Grandparents had letter from G24

The_Deep

Why do I have to keep repeating this, the identity of the driver has little significance in "double dipping" cases.

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

Why do I have to keep repeating this, the identity of the driver has little significance in "double dipping" cases.

Agreed this double dipping rubbish is indeed rubbish.

It is the car that was double dipped and there could be 2-3 drivers using the same car within that time period.

Might as well put a blindfold on a witness at an ID parade

Redx

G24 always fail the first hurdle as their notices fail POFA2012, so the other arguments are icing on the cake - hence why the drivers details are never mentioned in any and all cases

there is nothing to be gained by passing on information that they do not know, so the words THE DRIVER should always be used, it is STUPID to give out details that are better kept unknown

always work on the basis of "tell them nothing", make them sweat for every piece of info they require

its like a "no comment" interview

too many people give away personal details inadvertently, without thought

so my advice will NEVER CHANGE , regardless of the moaning minnies who cannot help themselves carping on about it, so those same people can F.R.O. and should place my username on their IGNORE list, like I do with them !!

from now on , EVERY ONE of my replies will tell the OP not to give away the drivers details (all of them)

the OP received the correct info in the first 11 posts and is acting upon it

The_Deep

I disagree. What is more persuasive, going in front of a judge and saying, Sir, I am not a liar, I visited that car park twice, or Sir, the driver, whom I am not prepared to name, visited that car park twice.

Sometimes people on here try to be too devious by half.

Coupon-mad

vickyw1427 wrote: »

I'll have a look through that before I finish work. And I shall edit now, thanks.

People caught by a double dip scam should SERIOUSLY think about suing for £750:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5549973

Get the pesky PCN cancelled by complaint to the Retail Store Manager and landowners first, then spend £60 on a claim to recover £750! Worth a punt and sweet revenge (any claim must be issued in the name of the person whose data was misused, the keeper of the car, no-one else).

Re the idea of suing the parking firm, I have adapted some advice from Parking Prankster and from IamEmanresu and suggest something like this:

As a first step you should write and complain to the DVLA, to see if you can elicit a useful response and to report the PPC too.


Data Sharing & Protection Group
Strategy, Policy and Communications Group
D16
DVLA
Swansea
SA6 7JL


Dear DVLA,

I wish to lodge a formal complaint that [parking company] obtained my data as registered keeper, without reasonable cause.

The details of the parking event are:
Vehicle: [reg]
Date: [date]

In this instance, they alleged that two short visits to a car park (captured by ANPR) was one single period of parking. They have now cancelled the PCN when challenged but it is indisputable that ANPR 'double dip' issues are very well known in this industry, having been the subject of an article by the British Parking Association:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=44279

And from the DVLA/BPA meeting on 11/03/2015 these minutes are in the public domain so what steps have the DVLA taken since to protect the data of people like myself?

XX referred to ANPR technology where a vehicle has made multiple visits to car parks and the ANPR will be picking up first arrival and last departure. Would like those using ANPR to ensure reasonable controls are in place. XX confirmed that companies using ANPR make sure that due diligence is in place. XX advised that she had spoken to XX about this recently and they were working together on high level requirements for ANPR Operators.

It seems to me, despite the DVLA (XX) getting onto the BPA (the other XX) about sorting out the problem, nothing has been done and data is being obtained unlawfully day on, day out, by ANPR-using parking firms without due diligence. Cases of double dip car park visits resulting in unfair PCNs appear to be on the increase in the media and on public forums. I am fuming that the DVLA has enabled this scam.

By processing my data when there was no single period of parking in contravention at all, this operator has contravened the requirements of professional diligence with a 'misleading action' likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer. This breaches the CPUTRs 2008 in a number of ways:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2008/9780110811574/regulation/3

This is undoubtedly a prohibited unfair commercial practice but in addition, the resulting supply and processing of my data breached the DPA Principles. Since the DVLA released the information which, in fact, enabled this operator to process my data and misuse it, in the interests of balance in my case against the firm, please now confirm:

1) That the parking company received my personal data from the DVLA, and when.
2) Whether the parking company stated they had 'reasonable cause' to obtain my data.

Please also inform me what steps you will be taking against the parking company now they have cancelled the baseless charge and effectively admitted this was a double visit (clearly not checked properly before applying for my data). Also please confirm what steps were/are being taken by the DVLA following that discussion at the BPA Meeting in March 2015 and how you intend to safeguard my personal data in the future?

This is a specific request and complaint and I would appreciate not receiving a 'cut & paste' form of words telling me about 'reasonable cause'. I think I have established there was none so no template reply will be entertained. I require specific information, after all you supplied that to the parking firm within days so please now respond to my questions in a timely manner.

yours faithfully,





Notes from the Parking Prankster's earlier blog:

''Once the DVLA have confirmed your data has been misused, you can then take action against the parking company.

The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.

A claim of up to £750 may therefore be possible. You may wish to take legal advice on the prospects of success. Filing a claim for £750 will cost £60. A claim for £299 will cost £25 online.''

Ralph-y

unless I have missed it .....

maybe

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5549973

some of the posts need a new thread / or PG's thread so that we can point people to one point for such matters ...?

Ralph:cool:

Carthesis

The_Deep wrote: »

I disagree. What is more persuasive, going in front of a judge and saying, Sir, I am not a liar, I visited that car park twice, or Sir, the driver, whom I am not prepared to name, visited that car park twice.

Sometimes people on here try to be too devious by half.

There is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between not volunteering any information to a private firm that is trying to rip you off for an unenforceable parking penalty charge, and what you tell a judge should it ever get that far.

** EDIT **

I realise this is a lot of work, but would it be worth collating a list or having a specific sticky thread where double-dip events can be collated, so that we have an easy resource to point to in order to demonstrate the sheer number of these events that are being captured?

Coupon-mad

Carthesis if you want to start such a thread and people can update it as more are known, I will link to it in the NEWBIES thread so it gets seen even if it drops down.

Carthesis

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Carthesis if you want to start such a thread and people can update it as more are known, I will link to it in the NEWBIES thread so it gets seen even if it drops down.

I shall do just that.

*** EDIT ***

Done - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71549240#Comment_71549240

samantha6428

I am in a right mess with a double dip.

MET parking have been insisting since August that I overstayed a free Mcdonalds car park, even though it was two visits, once for coffee and once for breakfast. The rejected my appeal as I could provide no evidence! However, I was asking them for the evidence under the FOI, as they must have recorded me entering twice and leaving twice. The evidence as not forthcoming and my POPLA code expired,

As it stands they still expect money off me for doing something I have not done. I am furious and have already spent way too long on this. :money: