CPM Parking App

zardoz70

Article in the Telegraph today, apologies if already posted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/02/03/phone-app-pays-people-10-snitch-illegally-parked-cars/

I foresee a car crash. :-)

Query, while we know that companies can be responsible for the acts of their agents, does the reverse hold true I wonder.
If case went to court and dismissed could a claim be made against whoever used this app to supply the information in the first place leading to breach of the DPA perhaps?
IANAL obviously.

twhitehousescat

employees? acting as per bosses instructions?

dunno , you tell me , if I worked on the The Exxon Valdez and I opened a valve by accident , who would be in court me or Exxon ?

beamerguy

zardoz70 wrote: »

Article in the Telegraph today, apologies if already posted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/02/03/phone-app-pays-people-10-snitch-illegally-parked-cars/

I foresee a car crash. :-)

Query, while we know that companies can be responsible for the acts of their agents, does the reverse hold true I wonder.
If case went to court and dismissed could a claim be made against whoever used this app to supply the information in the first place leading to breach of the DPA perhaps?
IANAL obviously.

Yes, already a thread

CPM boss James Randall off his trolley, DailyMail report
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5596936

Nice to see it's in the Telegraph plus the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror.

It is the latest scammers wheeze, seems UKPC are trying out this scam as well

Without doubt it could well cause real blood to be spilled when someone like a big builder breaks the nose of a wannabee photographer taking pictures.

The App is scammers paradise but it will not work

twhitehousescat

nothing of importance in the news this week , the daily mails "quest" died months ago , when the chips got cold

regarding a person making a cockup , we have heard it before, the answer "the operative has been sent for further training" , go away , the BPA/IPC are happy , move along now

zardoz70

I love the 'people should just park legally' comments on the Telegraph.

Muppets.

beamerguy

safarmuk wrote: »

What I don't get is if a warden puts a PCN on the car window and nobody contacts the PPC they have to wait X days (can't remember what it is) to get the RK details ...

In this case Joe Public takes a picture and loads it up, doesn't leave a PCN on the window ... so the only way the PPC can make contact is to straight away go for RK details (e.g. no waiting period) ...

So different track to RK details but essentially the same origination, a warden/self-ticketer ...

This new wheeze does not involve wardens.
It involves someone like your neighbour trying to make a tenner
They upload to the app the photo which the scammer (the PPC) then obtain keepers details within the statutory time period.

The scammer will have a contract with the picture taker, guess that is correct or the picture taker has no comeback if the scammer does not pay them.

This is where the problem starts for the scammer.
Even though the picture taker has a contract, are they the landowner and has the landowner given the picture taker permission ???? The courts will want to know.

It is right to assume that a land owner, if concerned about parking, will source a company to handle it, albiet they are a scammer.
A landowner has no desire to go around taking pictures let alone a trivial commission of £10

This is designed to attract nosey neighbours who will probably end up in court explaining to a judge their rights to do this.

It is highly flawed load of junk and can only mean the PPC being whooped in court more than they are now.

As PPC's resort to this low life of doing business, one must assume they are not doing as well as they like others to believe.

safarmuk

Thanks @beamerguy - not sure what has happened to my original post it seems to have gone as a result of the editing I did (maybe I deleted it by mistake) ... ah well.

Anyway, so if someone snaps your car on this App, you wouldn't know anything about it until you got the letter in the post right ... how many days later could that be from when the pic was taken?

I agree there would appear to be flaws with this that could be exposed in court, but that is not what this company are really concerned about I suspect (as they don't appear to go to court that much), it could be more about increasing the amount of people they can send a speculative invoice to of which a %age will pay up without realising.

twhitehousescat

safarmuk wrote: »

Thanks @beamerguy - not sure what has happened to my original post it seems to have gone as a result of the editing I did (maybe I deleted it by mistake) ... ah well.

Anyway, so if someone snaps your car on this App, you wouldn't know anything about it until you got the letter in the post right ... how many days later could that be from when the pic was taken?

I agree there would appear to be flaws with this that could be exposed in court, but that is not what this company are really concerned about I suspect (as they don't appear to go to court that much), it could be more about increasing the amount of people they can send a speculative invoice to of which a %age will pay up without realising.

how many days later could that be from when the pic was taken?


if they wish to use the protection of POFa 15 day (inc the day the indident happened) , RECEIVED , not posted RECEIVED .

safarmuk

if they wish to use the protection of POFa 15 day (inc the day the indident happened) , RECEIVED , not posted RECEIVED .

So someone - not directly employed by the PPC - snaps your car on Day 1 and by Day 15 your RK details have been retrieved from the DVLA without you knowing and a letter sent demanding cash. Wow ... this can't go wrong ...