Parking Eye Hospital PCN via Leasing company

Castle

dadsma wrote: »

If the policy is set to nominate driver address details, due to the Data Protection Act we are unable to provide these details to a Private Parking company. In these instances we will pass the notice directly to the customer’s address with a covering letter advising the customer to take action by either paying or appealing. Depending on the policy, this could incur an administration fee.

I would suggest that the Data Protection Act does allow them to release the hirer's details under conditions (3) and/or (6)(1) of Schedule 2. Furthermore, the Hirer could simply ask the leasing company to release their details under condition (1).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/schedule/2

dadsma

Castle wrote: »

I would suggest that the Data Protection Act does allow them to release the hirer's details under conditions (3) and/or (6)(1) of Schedule 2. Furthermore, the Hirer could simply ask the leasing company to release their details under condition (1).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/schedule/2

Thank you for the link to the legislation.

You mention releasing the hirer's details but my point was that Lex seem not to be able to differentiate between hirer and driver. Their information release policy makes no mention of a private hirer. It seems it would require an individual request from the hirer but they would probably be unaware of the need to make it.

Coupon-mad

Sounds like they need a complaint escalated and then to the BVRLA.

nigelbb

dadsma wrote: »

Thank you for the link to the legislation.

You mention releasing the hirer's details but my point was that Lex seem not to be able to differentiate between hirer and driver. Their information release policy makes no mention of a private hirer. It seems it would require an individual request from the hirer but they would probably be unaware of the need to make it.

Lex cannot release the driver's details as they have no idea who the driver was. All they know is the identity of the person that hired the car.

dadsma

You would expect Lex to know the difference between a hirer and a driver as they appear to be a well-established professional leasing company.

dadsma

Edna_Basher wrote: »

I suggest that you let Lex know that in submitting your dispute with ParkingEye, you've confirmed to PE that you were the vehicle's hirer; therefore in accordance with the BVRLA / BPA Memorandum of Understanding* Lex should receive no further correspondence from PE. Ask Lex to alert you immediately in the event that PE do contact them again.

* Paragraph 5.1.2 of the BVRLA / BPA Memorandum of Understanding states that BPA members will only contract a BVRLA member after a representation has been made against a PCN where the nominated customer or hirer raises a formal dispute directly with the BPA member that they did not hire or lease the vehicle at the material time.

A fresh twist to this tale has occurred.

The hirer appealed to PE who confirmed receipt last week.

Yesterday the hirer received an invoice from Lex dated the day before the PE appeal was lodged. It is headed 'Motoring Offences invoice'.
Description 'Motoring Offences/Fines £100 plus £12 admin fee for payment of the PE parking charge by Lex.

Lex don't say whether they have already paid. The £112 will be taken by DD at the end of the month.

Should the hirer simply inform Lex that they have appealed to PE as you suggest and then cancel the unauthorised direct debit? I doubt that Lex will be happy if they already paid PE.

I wonder how PE will deal with the appeal if they have been paid?

Coupon-mad

Looks like they have paid the £100. PE do still consider appeals when a person has paid but I don't think they offer POPLA in these circs and I would expect a rejection. Because why would they allow it?

Lex have potentially caused you loss. Dispute the £112 absolutely. Tell them they are NOT AUTHORISED to take this amount. Also tell your Bank that any debit from Lex is fully disputed and you want it to be refused under the DD guarantee.

Lex don't say whether they have already paid. The £112 will be taken by DD at the end of the month.

Should the hirer simply inform Lex that they have appealed to PE as you suggest and then cancel the unauthorised direct debit? I doubt that Lex will be happy if they already paid PE.

Yes.

dadsma

We made our 'newbies' appeal as the Hirer to PE and await a reply.

We formally disputed all the admin and payment recharge invoices received from Lex and instructed them they have no authority to process the direct debits. They put them into dispute seem to have complied but we are monitoring the bank account in case.

We have now received this reply from Lex:

"Dear Hirer,

The parking eye Notice addressed to Lex was sent to you at your home address with a covering letter as we cannot provide your personal details to them due to data protection.

The letter advises that the charge needs to be paid or appealed within 28 days because if Lex Autolease receive a further notice and no action has been taken we then have to pay the charge at the increased amount and recharge this to you.

This is because as the registered keeper of the vehicle under the Protection of Freedoms Act Legislation (2012) Lex Autolease can be taken to court if these charges are not paid or settled.

The invoices you have received are for administration charges for us processing the motoring offence, and these are applicable for any motoring offences we receive for the vehicle.

We are only able to credit these admin fees if the notice is cancelled. If it is appealed and cancelled please let us know and we can credit the admin fees charged.

Fleet Administrator – Fines and Penalties"


This is what our contract with Lex says:

HIRE AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974

YOUR OTHER OBLIGATIONS

(f) You must pay all fees, fines (including all speeding, parking and any traffic congestion charge fines) and other sums and meet all liabilities arising from your possession or use of the Goods. We may charge you £25 for each demand that is referred or sent to us. If you do not pay or do anything required of you, we may do it and charge you. If we do this, we may charge you a further £25 for each charge that we pay.



And....
This is taken from the Lex Autolease website:-

Private Parking

On receiving a Private Parking notice we will follow the customer’s policy and either pay or nominate. If the customer’s policy is to pay the fine we will send a cheque to the issuing Private Parking Company and recharge the full amount to the customer. Depending on the policy, this could incur an administration fee.

If the policy is to nominate company address details, we will provide these details to the Private Company. Once the address has been received the Private Parking Company will transfer the liability into the customer’s name and issue them with a fresh notice. It then becomes the responsibility of the customer to either pay, appeal or nominate further. Depending on the policy, this could incur an administration fee.

If the policy is set to nominate driver address details, due to the Data Protection Act we are unable to provide these details to a Private Parking company.

In these instances we will pass the notice directly to the customer’s address with a covering letter advising the customer to take action by either paying or appealing. Depending on the policy, this could incur an administration fee.

If, after 28 days, the customer has failed to make payment or appeal, the liability will be transferred back into Lex Autolease’s name - as the owners of the vehicle. Lex Autolease will then make contact with the customer giving them five working days to respond; if no response is made Lex Autolease will pay the now higher fine amount and fully recharge this to the customer.

All appeals can be made directly to the Private Parking Company should you wish to do so.

steve1500

Carthesis wrote: »

You'd get a reply of "What are you talking about?", because the hospital haven't released any personal information whatsoever, and neither have their agents.
.

Trust's in line with DH policy are required to get assurances from any organisation that processes patient information for whatever purpose in a confidential manner.


The NHS regard basically anything that can identify a patient as confidential


Parking Lie have NEVER provided this assurance to a single NHS Trust

dadsma

steve1500 wrote: »

The NHS regard basically anything that can identify a patient as confidential

In this case the patient was not the driver or vehicle keeper. They cannot be identified from any of the processed information.