Parking 'fine' - claim about being a member of the ICO

Ginger_beer_lover

I've had a ticket issued, which I'm sure shouldn't have been issued because I'd paid the relevant amount, but it didn't show up on the ticket, therefore this must have been an error with their machine. I've looked on the issuing firm's website, which advises that it is "registered with the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) for data protection so are able to obtain keeper details from the DVLA to enforce any parking charges that remain unpaid".

Does anybody know if this is correct and legal? It doesn't sound right to me.

Half_way

fine? ticket? ICO? DPA?
Private companies cant issue fines, the whole information comisioners office (ICO) thing is a red hering, as is the data protection act with regards to these things.


You need to priovide more infomration, who was/is the parking company? how have they contacted ( ie ticket on vehilce/letter in post)
this is important, as certain parking companies need to be treated slightly differently, you may have seen some advice given along the lines of ignore it all/bin it/loo papaer etc etc, you can go down than route in some cases ( never bin ) but there are better ways of dealing with it.

Coupon-mad

Ginger_beer_lover wrote: »

I've had a ticket issued, which I'm sure shouldn't have been issued because I'd paid the relevant amount, but it didn't show up on the ticket, therefore this must have been an error with their machine. I've looked on the issuing firm's website, which advises that it is "registered with the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) for data protection so are able to obtain keeper details from the DVLA to enforce any parking charges that remain unpaid".

Does anybody know if this is correct and legal? It doesn't sound right to me.

I have seen on an old thread, a PPC made to remove an ICO logo from their website before. Sounds very similar and yes, IMHO it's misleading.

If you Google the ICO you can find a contact us/complaint button which gives you an email addy to send the link to.

Guys_Dad

The statement is perfectly legal as long as there is no logo. In fact, it is a legal requirement for all of the PPCs to register if they are processing personal data.

I see nothing wrong in them declaring that they are adhering to the law.

HO87

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The statement is perfectly legal as long as there is no logo. In fact, it is a legal requirement for all of the PPCs to register if they are processing personal data.

I see nothing wrong in them declaring that they are adhering to the law.

The requirement that all PPC's register with the ICO isn't, of course, peculiar to that field of business and applies to the vast majority of companies (PPC or not) because they process personal data - if only to be able to pay their staff.

I too see nothing inherently wrong in a PPC declaring that they adhere to the law but let's put that statement in context. How many other companies does one see that make prominent statements to the effect that they are registered with the ICO and "work within guidelines approved by the DVLA" - or whoever. Very few indeed. One is almost obliged to ask the question: Why, if these companies are as legitimate as they claim they feel the continuing need to demonstrate the fact and in so doing often hint that they are in someway "approved" rather than simply registered?

The inescapable conclusion is that some PPC's have cynically made use of carefully crafted copy to hoodwink the public and the use of both DVLA and ICO logos was fully intended to convey a form of endorsement by those organisations. The use of these logos by some PPC's continues despite - supposedly - specific advice being available advising them that to do so may be regarded as a breach of copyright.

There may be nothing wrong but one does have to question motives.

Guys_Dad

HO87 wrote: »

The requirement that all PPC's register with the ICO isn't, of course, peculiar to that field of business and applies to the vast majority of companies (PPC or not) because they process personal data - if only to be able to pay their staff.


There may be nothing wrong but one does have to question motives.

Two points. Not only do companies have to register but, as you will know, they have to declare what data, purpose and to whom it may be declared. Obviously the registration for holding payroll data would not cover them. OP should tell us who is the PPC. The ICO registrations of all PPCs is probably worth checking out if anyone could be bothered.

The second point is that photographic and audio data was not originally in the 1984 act and still some organisations still don't realise their obligations to register their CCTV, for example. PPCs who issue cameras to their attendants and attach these photos to cases should indicate that on their registrations, I believe, as well as they are processing images.

But I agree that it is all there to boost their illusions of professional authority.