Forum WIN ,POFA help.now DPA claim

Topcat_147

I have spoken with BPA tonight and emailed them to confirm that I want to continue my complaints and want them fully investigating even though Autosec have cancelled the PCN. Should I wait before contacting the ICO ?..

fisherjim

Topcat_147 wrote: »

I have spoken with BPA tonight and emailed them to confirm that I want to continue my complaints and want them fully investigating even though Autosec have cancelled the PCN. Should I wait before contacting the ICO ?..

I would go ahead, The Bull***t Parking Association will say its been cancelled and take no further action anyway.

safarmuk

Thanks coupon mad I am still in the queue for ICO but have a case number

Me too .. since December ... you might want to make a cup of tea, take a holiday etc. as you have time before they will get back to you. Suspect they are overrun.

Should I wait before contacting the ICO ?..

No - do it now as it could be at least 3 months before they even look / work on your case.

Topcat_147

Hi and tks for all your help in getting the PCN cancelled. I am now working on The DPA side and looking for some input. Have read up on the IOC site and they say that must give PPC chance to address my complaint before I make complaint to IOC. Problem is who am I making claim against.


Will run through it all


PCN issued by Autosec as PPC (windscreen ticket) they pass VRN on to TNC parking services.


TNC request keeper details from DVLA and issue NTK 69 days after PCN issue date. They can not transfer keeper liability because NTK does not comply with POFA. So they have to chase driver, which they have not identified.


Autosec. Do not deal with keepers appeal (blue template) nor offer a POPLa code. Thereby keeper could not appeal to POPLa


TNC inflate invoice amounts and continue to harass keeper with threatening letters and threats of " Court Summons"


Keeper complains to BPA and DVLA about both companies being in breach of COP. Complaints are still live regardless of PCN being cancelled.


BPA contacts PPC and PCN is immediately cancelled with no reasons given.


My Thinking is


Was the DVLA misled into releasing data and that, that data was not used in accordance with the reason it was requested?


Claim against Autosec and site landowner (joint and several)for passing VRN onto TNC (3rd party)
and they had no intention of pursuing the PCN. This is proven by the facts, they did not deal with the internal appeal nor offer the keeper the chance to appeal to POPLa. This is further confirmed by cancelling the PCN with no reason given


Autosec and TNC (joint and several) for misuse of data.
TNC obtained keepers details but had no intention or legal right to pursue keeper (not comply with POFA). They used the data to ask the keeper to identify the driver and to put pressure on the keeper to pay the charges contained in their debt letters. In other words, the data was not used for the purpose for which it was requested.


If TNC applied as a debt collector they should not be sending NTK out. Don't see how they could get data as PPC because they did not issue PCN. (all TNC letters are from TNC Parking Services)


Don't expect forum to do all work but some help and advice will be needed to take this forward.

twhitehousescat

The DVLA have allowed TNC to get data by telling "porky pies" , but the DVLA will never admit to this .

the data was to be used to issue a NTK , (and they used DVLA form v888/2) and ask for the "initial" amount , NOT to be used for debt collection .

hence the BPA intervention , as they are supposed to "monitor" their members

we have had simular with parkwatch/defence systems , all goes well untill someone realises , then the &hit hits the fan and "selected" claims are dropped .

Coupon-mad

the data was to be used to issue a NTK , (and they used DVLA form v888/2) and ask for the "initial" amount , NOT to be used for debt collection .

Yep, you can say that the data was requested under false pretences by a debt collector pretending they were acting as a debt collector when in fact they were acting 'as' the parking firm to issue a Notice to Keeper.

They then processed data which had been supplied by the DVLA 'for debt collection purposes' for another purpose entirely, to act for the parking firm in serving a very late NTK which was neither in time for the POFA Schedule 4, nor was it a sequence of debt collection work. This was 'parking notice' stage, dressed up as debt collection because the original parking firm had left it late, and TNC (it seems) abused their position as debt collectors (and they use more than one name) to obtain DVLA data under false pretences of the much more vague rules on debt collection.

Topcat_147

So after writing to BPA reminding them of my complaint and that I had not heard anything after the stated 14 days. This arrived. Are they going to actually do something this time..waits in
anticipation


The operator has responded within the timescales we requested, however, we have requested further information from the parking operator. Upon receipt of the information we require, we will be in touch. Thank you for your patience.

Topcat_147

Got this response to my complaint from BPA.


Thank you for your patience whilst this matter has been looked into.

In conclusion the parking operator has provided the following:-

The parking operator advises that the appeal was received, however, due to an error in the processing, a response was not issued, and the charge incorrectly progressed to debt collection. Once investigated the operator took the decision to cancel the charge and written confirmation was given. I have attached a copy of the cancellation for your reference.

Once the error in processing was discovered by the operator, a process was implemented to ensure charges are processed and progressed in alignment with Section 22 of the AOS Code of Practice.

Auto Security Limited have confirmed the website has been amended in alignment with the Code addressing this area of the complaint.

After reviewing the copy of the Notice to Keeper sent by the operator we note there is no mention of POFA (2012) and therefore the relevant timescales contained in Schedule 4 are not applicable.
As it is not mandatory for a parking operator to issue charges relying on POFA (2012) there is no legal requirement to do so. It is at the discretion of the individual parking company as to whether they choose to utilise this piece of legislation or not. In lieu of this we cannot advise there to have been a breach of the Code on this point.
As part of our investigation processes we have a Sanctions Scheme that is applied to all parking operators within our membership, and annual Audits are carried out to address any issues that may arise.
Under this scheme Operators who breach the Code and do not rectify, can expect to receive a number of sanction points. Any disciplinary action however, is confidential and I am unable to inform you of any specific details regarding any member of the AOS Scheme.
Unfortunately it is not within our remit as a membership association to address any complaints regarding communications sent by TNC and therefore we must advise that you direct any complaints to the management of Auto Security Limited to enable them to address any concerns you may have.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and in assisting in our endeavour to raise standards within the private parking profession. The BPA has worked hard to improve standards in the private parking profession in the knowledge there is no regulation of it. The AOS Code of Practice since its inception in 2007 has delivered significant improvements to the way operators manage their and their clients’ land and how they provide their services to motorists.

Yours sincerely,

Joanna Barnes
Compliance Investigation Officer
AOS Investigation Team

Coupon-mad

and how they provide their services to motorists.

I can't think what service a PPC ever provides to any motorist. We are not their customers. I can't stand propaganda in emails, it is always transparent:

The BPA has worked hard to improve standards in the private parking profession in the knowledge there is no regulation of it.

Profession??

Umkomaas

The BPA has worked hard to improve standards in the private parking profession in the knowledge there is no regulation of it.

And totally failed. Their CEO (Monsieur Trouser Fire) recently resigned - a further failure within the BPA dynasty. Shambolic. What's he gonna write in his CV?

Then there's the IPC ......... oh dear!

And the DVLA seem content they have ATAs who offer some protection for the motorist.