Strange case of the First Parking cross-site scripting attack and duplicate PCN's

creamola

PS. I forgot to say, that I have just been out to check the windscreen - and the Parking Permit wasn't just stuffed into the old tax disk holder. It is actually in it's own dedicated square holder (that came with the permit when renewed in July 2016) firmly stuck to the windscreen and clearly listing the reg of the specific car that it is stuck to.

So, it can't be missed, can't fall off, is permanently on display and matches the registration plate (the same reg that is on the Registered Keeper PCN) so there is absolutely no way I can be sent a PCN for the driver failing to display it.

Coupon-mad

Perfect. No idea what the ticketer was playing at but your revenge can be very sweet.

creamola

I have an update that makes this slightly more complex, but, I suspect, an open and shut case in my favour:

You will recall, that my wife got a PCN from First Parking, stuck to the windscreen of the car at Bath Uni on 22/11/2016 - even though she has a correct in date permit stuck to the window. We appealed and on 25/11/2016 received an email confirmation from First Parking that the appeal was successful and the matter was now closed.

I then received a Registered Keeper PCN dated 03/01/2017 for the same car and for a parking violation in the same place and for the same date - EXCEPT it has a different PCN number. After further investigation and a letter to the DVLA, these are the pertinent facts:

1. First Parking do NOT patrol the car parks at Bath University. That is carried out by the Universities' own Security staff (employees of Bath Uni) who then send the contravention details to First Parking to issue the PCN.

2. There was no need for Bath Uni Security team to put a ticket on the windscreen, because they knew that my wife had a valid parking permit for that car - because they issued it. Yes, the Parking Permit is provided by the Security Team....

3. The Registered keeper PCN issued to me by First Parking on 03/01/2017 was unnecessary because:

a) It was a duplicate of the previous ticket issued (for the same date) and successfully appealed.

b) Was unnecessary because First Parking already knew who the driver was (we told them in the appeal for the first ticket).

c) Was unnecessary because Bath Uni knows who the driver is - because they issued her the permit.

4. Despite knowing who the driver of the car was on 25/11/2016, First Parking made a data subject access request (for the owner of this car) to DVLA on 23/12/2016, stating in that request, that the "date of event" was 22/11/2016. So despite it being an unnecessary data subject access request for the registered keeper (because when it was made, the driver was already known and confirmed to both Bath Uni and First Parking) the access request was also made to DVLA more than 30 days after the event.

What should would be my correct approach be now? [Note: I am more than happy to issue a writ for malfeasance etc.]

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

First Parking made a data subject access request (for the owner of this car) to DVLA on 23/12/2016,

Nope - nothing to do with a SAR - they applied for the keeper's data under the 'reasonable cause' excuse in their KADOE contract with the DVLA. Only - there was no reasonable cause.

30 days would be the right time to apply under the KADOE contract, if the PCN had not been cancelled/appealed. As it had been appealed and cancelled AND they knew who the driver was, they absolutely should never have obtained the keeper's data.

What should would be my correct approach be now?

An LBCCC from that registered keeper, to Bath Uni and F1rst Parking, demanding £250 for misuse of data under the DPA, in obtaining data without reasonable cause.

At the same time, a formal complaint by email to the DVLA:

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Then a claim naming both defendants and you can collect £250 like this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/smart-parking-settle-out-of-court-for.html

Explained here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5585388

It is important to include Bath Uni in the LBCCC and claim because they are the party likely to fold and pay or force F1rst to settle.

Never sue a parking firm on their own because some collect CCJs like stamps and will be more likely to fight back than a landowner who will not like this one little bit. But tough, they remain jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agent. Quite possibly the F1rst contract indemnifies the Uni against these claims anyway so F1rst will have to cough up, not the Uni, which makes things more comfortable for the employee.

creamola

Thanks!

I shall do that today.

The_Deep

Here is one I did earlier:


SAR Enquiries
DVRE
DVLA
Swansea
SA99 1ZZ

D[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ear Sirs[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I wish to draw to your notice that APCOA appear to have obtained my personal details from you without due cause, thus breaching their KADOE contract and infringing my personal DPA rights [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]They have sent me a notice to keeper demanding £100 for an alleged infringement of their Terms and Conditions of parking on railway land covered by bye-laws. This is contrary to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Please investigate this matter and if they have used my personal data improperly, or breached their Kadoe contract please apply the applicable sanctions.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Yours faithfully[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Read this[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT] http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/