G24 Parking Ltd. - Post-Beavis

Umkomaas

Why not? If you're going for the jugular, rip it out rather than insert a neat cut!

Bullies don't like it up them. Too many newbies come here cowed and supine and remain in that mode hoping if they close their eyes tightly enough the bogeyman will go away. He won't!

surveyor_101

They cant do it that well as one of ours they sent back a letter talking about popla appeal and IAS.!!!!!


They have gone quiet since I asked for a POPLA code!!

Carthesis

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455973/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf

This is the contract under which the PPCs get Registered Keeper data. Some interesting points to note, some of which may have previously been shown in template letters and the like:

Cl. A.6.1 - membership of an ATA at all times and compliance with CoP.

Cl. A.6.2 - termination of contract for breach of CoP

cl. B.1.1 and B.2.3 - requirement to demonstrate sufficient evidence for making the request

cl. B.2.4 - written permission from DVLA to transfer information between databases (i.e. to IAS / PoPLA)

cl. B.7.2 - requirement to check data matches that from other sources

FYI - my complaint to the DVLA about G24 has been fired off:

I wish to register a complaint regarding release of vehicle information for the above private vehicle under the KADOE contract between DVLA and G24 Ltd.

The "evidence" provided by Operator does not sufficiently show detail to prove the same vehicle is in both entry and exit photographs. The "timestamped" exit photograph on the PCN is blurred and the vehicle is not identifiable. Further, the image purporting to show the licence plate on exit is allegedly taken from a timestamped shot of the rear of the car (yellow plate) yet the image showing the licence plate clearly is of a white plate (front of car). On this basis alone, I believe the Operator to be in contravention of Part B Para. 3.3 of the IPC COP.

Further, I believe this to be a breach of Paras. A.6.1, A.6.2 (in relation to the breach of the IPA (ATA) CoP), B.1.1 and B.2.3 (in relation to the demonstration of sufficient evidence to warrant the request) of the KADOE contract.

See the attached file for the standard of "evidence" which has been provided to me as Registered Keeper to warrant this information being supplied to G24. As can clearly be seen, the purported "exit" image is blurry to the point of being indistinguishable, and certainly the licence plate image does not correspond to the timestamped image.

I await your response to these representations.

Regards

System

I await your response to these representations.

Their reply will be take it up with the IPC. The IPC's reply will be to take it up with G24 and then come back to them if G24 do not resolve it. You'll get hoops to jump through ....

Carthesis

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Their reply will be take it up with the IPC. The IPC's reply will be to take it up with G24 and then come back to them if G24 do not resolve it. You'll get hoops to jump through ....

Entirely possible.

And if they do so, I shall point out to them that it has already been taken up with both G24 and the IPC, as it has been included as part of my appeal, which has been rejected. Even though the rejection made no reference to the fact that the image barely shows a car, let alone a licence plate.

I shall simply continue to pester them.

Umkomaas

FYI - my complaint to the DVLA about G24 has been fired off:

And this is the response you can look forward to receiving from the DVLA.

Thank you for your email of xx/xx/xxxx to xxxxxxxxx about the release of information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) vehicle register.

The DVLA takes the protection and security of its data very seriously and has procedures in place to ensure data is disclosed only where it is lawful and fair to do so and where the provisions of the Data Protection Act are met. The law allows information about a registered keeper of a vehicle to be release to third parties that can demonstrate a reasonable cause to receive it. Reasonable cause is not defined in legislation but the Government’s policy is that it should relate to the vehicle or its use following incidents where there may be liability on the part of the driver. Guidance on what constitutes reasonable cause is published online at https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla

It is the motorist’s choice to park a vehicle on private land and their responsibility to ensure that they do so in accordance with the terms and conditions set out on signage displayed in the car park. If it is alleged that the terms of the contract are breached, it is considered reasonable that vehicle keeper details may be released in order to enable the landowner or his agent to pursue their legal rights and to resolve disputes.

The DVLA has a range of measures in place to ensure that all companies are subject to appropriate controls and safeguards. All car parking companies requesting keeper data must be members of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (ATA), which has a mandatory code of practice that all members must adhere to. The purpose of requiring a company to be a member of an ATA is to ensure that those who request DVLA information are legitimate companies that operate with a code of practice. The code of practice promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures that there is a clear set of standards for operators.

The company in question, G24 Ltd, is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC) which is an Accredited Trade Association for the parking industry. The IPC's code of practice is published on its website under the heading “Approved Operators Scheme”. If a member of this scheme does not comply with the code of practice, it may be suspended or expelled, during which time no data will be provided to it by the DVLA. If you feel that any of the practices used by the company do not comply with the code of practice you may wish to contact the IPC.

