Data Protection Act Guidance

beamerguy

hairyaurora wrote: »

I received an ANPR PCN from a Private Land Owner for a brief stop (6 minutes) as I had a fault on my dashboard (Hazard light). I wrote informing them that I had a fault and was not parked but briefly stopped and that I had not left my vehicle. I also stated that I would not be paying the £100 fine. They responded yesterday rebuking my claims. My question is that after reading Timothea's informative post could I possibly use the attached too? All advice very gratefully received indeed

The driver did not "park" (stopping briefly is not parking) and could not have entered into any contract because a contract cannot be forbidding and, in any case, the driver had no chance to read and accept the terms of any contract before the alleged contravention occurred. Furthermore, you cannot use Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability to the registered keeper because the location of the alleged contravention is subject to statutory control, and I am under no obligation to name the driver.

Sorry to say that you will not get help on this thread.
WHY, its an old thread started by another user.

1: Read the newbies thread first
2: Start your own thread, then you will get help

Libber

Should've posted this in a separate thread, apologies!

nosferatu1001

If you want specific help, please start your own thread.

Ralph-y

Hi, and welcome to the forum ....

if you had read the posts above your you would have seen that you need to start a thread of your own .....

multiple questions / requests on single threads cause confusion ...

so please visit

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163


and look for the newbies thread

and

start a new thread button

Ralph:cool:

Labinopper

My apologies for resurrecting an old post but I'm wondering on the viability of this and whether GDPR has any impact? (I know next to none of what I'm talking about) I have just won a popla appeal based on byelaws and NTK not being relevant due to pofa not being enforceable with no driver admittance, and quite frankly I'm annoyed at ParkingEye and wouldn't be against causing them a headache.

My main questions are, does GDPR change anything? Does the DVLA not have a responsibility to atleast ensure my information is being requested legitimately? And furthermore, ParkingEye know fully well they can't rely on pofa but still use it regardless because 95% of people pay no questions asked. Surely they need to be held to account?

Coupon-mad

Does the DVLA not have a responsibility to at least ensure my information is being requested legitimately?

The DVLA would say that data is given under the excuse of 'reasonable cause' and even on non-POFA (not relevant) land, a parking firm is allowed to get keeper's data for the purpose of enquiring who was driving. But that's the ONLY purpose, not to pursue them and mislead them in cases where keeper liability is not an option.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/832782/DVLA-parking-fine-tickets-UK

GDPR will change quite a lot and will allow us to:

- encourage a campaign of SAR-bombs at private parking firms (and encourage that, we will). I mean hundreds of SARs aimed at EVERY parking firm at the same time as appealing, LOL, what fun. They deserve it. You can do one yourself by email:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74261854#Comment_74261854

- report the PPCs to the ICO a lot more than now. Again see the above link for what ANPR-using firms do wrong. None I have checked, comply with the ICO Code of Practice for ANPR surveillance camera users, and it forms a new POPLA appeal point we are trying now (not yet tested with a decision back but PE dropped out here where it was tried as his POPLA point #4):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5822906/popla-appeal-parkingeye-st-martins-precinct

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ub4B0A_PgnitpSpteM2fpx2yzNlQeCUJ/view

Why don't you do a SAR like the first MSE link above, telling PE you've sussed that they don't comply with the ICO CoP (and therefore also fail the BPA CoP) and to explain themselves as well as sending you your SAR results. Same wording as I used in that link, or your own.

Then make a formal online complaint to the ICO about ParkingEye's specific omissions and failure to comply with the ICO ANPR CoP, and the fact they are using ANPR excessively 24/7 at this site, despite the fact ANPR only generates a registered keeper PCN which misleads in its wording about liability (did it have the POFA 29 days stuff on the back?) despite this being ''not relevant land'' as defined in the POFA Schedule 4 and NOT the liability of the hundreds of keepers they are bombarding with fake PCNs pretending otherwise.

That would keep PE very busy...

Labinopper

Mine did state Pofa 2012 on the back yeah, which did confuse me considerably until I got my head around it (well, slightly)

So DVLA can justify giving out my details, but PE misused them by writing me a NTK and not politely asking me who was driving? That suits me better tbh, I have no issue with the DVLA. I have to admit though, PE didn't hand my data to any debt collectors or anything which I expected to have to deal with, I did send them a section 10 (is that right?) In my initial appeal but they replied saying they disagree and will continue processing my data

Alot of what you've just said is totally new to me so I'll research and wrap my head around it all before getting started with the SAR. Almost wish I could get the message out there, this car park must make a fortune as I know personally 5 people who have been "fined" within the last few months.

