G24 Parking Ltd. - Post-Beavis

Carthesis

... so they got another broadside. Just for good measure.

David,

Thank you for your response, but I am afraid to say I find this far from satisfactory.

Firstly, I hope you have not shared any further information regarding my complaint to you with G24 such that I can be identified, as should they attempt to take me to court, I shall be relying on some of this information in my defence. I did not give you any permission, implied or otherwise, for you to contact G24 and to share any information which may lead to the identity of the complainant - in this case me - becoming known to G24. Therefore, I must request now that you provide me with copies of the communication you have clearly had with G24 so that I can be assured this is not the case. If my registration number or name has been shared with G24 in order to ascertain further details regarding this case, I must inform you that I will be pursuing this matter further.

Secondly, I find many of the answers given unsatisfactory. If the vehicle was (allegedly) moving at such speed as to be indistinguishable on the CCTV image, then why was the infra-red camera able to capture a plate with such clarity? Furthermore, there is now no link between the timestamped image being used to claim length of parking (and thus alleged breach), and the one and only clear image showing the licence plate. Additionally, it is not with some amusement that on the DVLAs own V888 forms, it is made clear that a licence plate image alone is insufficient evidence to make a Keeper Details request, with a clear statement being made that an image of the entire car which shows the licence marks is a requirement. This does not appear to be, by your now own admission, a requirement for the DVLA to hand over details to a private company who are now attempting to extort money from me with no real evidence worthy of the name.

Thirdly, you freely admit that they could not have captured the images they claim from the camera they state, but that you nevertheless state they somehow still have reasonable grounds for requesting keeper details. I am unclear as to how you can justify this statement, as should G24 not be able to provide additional information regarding camera locations (which they have as yet not done, and have already filed misleading, incorrect information with the independent adjudicator, which some may call "lying"), then they are unable to prove that the vehicle in question was located where they claim for the period they claim. Surely this is the very definition of "reasonable grounds", but I accept that you could be using a very different dictionary to the conventional one I have used throughout my education.

Fourthly, I cannot begin to innumerate the ways in which I find your response to B.2.4 to be unsatisfactory. The KADOE contract clearly states that written permission must be obtained from DVLA for transfer of the data from one database (location) to another. The contract makes no reference to exemptions to this statement for any reason whatsoever.

Fifth, I have already raised my concerns with the IPC, which occurred on 01/09/2016, and to which no response has yet been received of any kind. Obviously the IPC is either doing a much more thorough job of investigating my complaint, or has no qualms whatsoever about the conduct of its members.

I can assure you that I will be contacting your complaint team regarding this matter, and as you will no doubt note, have copied them on this response for their reference.

Regards,

Let's see what shakes loose.

Clearly - before anyone says anything - I'm not expecting to actually *GET* anywhere with this, but having decided i'm going to maintain my stance of being an utter nuisance, then in for a penny, in for a pound.

Carthesis

Well.

Well well well.

Well well well well well well well.

I've had an email this morning from IAS.

It seems - by some miracle - that they've upheld my appeal and have instructed G24 to cancel this ticket! Wasn't expecting that at all!!

Appeal Outcome: Accepted

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am not satisfied that the parking operator has established that the P.C.N was properly issued and therefore this Appeal is allowed.

The Appellant has taken issue with the evidence supplied by the Operator, which purportedly shows the vehicle in question entering the car park and subsequently exiting.

Having considered the photographs relied upon by the Operator, the number plate is not legible in the photo which purportedly shows the Appellant's vehicle exiting the car park.

What is however clear from that image, is that the rear number plate is yellow in colour. The licence plate image linked to the exit photograph is not yellow and appears to have been enhanced in some way.

The Appellant has specifically challenged the provenance of the exit licence plate image. The Operator has not provided any explanation of how the blurred exit image has been used to produce the very clear image of the licence plate.

The Operator has failed to address this specific point. It is on this basis that I am not satisfied that the Operator has produced sufficient evidence to discharge the requisite burden of proof. "

As your appeal has been accepted, the charge has been cancelled by the operator and you do not need to take any further action.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

Now, the very next question - given the response i got from the DVLA when they complained, what is the particularly choice wording i use in my email to them stating that even the IAS Kangaroo Court has decided that G24 didn't have a leg to stand on; agrees they don't have the evidence required to satisfy the "burden of proof"; and to basically shove it right up the DVLAs exhaust pipe? With the obvious follow-up complaint letter to the ICO? And possibly the Parliamentary Complaints Committee too?

My comms with the DVLA are above. They were their normal "helpful" selves, and now i want to screw with them.

Thoughts?

beamerguy

Carthesis wrote: »

Well.

Well well well.

Well well well well well well well.

I've had an email this morning from IAS.

It seems - by some miracle - that they've upheld my appeal and have instructed G24 to cancel this ticket! Wasn't expecting that at all!!
Now, the very next question - given the response i got from the DVLA when they complained, what is the particularly choice wording i use in my email to them stating that even the IAS Kangaroo Court has decided that G24 didn't have a leg to stand on; agrees they don't have the evidence required to satisfy the "burden of proof"; and to basically shove it right up the DVLAs exhaust pipe? With the obvious follow-up complaint letter to the ICO? And possibly the Parliamentary Complaints Committee too?

My comms with the DVLA are above. They were their normal "helpful" selves, and now i want to screw with them.

Thoughts?

Well well indeed, the IAS are actually saying that G24 could be fraudulent.

A case for the DVLA to fully investigate G24.
Wonder if G24 are using the same "photo doctor" used by UKPC

Umkomaas

I rather suspect the jungle drums have been at work between Swansea and The Red Cow Yard.

They perhaps thought you'd be so relieved with a very unlikely win, you'd be happy to slip away quietly on this.

I also rather suspect they've underestimated?

Carthesis

You could not be more correct.

I totally fail to see why I should not at least demand a satidfactory response from DVLA, especially in light of the findings of IAS.

As I've had no further communication from DVLA of any kind since my follow-up broadside, I think a strongly worded letter, pointing to the IAS result, with the same letter copied to IPC to be appended to my original complaint, and copied in to both my MP and the ICO as well.

DVLA have done nothing here but earn both my ire and my wrath. If they can't be bothered to properly investigate when people place compelling evidence in front of them, then they don't deserve any mercy.

Coupon-mad

Totally agree.

Between the DVLA and IPC, it appears that someone has seemingly tried to sweep this one under the carpet. So dig it back out and throw the dust around...

Carthesis

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So dig it back out and throw the dust around...

Here's the first shovel load... sent to the imbecile at the DVLA "Data Sharing Assurance Team":

David,

It is with some joy that I write to inform you that my appeal against the parking charge from G24 Ltd. has been upheld by the IAS.

The IAS - which, as I'm sure you are aware - is an allegedly independent body, but is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors, John Davies and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of truly providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct.

However, what I find curious is that, in upholding my appeal, the IAS has found (and I quote):

"I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am not satisfied that the parking operator has established that the P.C.N was properly issued and therefore this Appeal is allowed.

Having considered the photographs relied upon by the Operator, the number plate is not legible in the photo which purportedly shows the Appellant's vehicle exiting the car park.

The Appellant has taken issue with the evidence supplied by the Operator, which purportedly shows the vehicle in question entering the car park and subsequently exiting.

Having considered the photographs relied upon by the Operator, the number plate is not legible in the photo which purportedly shows the Appellant's vehicle exiting the car park.

What is however clear from that image, is that the rear number plate is yellow in colour. The licence plate image linked to the exit photograph is not yellow and appears to have been enhanced in some way.

The Appellant has specifically challenged the provenance of the exit licence plate image. The Operator has not provided any explanation of how the blurred exit image has been used to produce the very clear image of the licence plate.

The Operator has failed to address this specific point. It is on this basis that I am not satisfied that the Operator has produced sufficient evidence to discharge the requisite burden of proof."

So, the IAS - effectively an arms-length puppet-body of the IPC, about which there is ample evidence regarding their general lack of real independence and ongoing failure to properly consider valid charges - has agreed with me, on the same points originally raised with you, that G24 Ltd. has not correctly issued a PCN on the basis of insufficient evidence to do so, and furthermore agrees that the exit image appears to have been manipulated in some way.

You and your colleagues at DVLA however seem to be quite happy to hand out personal data to these private companies on little or no evidence whatsoever. The fact that the appeal has been upheld simply confirms my initial assertions that G24 Ltd. were in breach of the IPC CoP, and thus were subsequently in breach of the terms of the KADOE contract for access to Keeper data.

I further note that, unfortunately, there has been no contact from either yourself or anyone else at DVLA relating to my request for information you may have shared with G24 Ltd. regarding my original complaint which you summarily - and now, it seems, incorrectly - dismissed as without merit. Please do not assume that just because this charge has been cancelled that I am willing to overlook the misuse of my private data, and the fact that you may well have shared additional data with G24 Ltd. without my prior express permission. I STILL require you to provide me with records of any communication you may have had with G24 Ltd. regarding my original complaint. If you are not the correct person to process this request, then please forward this email to your Data Controller and treat this email as a Subject Access Request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

Additionally, I now request that you reassess my original complaint in light of the information above regarding the appeal being upheld by the IAS. Note that this email is also being appended to my original complaint with the IPC for G24's breach of the IPC CoP.

