****UPDATE*****Parking Eye have re-issued claim form after 4 months!

pappa_golf

scam , or fraud? , after a setaside the only way they can continue is by court action , not intimidating (fake) letters

was,nt Mr Whitehouse severely reprimanded for doing the same thing?

Fruitcake

becci148 wrote: »

No, that London address and vehicle reg someone else! My case with Parkingeye happened on a morrisons car park in Birmingham back in 2014!

Definitely complain to the BPA and DVLA. Sending you someone else's information is a DPA breach.

Contact the hotel as well and tell them they have employed a company that has caused a DPA beach and are therefore liable as principle. What are they going to do about it? If they aren't interested, leave negative feed back on fakebook or their website stating that they employ parking scammers that breach the DPA.

becci148

Is there not a time frame in which they can re-issue a claim in though? I mean, 4 months is ridiculous!

Quentin

becci148 wrote: »

Is there not a time frame in which they can re-issue a claim in though? I mean, 4 months is ridiculous!

They have 6 years to take legal action to pursue a debt (4 months is nothing in that scale!)


(A set aside isn't a "case dismissed" - the Judge will have made some reference to this at the set aside hearing, and advised them they could start again if they wanted to when issuing the set aside docs)

becci148

Fruitcake wrote: »

Definitely complain to the BPA and DVLA. Sending you someone else's information is a DPA breach.

Contact the hotel as well and tell them they have employed a company that has caused a DPA beach and are therefore liable as principle. What are they going to do about it? If they aren't interested, leave negative feed back on fakebook or their website stating that they employ parking scammers that breach the DPA.

Didnt think about that - i typed their reference & reg details in on the Parkingeye website and it came back with case 'settled' whatever that means!

Coupon-mad

As there is no email address for parkingeye how do you suggest i get in touch and what should i say exactly?

PE's email address is on the covering letter, at the bottom.

becci148 wrote: »

I typed their reference & reg details in on the Parkingeye website and it came back with case 'settled' whatever that means!

It means that victim paid. And PE have muddled the two cases up.

My name and address is right, but in the particulars of the claim box, the vehicle registration, the date & place of the parking charge, the amount they want and the reference number are all incorrect!

You are lucky I think; this is a DPA breach and can certainly be used as leverage.



You MUST email ParkingEye and a few other 'contacts'(!):

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

and copy in:

aos@britishparking.co.uk

and copy in:

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

and copy in:

casework@ico.org.uk

and copy in:

report@sra.org.uk

and copy in:

david.potts@wmmorrisons.co.uk


PUT THE PCN NUMBER AND CLAIM NUMBER IN THE SUBJECT LINE AND THE WORDS ‘DPA breach notification’ :



Dear Sir/Madam,

FORMAL COMPLAINT - FOR THE PERSONAL ATTENTION OF PARKINGEYE'S SUPERVISING SOLICITOR

I have received the attached letter purporting to come from ParkingEye (you), some four months after I had successfully set aside an unfair CCJ of the precise type singled out in this recent press release, where the Government announced a CCJ review due to parking companies exploiting the legal system:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-protect-consumers-from-debt-claims

In my case, I had moved out of the property months before and proved to the Judge in August that I had not received any correspondence from ParkingEye at all, not a single letter. I only found out about the unfair CCJ when I performed a free credit report check after failing to get a mobile phone contract. I previously had an excellent score of 900 and intend to apply for a mortgage soon so the distress caused by ParkingEye was enormous.

I was relieved to have finally extricated myself from that distressing matter, having found out far too late from Morrisons that they would have cancelled the unfair charge for me all along (ParkingEye having withheld that vital piece of information from customers). With this in mind, the charge was never payable in the first place due to a 'misleading omission' in the terms as set out your signs and your conduct now beggars belief.

Your letter encloses a claim form with no stamp or court address, so I telephoned Warwick County Court and was told that nothing has been issued by the Court to me at all and that that case number status is: ''ccj successfully set aside'' back in August. The lady said that the Court would not issue paperwork like that and to contact ParkingEye about the matter.

Even if this is a copy of a real (manual) claim form completed by ParkingEye: my name and address is right, but in the 'particulars of claim' box, the vehicle registration, the date & place of the parking charge, the amount demanded and the reference number are all incorrect.

