G24 Parking Ltd. - Post-Beavis

utigers

Hi guys - I read this thread with great interest. I have so far incorrectly ignored my pcn from G24 and am on my 4th letter.

The interesting part is the exiting number plate. I'm looking at the photos I have, and they have been altered....100% sure of this. Our exiting number plate is yellow but the seperate picture highlighted isnt.

The exiting number plate is yellow and the screw caps are yellow, so in a black and white photograph you wouldnt see the screw caps? Would you? We can! Therefore the photo has been altered.

Ok I didnt spot this until now and I have obviously passed my appeal time. I dont worry about the ticket but just wondered if I should do anything now as it looks like a precedent has been set regarding the exiting number plate.

beamerguy

utigers wrote: »

Hi guys - I read this thread with great interest. I have so far incorrectly ignored my pcn from G24 and am on my 4th letter.

The interesting part is the exiting number plate. I'm looking at the photos I have, and they have been altered....100% sure of this. Our exiting number plate is yellow but the seperate picture highlighted isnt.

The exiting number plate is yellow and the screw caps are yellow, so in a black and white photograph you wouldnt see the screw caps? Would you? We can! Therefore the photo has been altered.

Ok I didnt spot this until now and I have obviously passed my appeal time. I dont worry about the ticket but just wondered if I should do anything now as it looks like a precedent has been set regarding the exiting number plate.

Hi, please start your own thread so we can join in.

Carthesis

So - here's the situation:

PCN - cancelled following IAS appeal.

Complaint(s) lodged with IPC - awaiting "review" (but expecting nothing)

Letters to David Dunsford at DVLA - sent, but seemingly being ignored.

Letter to DVLA CCRT - sent, but no response as yet.

I'm going to wait another week, then I'm going to get the ICO and my MP involved, although I don't really expect anything to happen there either.

My question is thus:

In my original appeal letter to G24 (rejected), I informed them of the T&Cs and charges I'd be applying if they insisted a contractual relationship. So far, I've done nothing with this.

Also, C-M has on another thread referred to the DPA letter from Mr. Owens that was sent to Parking Eye, in which he insists on compensation for breaches of the DPA and unlawful access to personal data for the RK from DVLA.

Do - and I ask those of a more legal bent here - I have any grounds at all that are even remotely defensible, following the IAS appeal, for:

a) sending G24 an invoice letter requesting the payment I told them in the T&Cs I'd be after if they didn't send the information I requested?

and

b) have any chance whatsoever in applying the same DPA breach arguments as Mr Owens did with Parking Eye?

I really really want to drag this out, mess with them (G24 and DVLA both), and generally be a thorn in their sides, but I don't want to get myself into a sticky situation because of it.

Castle

In Mr Owen's case, PE never had any reasonable cause to request the RK's details from the DVLA.

Carthesis

Castle wrote: »

In Mr Owen's case, PE never had any reasonable cause to request the RK's details from the DVLA.

Thanks for the reply.

In my case, I think the same is true. I haven't posted the NtK I received because I had no need to, but the images they have used as "evidence" are blurred to the point of being indistinguishable as a car, let alone the same car.

The IAS Appeal Response I posted demonstrates that the IAS believe G24 didn't correctly issue the PCN due to lack of evidence, and they agree that there could have been some manipulation or enhancement of the images to allow them to issue in the first place.

Does that still count as "reasonable cause"? I'd say not, but obviously I'm looking for confirmation of my apparent, self-admitted bias because I want to cause them some trouble. I note that if you fill out a manual V888/3 form, you are *REQUIRED* by DVLA to produce an image of the whole vehicle, not just the licence plate. In my case, they've been relying on the "patch plate" image because the exit image showing the whole vehicle is unusable...

Carthesis

I've literally *JUST* had an email from DVLA about my recent complaint.

Dear Mr XXXXXX,

Thank you for your further emails regarding this matter.

Firstly with regards to your email of 12th September 2016, as mentioned in my previous email, any allegations that a parking company have breached the relevant code of practice, should be raised with the Accredited Trade Association for that organisation who in this case are the International Parking Community. I will also mention that breaching the code of practice does not necessarily mean that a breach of the KADOE contract has occurred.