Private car parking companies receive the information on the condition that it will only be used in connection with an enquiry relating to identifying a driver following an alleged parking contravention on private land; it cannot be further processed for any other purpose. DVLA’s Audit teams visit external data users to ensure information is requested only where appropriate and is used in accordance with their agreement with DVLA.

The most recent audit by the Information Commissioner’s Office judged that the procedures and processes the DVLA has in place offers high assurance to mitigate the risks of non-compliance with the Data Protection Act.

I can assure you that the fees levied by the Agency seek to recover the costs of processing requests for vehicle keeper information so that the cost is borne by the requestor and not passed onto the general taxpayer.

I hope this explains the Agency’s position on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Good luck!

Carthesis

Umkomaas wrote: »

And this is the response you can look forward to receiving from the DVLA.


Good luck!

That may well be the response I get from them, and if I do, then they will get a response that says

"Dear Person at DVLA who has clearly not read my complaint in the first place,

Thank you for pointing out the bleeding obvious and for making plainly obvious the fact you have quite evidently not looked in any detail at my complaint. I am fully aware of the ham-fisted bodge into law to allow the DVLA to legally sell my personal data to a private company for both they and you to profit from, despite no contact with the general public to see if they agree with this.

You have clearly neither read the IPC CoP, nor the terms of your own KADOE contract, otherwise you would know full well that the particulars of this case mean that both the CoP and your KADOE contract, both directly and indirectly, have been breached. You would be able to make this simple determination by opening the easily-openable document i sent to you, which is a copy of the CPCN I, as registered keeper, received from G24. If you had bothered to do so, and to apply even the merest modicum of your no-doubt towering intellect, you (as well as any other right-thinking person with two spare brain cells to rub together) would be able to see, as I stated, that the "evidence" provided by said company which gives them the right to access my information is, at best, absolutely laughable. In fact, I'd even made it easy for you by quoting both the CoP and your own contract clauses, so even the work-experience idiot who clearly read my letter could see what I was saying.

Simply because the Operator adheres to a CoP (which doesn't seem to be enforced), written by the IPC (a puppet trade body with no interest in keeping appropriate tabs on it's members) does not automatically mean it is operating in good faith. In fact, If you'd bothered to even read my complaint before firing off your template response, you'd realise that I have made allegations that the CoP *HAS* been breached, and that I have raised this matter with them on 2 previous occasions, only for both they and their puppet trade body to simply pretend I'd not said a word.

But hey - no point worrying about trivial things like "facts" and "circumstances" when you've got a revenue stream to protect.

Best regards

Angry of Sheffield

And then both my original complaint and the follow-up letter will be going to my MP and the DVLA CEO.

I'm not really expecting them to do anything in truth. They've already proven themselves to be beyond useless in dealing with PPCs. Obviously the arms they would use to slap them down are tired from carrying round those enormous briefcases filled with cash...

Carthesis

Oh, and I note their link refers to "vehicles parked illegally on private land".

I'm pretty sure that the definition of "illegal" means "against the law", and that if I or anyone else were in fact parked "illegally", then I'd be getting a ticket from either a council parking bod or a member of the constabulary - not a jumped-up request from a private firm.

The DVLA really are almost criminally incompetent.

Carthesis

... as the email response I got back from them was that I needed to contact the proper team.

I expanded a little bit on the short version i had in the original email, which read as follows:

Dear Sir / Madam

I write as the registered keeper of the vehicle registration XX NN XXX, which is currently engaged in a dispute with G24 Ltd. over alleged contractual parking charges. While I am aware you are not in any position to intervene on this matter with regard to these charges, my concerns relate to the unwarranted provision of personal data held by the DVLA to this private company without appropriate “evidence” of need.

The particulars of this incident which relate to you is as laid out in the following paragraphs.

The "evidence" provided by Operator does not sufficiently show detail to prove the same vehicle is in both entry and exit photographs. The "timestamped" exit photograph on the PCN is blurred and the vehicle is not identifiable. Further, the image purporting to show the licence plate on exit is allegedly taken from a timestamped shot of the rear of the car (yellow plate) yet the image showing the licence plate clearly is of a white plate (front of car). This is easily seen from the images provided on the charge notice, a copy of which is attached. On this basis alone, I believe the Operator to be in contravention of Part B, Clause 3.3 of the IPC (the ATA for this private company) Code of Practice, compliance with which is a requirement of the DVLA KADOE contract. The fact that the licence plate image shown as part of the 'exit' "evidence" is quite clearly and evidently - for the reasons set out above - not taken from the timestamped image they are using as the basis for the 'exit' time demonstrates that some manipulation of the images has taken place, and thus I am forced to question the veracity of the claims. I have requested copies of the calibration certificates from the Operator, to be met with no response.