Timothea

I have researched GDPR with respect to private parking enforcement. My assessment so far is that GDPR will not change much. The reasonable cause of seeking recovery of unpaid parking charges is enshrined in law and will continue to allow private parking companies (and others) to obtain registered keepers' details.

The main reason that GDPR is such a big thing right now is that the penalties have been dramatically increased. My feeling, however, is that this is overblown and probably only affects large organisations. The ICO will continue to take enforcement action only when it receives a high number of individual complaints about the misuse of personal data by an organisation, or a significant data breach is revealed.

The other point to note is that GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 are not yet in force. When they are, subject access requests will be free and data processors, like data controllers, will become liable in law for protecting personal data.

princess989

Hi,

I am in desperate need of advice. I emailed PCM's DPO and this is their response:

I write in response to your recent email correspondence regarding the obtaining and use of your personal data.
I understand that you believe the data to have been obtained unlawfully and wish for processing to be ceased. While you,
indeed, have a right to request this, we do not have to comply with such a request - so long as your data is processed
lawfully and fairly, as per relevant data protection legislation.
On this occasion, we will not be removing your data as we believe we have lawful justification to process and retain your
personal data that does not rely on your consent.
I wish to advise that the legal basis for processing your data is as specified under the General Data Protection Regulations;
6(l)(b) - Processing Is necessary for the performance of a contract with the data subject or take steps to enter Into a
contract
by parking you entered and agree to a contract for the use of the land. As part of these contractual obligations,
you agreed to pay a charge and to pursue this debt, we processed your data. Photographic evidence was taken at
the time of the contravention in order to-evidence this agreement and to comply with all relevant legislation.
6(l)(f) - Processing Is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate Interests pursued by the controller or by a third party...
Legitimate interests include the pursuing of contractual obligations, the enforcement of Parking Charge Notices
and protection of landowners' rights as owners of private land, who may contract the operator.
The terms on this site make it clear that there is to be no parking outside of the marked bays. The signage defines what is
meant by 'parking' in the context of the terms where It clarifies - "this includes stopping, waiting & drop & collection". You
will also note that the road is marked with "NO DROP & COLLECTION / PRIVATE ROAD"
I have reviewed the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in question and must advise that I believe it to be correctly issued. The
photographic evidence indicates that you had parked on the access road (out of a bay) for the purpose of a drop off. As
described above, this Is not permitted at any time.
Any driver is, of course, entitled to a reasonable amount of time to consider the terms. The photographic evidence makes
it clear that your primary reason of parking was to drop off passengers, not read the signs. Signs at the entrance make it
clear that parking conditions apply and that one must park wholly within the confines of a marked bay. The driver seems
to make no attempt to read the signage and therefore, this issue is not particularly relevant.
It is not, nor has it ever been, a defence in contract law to say that one "did not read the terms". If one chooses not to
read the signs, they are deemed to have notice of the terms they entail. Otherwise, all drivers could simply refuse to read
the signs and be exempt from the enforcement scheme.
You allege that the evidence captured is excessive and constitutes harassment. This is denied. Images must be taken of
the contravention to act as evidence and comply with all relevant legislation and guidelines. Since drop offs in out-of-bay
areas are not permitted and this is explicitly described by the signage, photographing the drop off would be pertinent.

I have investigated as to why your browser shows our website to be 'Not Secure'. This relates to the data transferring
protocol that is used - HTTP rather than HTTPS. In July 2018, Google Chrome began marking all HTTP websites as 'Not
Secure' in an effort to encourage domain holders to make the move towards HTTPS, which encrypts data that is sent and
received. HTTP is still a relatively secure system, but HTTPS takes the extra step of data encryption.
I wish to assure you that we invest heavily in cybersecurity and protection of personal data is a priority. There have been
no previous attempted malware cyber-attacks/interceptions to our systems or breaches due to insufficient security
measures. Saying this, we have been working closely with our software providers to make the move to HTTPS. I have been
informed that this is in the final stages and should be live as of tomorrow (lO"' October 2018).
I trust this letter addresses your queries and clarifies our position on the matter
Yours sincerely,
A Clark
(Data Protection Officer)

I am not sure how to respond to this or whether I have exhausted this avenue. I do not want to pay £100 for a 19 second stop in a place where signs are 9 feet above ground, the road markings they talk about can be missed if there is another car in front of you or pedestrians crossing. The green P on their parking signs to me indicates parking is available onsite and not that there are restrictions, so I wouldn't think about reading them in full whilst at the wheel. Correct me if I am wrong but parking signs where there are restrictions are blue. I have always associated blue parking signs with having to pay for parking or being limited by time or residential permits. Is it worth to now proceed to send a complaint to the ICO?

Thank you.

waamo

Please don't hijack old, out of date threads that bear no relationship to your case.

You already have a thread running please stick to it so we can see the background