I will provide a response to each of your further queries in the order they were raised...

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.

For DVLA to investigate the circumstances regarding allegations that sufficient evidence was not in place or had been manipulated, it is necessary for the Agency to contact the parking company directly. To obtain the relevant information, DVLA has made reference to the enquiry made on this vehicle as it is the evidence for this enquiry that you have called into question. At no point was the name of the keeper mentioned, as can be seen in the attached copy of the correspondence, which satisfies your subject access request. It may be helpful to know that the result of the independent appeals service is binding on the operator and not the motorist, which means the operators agree not to take motorists to court if the appeal result finds against the operator.

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.

DVLA cannot comment on the technology used but we are satisfied that there was sufficient reason to request the keeper details due to the alleged breach. While the vehicle image may be unclear, the registration plate appears to have been captured. Again, as mentioned previously, if this was not your vehicle, please confirm this.

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 questions 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.

DVLA has had sight of the evidence to support this query including an image of the actual camera that would have identified the vehicle. This camera did not appear to be in the location stated on the map of the site. While this map is incorrect, it still does not mean that the company did not have reasonable cause to request details of the vehicle which had allegedly breached the parking conditions of the site. G24 have stated they will amend this documentation accordingly.

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.

This section of the contract only refers to the storage of data provided by DVLA and not to the sharing of data. Section D5 Restrictions on Disclosure of the Data makes reference to who data can be shared with and also for compliance with Schedule 2 and 3 of the contract. This includes the IAS.


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.

As advised, investigating alleged breaches of the code of practice is part of the ATA’s role and as such the DVLA would expect the IPC to be conducting the necessary investigations into this. If you have not received a response to any concerns raised with the IPC, I can only advise you request an update from the IPC directly. However, while the DVLA has not contacted the IPC in relation to the issues you have raised, if you would like the DVLA to raise the matter with them please let me know (or email DSP@dvla.gsi.gov.uk), confirming you are happy sharing your information with them.

With regards to your email of 17th September 2016, DVLA cannot comment on the findings of the appeals process. However, DVLA does accept that one of the images of the vehicle was not clear and therefore the registration plate was not identifiable in that image. There was however a clear image of the registration plate which was available as this was captured using different technology. As the request to obtain the keeper details was submitted using an electronic system, DVLA did not have sight of this evidence prior to the application being made. It was only once this issue was raised by yourself could DVLA investigate. Having contacted G24 on this matter, they provided an explanation for the poor quality but also that the vehicle registration plate was captured correctly. This would satisfy DVLA that there was a reasonable cause to request the keeper details.

Where a motorist feels that a notice was issued unfairly or did not comply with the relevant code of practice, there is an appeals process in place to handle these instances. From your correspondence, it appears that the appeals process has been followed and you have had a positive outcome.

I trust I have explained matters but, if you remain unhappy with the service you have received, you can write directly 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 Dunford

I'm still not particularly happy I have to say, but I can't see how I'm going to get any further. DVLA seem to have their bases covered here, although the line about "breach of COP does not necessarily mean a breach of KADOE" is utter nonsense, as the KADOE contract states explicitly that the PPC must comply with the CoP at all times.

I think my plan now will be to write to the ICO and query the differences in "reasonable grounds" between the V888/3 and the specifics of my case, specifically regarding the provision of an image which shows the whole of the vehicle and not just the licence plate.

I have responded to DVLA as follows:

David,

Firstly, let me thank you for your time in compiling the detailed response. Above all else, this is appreciated.

Secondly, I note that the attached correspondence to which you refer is sadly not. I suspect this to be a simple error of forgetfulness in the reply, but I would be grateful if you would resend the email with the correspondence attached.

Thirdly, I can confirm that I have raised not one, but two, complaints with the IPC regarding this matter, and as yet have not had any response. I would be grateful if you could follow this up to ensure they investigate the claim thoroughly. As the IPC already have my personal information in regards of the complaint, I have no qualms about allowing you to contact them on my behalf in this case.

