAR to a PPC carried with it a risk of them obtaining (via the SAR) and using the information of who was driving a car.

Your CCTV link is useful - as far as it goes. However, it is at second-hand and lacks detail. As a former Data Protection Manager (amongst other things) I prefer to use the guidance of the authority on the subject - The ICO. Click here to read the ICO's CCTV Code of Practice The relevant section is - Responsibilities.

April5138

HO87 wrote: »

Please re-read my original post. You may be right in some areas which I fully allowed for in what I said. However, my purpose was to warn others (you included) that making a SAR to a PPC carried with it a risk of them obtaining (via the SAR) and using the information of who was driving a car.

By writing to them I guess I confirmed that I was driving my car at the time, is this going to cause me more problems?

Coupon-mad

No - there are loads of threads where people have fallen for the PPC lie that there's an appeals procedure. But it's not too late to just ignore them, nothing will happen.