To be clear: this questionable 'claim form' gives me the data of a stranger and demands that I pay their 'fine'.

This begs the question that MY data may have been given in turn, to another stranger. Even if ParkingEye are able to assure me that my own data is secure, this other person's is clearly not and a VRN is undoubtedly personal data, more than likely supplied in the first instance, by the DVLA under the stict KADOE rules.

This casts severe doubt on the due diligence of the 'ParkingEye Enforcement Team', the data controller and the anonymous signatory, acting at all times under the Supervision of in-house Solicitors. I believe this is a serious matter for the SRA and Information Commissioner to be aware of, so I have also copied them into this email along with other stakeholders and interested parties.

Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act lists the data protection principles in the following terms:

''Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless –

- at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and

- in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.

Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.

Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.

Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date''.

This are therefore, several breaches of data principles which I will ask the ICO to investigate: Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully; data shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes; Personal data shall be adequate, relevant; Personal data shall be accurate.

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.

The case of VCS v Phillip, claim number C9DP2D6C Liverpool 07/12/2016, while not binding, concerns a motorist sent a parking charge which was not valid. The judge awarded £250 for a DPA breach. This is therefore a persuasive case that a DPA breach occurs when a parking charge is not legitimately pursued, and that a sum of at least £250 is compensation for pursuing a purported parking charge when there is no reasonable prospect of success.

In this situation your harassment of me has continued, despite it being confirmed in a Court of law that no Notice to Keeper was ever served. Further, your Particulars of Claim unlawfully attempt to make me liable as registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 for a stranger's parking charge issued at a location that neither I nor any driver of my car has ever visited. I need not remind you that alleging 'keeper liability' applies when it does not is a very serious breach of the BPA Code of Practice and the KADOE contract rules.

I put ParkingEye and Morrisons on notice of my intention to issue a claim (or counter-claim if ParkingEye persist) for your joint and several liability for the sum of £475, which I consider eminently reasonable for my significant distress from the moment I discovered the existence of the CCJ, to date. As I come from a low-income family, it is my experience that I will be exempt from court fees, so you can be assured of my intention to seek compensation in view of the significant and prolonged distress caused by your course of conduct.

This sum being in the mid-range of the two cases mentioned above and there being no requirement to prove loss to claim compensation for data misuse, in order for you to settle your liability outside of the court system I look forward to receiving your £475 remittance (from ParkingEye or Morrisons in the form of a cheque payable to me) within 21 days and of course I require confirmation that the PCN is finally cancelled. Should you refuse, or disagree with the above account I urge you to respond to me without delay in order to narrow the issues which I have identified as including but not limited to the following: data misuse under the DPA; a misleading omission under the CPUTRs; no NTK served so no prospect of keeper liability; exploiting the MCOL system using an old address when you knew that no responses were being received and where it is known you have access to Tracing Agents as part of your normal operations; harassment; negligence/lack of due diligence; and abject failure to adhere to the KADOE and serious breaches of the BPA and SRA Codes of Practice.

I am happy to respond of course, to any replies in order to further the investigations by the other recipients of this communication.

yours faithfully,




becci148 <<<< your full name


enc: the latest letter and 'claim form' attachment from ParkingEye

beamerguy

Surely a copy to

Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
The Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP

The question being is why Warwick Court state they would not send paperwork like that ..... it appears this is a fake not known to the court

becci148

Thankyou so much Coupon mad - i have sent that email to all of those recipients you gave me, so will obviously let you all know what replies i get back. I feel so nervous! I'm a big worrier and i just want all this to be over and done with, i do hope this helps other people going through a similar situation though.
Thanks again for your help, you're all brilliant!

Fruitcake

I think the parking -prankster might be interested in posting this on his blog as well.
He posts on here or you can contact him via his blogsite.

beamerguy

becci148 wrote: »

Thankyou so much Coupon mad - i have sent that email to all of those recipients you gave me, so will obviously let you all know what replies i get back. I feel so nervous! I'm a big worrier and i just want all this to be over and done with, i do hope this helps other people going through a similar situation though.
Thanks again for your help, you're all brilliant!

Trust coupon-mad, she knows what she is doing.

No need to worry, good job you came here.

It will now be very interesting to see if the replies are consistent.

As bargepole says .... "Looks very dodgy."