I may get back to you with further questions on your processes in this matter once I have had time to digest your responses. I am still concerned that G24 have accessed my personal data without having sufficient grounds, as confirmed by the IAS appeal, although I will be interested to see how the IPC view this matter, given the conflicts of interest that are apparent between the IAS and the IPC.

Regards,

Carthesis

Well, as suggested by C-M here (http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71395476&postcount=2), i've just written to my MP:

Dear MP,

I write to you to raise some concerns regarding the current prevalence of private parking companies (PPCs) and the supposed legal framework under which they operate.

In 2012, the then Coalition Government brought in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), which criminalised vehicle clamping on private land, and enabled PPCs to pursue vehicle keepers for unpaid parking charges, in cases where the identity of the driver was not known.

This legislation was introduced largely because of the aggressive and rapacious practices of clampers, who were extorting unjustifiable sums from motorists, often for the most trivial of incidents.

The current system of ticketing by PPCs requires them to be members of one of the two Approved Trade Associations – the British Parking Association (BPA) or the International Parking Committee (IPC), and to abide by the respective Codes of Practice of those organisations. By virtue of their membership, they are deemed to have ‘reasonable cause’ to request vehicle keeper data at £2.50 a time from the DVLA, and in the majority of cases, this data is released electronically with no human intervention.

Both trade associations also offer a supposedly independent appeals service for motorists to challenge parking charges – POPLA in the case of BPA members, and the IAS for IPC companies.

All of the above sounds perfectly fair and reasonable, you might think, and would be if the system operated in the way in which it was intended. However, the reality is that four years down the line, we are seeing the same symptoms of greed, aggressive and rapacious practices which characterised clamping, now being applied to ticketing – the new wild west.

Motoring campaign groups are contacted by hundreds of motorists every month, and can testify that in around 95% of cases, these are genuine people who have either taken a bit too long to do their shopping, or who miskeyed their registration number on a pay machine, or whose hospital appointment took longer than expected, or who forgot to display their permit in their residential space. For these heinous crimes, they are pursued ruthlessly by the PPCs usually for £100 a time, with additional escalating costs from dubious firms of ‘debt collectors’, and then shyster bottom-feeding solicitor firms who invent even further costs in pursuing these alleged debts in the County Court.

From the information freely available on such websites as the MoneySavingExpert forum, PePiPoo and a template letter on the BMPA website, and from my own experience, all of the following are taking place - although this is by no means an exhaustive list:

- Most of the PPCs are operating in breach of their association’s Code of Practice (CoP) most of the time. When reported to the BPA or IPC, they do little or nothing. The BPA has expelled three or four members in the last couple of years, the IPC has expelled none. Neither of these organisations is fit for purpose in terms of regulating or controlling their members.

- The DVLA is, to some extent, complicit in these activities. Many of these companies are in breach of the DVLA "Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event using an Electronic Service" (KADOE) contract. This contract states that, at all times, the PPC must be a member of an accredited trade association (ATA), and must be in full compliance with the relevant CoP. There are numerous instances of significant breaches of both the ATA CoP and the KADOE contract which have been reported to DVLA, several by myself, which have been brushed under the carpet by the DVLA as they obviously do not wish to interrupt a significant revenue stream:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3544542/DVLA-rakes-160-000-WEEK-selling-drivers-details-private-parking-firms-chasing-motorists-fines.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3748497/DVLA-pockets-10MILLION-year-selling-drivers-details-private-firms-chasing-parking-fines.html

- The POPLA appeals service for BPA companies was originally operated by London Councils, and their legally trained assessors did a reasonable job in adjudicating appeals fairly. However, in October 2015, the contract was awarded to Ombudsman Services at a much lower cost, and appeals are now assessed by minimum-wage customer service staff with no legal training, resulting in completely random adjudications using templated text, with little or no relevance to the grounds of appeal.

- The IAS appeals service offered by the IPC is even less independent, with appeals being sent to what the IPC claim are qualified solicitors or barristers, but whose names are not disclosed, and whose adjudications are heavily biased towards the PPCs, and only very rarely awarded in favour of the motorist.