Additionally, as part of the Independent Appeals Service offered by the IPC, G24 Ltd. have provided a map of the signage and camera locations on the site they allege the incident occurred. From review of this information, and comparison of the road layout and markings on the site to those shown in the images they have provided as “evidence”, it is clear that the vehicle could not have been recorded in the location they allege by the camera they annotate. This additional information is attached to this letter for your reference.

Further, the Operator is alleging Contractual Parking Charge, which they claim amount to damages. I have requested from the Operator a breakdown of how these damages have accrued or this charge built-up, in accordance with Part B, Clause 8.1 of the IPC CoP, and this has not yet been provided.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out – although I would hope you would be aware - that the breaches of the IPC CoP noted above comprise a breach of the terms of the KADOE contract that G24 Ltd. currently has with the DVLA (refer to Clauses A.6.1 and A.6.2 of the KADOE contract). The failure to provide sufficient "evidence" and the seeming manipulation of the images is a breach of Clauses B.1.1 and B.2.3 of the KADOE contract.

As a result of these obvious transgressions and departures from the IPC CoP by G24, I am also seeking confirmation as to whether specific written permission was obtained from the DVLA to transfer information from G24 Ltd. to the IAS (and any other external) database in accordance with Clause B.2.4 of the KADOE contract. I would be grateful if you could confirm (or otherwise) this to be the case.

Please note that I have retained both a copy of this letter, and proof of submission (by proof of postage) of this letter. Please also note that this issue has also been raised with the DVLA Data Release Team, but that as there is evidence in the public domain that complaints similar to this in nature have been summarily dismissed on multiple occasions by the DVLA DRT, then I have felt it necessary to include the CCRT at this early stage to ensure this complaint is correctly dealt with.

If this complaint is not suitably investigated and resolved to my satisfaction, my intention will be to raise this issue again, involving my Member of Parliament, the Information Commissioner and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsmen. I also reserve the right to add additional information to this complaint, or to submit an additional complaint, for additional breaches of the KADOE contract conditions regarding the supposed independence of the IPC IAS, or the failure to follow Office of Fair Trading debt-collection guidance
should my contact with G24 Ltd. or any associated third-party reach that stage.

I look forward to your response.

Carthesis

Dear Mr XXXXXX,

Thank you for your recent email regarding a parking charge you have received.

You have raised concerns with the evidence provided, as such, DVLA have investigated this matter to ensure that the parking company had sufficient reason to request the keeper details from DVLA.

I will try to address the points raised in the order they were noted...

The "evidence" provided by Operator does not sufficiently show detail to prove the same vehicle is in both entry and exit photographs. The "timestamped" exit photograph on the PCN is blurred and the vehicle is not identifiable

Having contacted G24, they have stated that “the colour exit image is slightly blurred this normally indicates that the vehicle was travel at speed” G24 also stated that the image of the vehicle registration plate was captured clearly. While the picture of the vehicle itself is unclear, the capture of the plate is sufficient to demonstrate that this vehicle was on the site. If this was not your vehicle, please confirm this.

the image purporting to show the licence plate on exit is allegedly taken from a timestamped shot of the rear of the car (yellow plate) yet the image showing the licence plate clearly is of a
white plate (front of car).

Again G24 have stated “The patch plates also attached are taken using an infra-red camera which does not capture any colour, an infra-red camera helps us capture the vehicle registration regardless of the time of day and lighting conditions” From this, it appears that no colours are captured when identifying the vehicle registration plate and therefore the absence of a yellow plate does not indicate that this is not the vehicle registration plate from the vehicle.

it is clear that the vehicle could not have been recorded in the location they allege by the camera they annotate.

I raised this point with G24 who have sent additional images of cameras on site and it does appear that the camera is not in the place marked “CAM 1” on the site map. G24 have stated that this map is not accurate and they will have this amended. Despite this error on the site map, this does not mean that the parking company would not have reasonable cause to request vehicle keeper details of a vehicle that has allegedly breached the parking conditions of a site they manage.

You reference to section B2.4 of the KADOE contract would not be applicable as that clause is in relation to the storage of DVLA data by the customer and not in relation to the use of data for purposes related to the reason the data was obtained initially, which includes but is not limited to appeals, complaints, audits and debt collection.

Having investigated these matters which are within DVLA’s remit, DVLA is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence in place to demonstrate a need for the vehicle keeper details. I can only advise that if you feel this company are in breach of the IPC’s code of practice (which has been referenced in your correspondence), you should raise your concerns with them directly for investigation. If G24 are found to be in breach of the code of practice, DVLA will be made aware of this and can consider if further action is necessary.

I trust I have explained matters but, if you remain unhappy with the service you have received, you can write to our Complaints Team and I have provided a link to our complaints procedure for your reference. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/driver-and-vehicle-licensing-agency/about/complaints-procedure

Kind regards

David D

Laughable.