You will note also that this email is copied to the DVLA Complaints Team, whom I am asking to formally open a complaint regarding this blatant misappropriation of my personal information.

As my original email and letter, note that unless I receive a satisfactory response to my complaint - which is now "backed up" by the findings of IAS - that I shall have no qualms about escalating this matter further, both to the Information Commissioner's Office and to the appropriate Parliamentary authorities.

Regards,

Angry and Not Backing Down of Sheffield

Yes, I am planning on taking this as far as I can, and if that means I get to pimp-slap DVLA up and down Swansea High Street, then so be it.

Carthesis

And here's the next one - appended (well not really - their system is too rubbish to allow you to *ADD* to an existing complaint, so I've had to generate a new one!) to my complaint to the IPC:

Please note that the IAS have now upheld my appeal, and cancelled the PCN referred to in my original complaint (which, due to your poor online system, I an unable to append to or amend).

However, the IAS have found in upholding my appeal that the Operator has not correctly issued the PCN, and has not satisfied the burden of proof required for the PCN to be issued. They - as have I - have also questioned the veracity of the images used as "evidence" on the charge notice. I consider this to be proof of the breaches of the IPC CoP previously referenced.

Furthermore, in my initial appeal letter to G24 Ltd., I expressly required them to provide the basis and breakdown of how they have calculated the alleged "damages", which was not and still has not been provided. You are, no doubt, aware that this is an explicit requirement of the IPC CoP, Part B, clause 8.1.

I will be contacting G24 Ltd. to require a written confirmation letter from them that the charge has been cancelled in accordance with the binding judgement of the IAS Assessor. I will further require written confirmation that all data regarding my vehicle and all personal data of me as Registered Keeper has been correctly deleted from their system, as they no longer have the right to hold that information (and, according to the IAS, have never had that right.)

Carthesis

And the third. I need a bigger shovel. Or perhaps a JCB...

To whomever it concerns at G24 Ltd.

Regarding PCN 120160728041

IAS has now upheld this appeal.

I now require that G24 Ltd. provide written confirmation of the cancellation of this PCN.

I further require written confirmation that all personal data held on any and all G24 Ltd. systems - be they paper-based or electronic - has been deleted / disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act. IAS have confirmed that G24 Ltd. did not satisfy the burden of proof for issuance of the PCN, and that there appears to be evidence of tampering or manipulation of the "evidence" photographs. This strongly suggests that G24 Ltd. had no right or authority to request Keeper Information from DVLA in the first place.

If I do not receive the written confirmation requested, please note that I will escalate this further and bring this to the attention of the Information Commissioner.

That's me done for now. I think the fourth and final shovel load will be when I send the letter to G24 Ltd. stating they have be found to have misappropriated my data, and attaching an invoice for my time in having to deal with their incorrect issuance of a PCN, as found by IAS.

They had my T&Cs in my original appeal letter. I told them *EXACTLY* what my terms and conditions were, and yet they *INSISTED* that both they and I had entered into a contractual relationship. Therefore, they can get me paid. And that's *BEFORE* I hit them with the fact that they've supplied incorrect evidence to IAS in an attempt to fraudulently extort money from me.

(Yes, now IAS have bizarrely found in my favour, I *AM* enjoying this. Why do you ask? ;-) )

beamerguy

Carthesis wrote: »

And the third. I need a bigger shovel. Or perhaps a JCB...



That's me done for now. I think the fourth and final shovel load will be when I send the letter to G24 Ltd. stating they have be found to have misappropriated my data, and attaching an invoice for my time in having to deal with their incorrect issuance of a PCN, as found by IAS.

They had my T&Cs in my original appeal letter. I told them *EXACTLY* what my terms and conditions were, and yet they *INSISTED* that both they and I had entered into a contractual relationship. Therefore, they can get me paid. And that's *BEFORE* I hit them with the fact that they've supplied incorrect evidence to IAS in an attempt to fraudulently extort money from me.

(Yes, now IAS have bizarrely found in my favour, I *AM* enjoying this. Why do you ask? ;-) )

I like you, you have star quality, you have 4 yes's from us .... :T

Do assist others on here with this mega scam