- When POFA was in the Bill stage, the BPA (then the only trade association) vastly exaggerated the numbers of County Court claims arising from private parking disputes, and persuaded the Department for Transport and DVLA that the introduction of keeper liability would reduce the burden on the Courts. In fact, the opposite is true, and the number of court claims has risen from under 1,000 in 2011 to a projected 50,000+ in 2016 (Ministry of Justice figures).

- Many PPCs are now pursing unpaid tickets from up to 6 years ago through court action. In a large number of cases, the motorist no longer lives at the previous address, and consequently is unaware of the court claim, and inevitable default CCJ which follows, often resulting in them only finding out about it when they are refused credit for a mortgage or loan. This was highlighted in the media recently, and the Prime Minister publicly stated that she would take action, but there has been no sign of this to date.

- Many PPCs are now attempting to further intimidate and bully members of the public into paying these speculative "fines" by referring either directly or indirectly to the "Parking Eye Ltd. vs. Beavis" case in the Supreme Court. This is often referred to as "the landmark ruling which states that private parking contractual charges are legal and enforceable in law", despite the Supreme Court themselves stating that the ruling was highly specific and applied only to the particular case and circumstances. In many cases, this ruling is being used to bully people who have made a simple data entry error in a pay and display car park, conveniently not detailing the fact that the Beavis case related to an overstay in a "limited time free for customers only" car park.

In 2015, the previous Communities Minister, Eric Pickles MP, stated that he wished to put an end to the nefarious practices of PPCs, and began a public consultation, which continued under the present Government, with the results being published in May 2016. This showed that the overwhelming majority of the public – 83% - thought that the Government should take action on this.

The campaign groups have had a number of meetings with officials from the DCLG, and apparently the Minister is due to announce proposed new legislation and other measures in this area some time during the current Parliamentary session. I would ask you to use your influence to highlight the urgency of this with the Minister concerned, and/or the Prime Minister, to ensure that the Government acts, and is seen to act, to redress the imbalance of the current situation.

Should you require further details, my contact details are as above.


Yours sincerely,

Carthesis

I realise I'm dredging up a battle i've already won here, but I'm trying to be a nuisance in the same way PPCs are. I've got my letter to the ICO to write at some point, but something someone (possible ukomaas or TheDeep) said elsewhere got me thinking about signage and planning permission...

This is the site where I got stung:

StreetView from Google Maps

As you can see, big signs on the lamppost and the huge CCTV/ANPR mast in the background.

This here is the Sheffield City Council planning application map for that area:



Now - here's the question: Am I correct in thinking that G24 would need planning application for the signage (which can be seen from the public highway), and furthermore for the erection of the ginormous ANPR mast? Because if so, then I can't see that they've got planning permission for it anywhere... the good, law-abiding citizen in me is suggesting that the council ought to have this brought to their attention...

Thoughts?

Also, I've still not decided whether I should bother invoicing them for time spent dealing with the charge. Is it worth it for anything other than being an annoyance?

Umkomaas

AFAIAA it's advertising consent for signage which is of a certain minimum size (a criminal offence if not applied for, and no retrospective application).

For the ANPR pole, I understand it would need planning permission, which can be retrospectively given.

In terms of advertising consent, if not acquired by G24, you can be sure the council will rather fob you off with all sorts of BS than prosecute G24. Dig out the thread by 'hexaflexagon' over on PePiPoo. It's about VCS and Liverpool John Lennon Airport, but it contains all the size limits for the signs, lots of the issues around advertising consent and the treacle he's needed to wade through with complaints to the council.

It's lengthy, but as an 'all-in-one-place' resource, it is well worth reading and bookmarking for future reference if you're going to pursue this further.

Carthesis

Thanks for that - I've had a dig round on PePiPoo and haven't been able to find that thread though. Found a couple by hexaflexagon which seem to be related (complaints to TS and the like), but I've not managed to locate the one-stop shop with all the data in it.