Burden of proof for the 'double dip'

twhitehousescat

as they say its been cancelled , you must not have committed the offence , so why did PE get your details from the DVLA?

louise22333

I will post their letter:

Dear xxx

Thank you for your recent correspondence, the contents of which have been reviewed. Whilst we can confirm that the above referenced Parking Charge has been cancelled with no outstanding amount due, we must inform you that your request that we provide compensation pursuant to s13 of the DPA is rejected and that we will defend any claim you may decide to bring.

PE takes great care to ensure that we issue PArking Charges correcty and we can confirm that all the data taken from our ANPR cameras undergoes a stringent checking process of up to 19 stages before any registered keeper data is requested from the DVLA. These checks include steps relating to the quality of the data collected and the circumstances of each parking event, as well as the cross-referencing of relevant payment information and there are multiple manual quality assurance checks undertaken thereafter to review the decisions made.
In this regard, it is our position that there can be no question that the audit process followed by PE prior to the obtaining of DVLA data is comprehensive. For your information, PE is authorised by the ICO to collect and process data for the purpose of car park management. Finally, it should also be noted that the car park at xxx is private land and that the site does not fall under statutory control, as alleged.
yours sincerely, PE
(typos and abbreviations are mine)

twhitehousescat

well they would say that
#
its obvious that "PE takes great care to ensure that we issue PArking Charges correcty and we can confirm that all the data taken from our ANPR cameras undergoes a stringent checking process of up to 19 stages before any registered keeper data is requested from the DVLA. " has failed and you did recieve a NTK and the DVLA database was accessed

continue to pressurise regarding DPA

PE have just made the parking pranksters blog , yet again , ANPR failure , http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/parkingeye-scam-fails-car-parked.html

the failure of outdated and faulty equipment is common , why should you have to defend yourself for something you did not do !

The_Deep

http://i.imgur.com/9tuZufM.jpg

Surely the ten of so lines of ultra small print at the bottom must render this sign as unreadable.

Half_way

Are you also pressuring the retail park owner over this as well?

Molts

PE takes great care to ensure that we issue Parking Charges correctly and we can confirm that all the data taken from our ANPR cameras undergoes a stringent checking process of up to 19 stages before any registered keeper data is requested from the DVLA.

So stringent it can completely ignore a first exit and second entry and combine them into one long visit. Absolute bollix.

Finally, it should also be noted that the car park at xxx is private land and that the site does not fall under statutory control

So what? Parking Lie can arbitrarily misuse an innocent victims personal data just because it's private land? If this were me I would be investigating the DPA breach route after being massively incensed by that letter, possibly even using it as evidence against them.

yotmon

During your 2 visits which resulted in the 'double dip', are you absolutely sure that none of them went over the prescribed time limit. I'm asking because this would legitimise their access to the dvla. No point paying a court fee, only for P.E. to produce an ace from up their sleeve.

Coupon-mad

Complain to the ICO and show as much evidence as you can, including the BPA Article about ANPR flaws:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Other-Advice#4

''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:

a) Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.''


PE have no excuse and their so-called 19 point check is a complete joke, for example:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/parkingeye-scam-fails-driver-cottons-on.html

Get an upheld complaint from the ICO and you are halfway to claiming for data misuse against PE. Take your time, get your evidence and also review how other people's DPA claims are going later this year, to learn from what works and what doesn't. IMHO all victims of a double dip 'PCN' should do this and claim compensation for this nasty unwarranted demand from a litigious monster who are long overdue a public fight-back.