EXCEL claim, Admiral staff car park in Swansea

Coupon-mad

I take the view that it's best to win the defended case first, partly because I believe the best DPA claims are likely to be those where the ducks are all lined up in a row first:

- claim successfully defended,

then

ICO complaint (takes weeks/months but surely worth it as ammo).

Then - if the ICO agrees - the claim has strong backing. If the ICO says the data was misused then the facts are established.

And if the ICO disagrees, you've cost the complained-about company time/money in having to jump through the ICO's hoops when they are contacted for their side. So revenge of sorts, anyway.

Just my take on it all. No rush.

Loadsofchildren123

Thank you - as you know I've obsessively researched just about everything else apart from this!
Interestingly, in my other case it was clearly an issue for Gladstones - I hadn't made any counterclaim but had mentioned it and reserved the Defendant's position. They withdrew on condition that the counterclaim was not pursued.

Loadsofchildren123

Interestingly, chasing letters were sent to the driver at her boyfriend's address, where she does not live, her car is not registered there, she receives no post there and has never used the address.
How do you think they got these details?

Coupon-mad

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Interestingly, chasing letters were sent to the driver at her boyfriend's address, where she does not live, her car is not registered there, she receives no post there and has never used the address.
How do you think they got these details?

Don't know - maybe a tracing company - but I have been helping someone locally off forum (who started on here but is in West Sussex like me) who also had a different PPC send a NTK to her partner's parents' address. Exactly the same as in this case, an address where she does not live, her car is not registered there, she receives no post there and has never used the address.

Lamilad

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Interestingly, chasing letters were sent to the driver at her boyfriend's address, where she does not live, her car is not registered there, she receives no post there and has never used the address.
How do you think they got these details?

Could the defendant write to the PPC making a request under the DPA demanding​ to know how they acquired these address details ? (Not sure, I'm not a dpa expert)

Umkomaas

Lamilad wrote: »

Could the defendant write to the PPC making a request under the DPA demanding​ to know how they acquired these address details ? (Not sure, I'm not a dpa expert)

A Subject Access Request (SAR) with a £10 cheque to the PPC might unearth the source. They have 41 days to respond, so not necessarily a quick-fire process.

Loadsofchildren123

I'll see if she will make the request (suspect she won't want to spend £10....)


I've got some documents to share with you all.


1. This is the Admiral-Excel contract. It looks to me like Excel lease the land off the council and then enter into the contract with Admiral giving them exclusive use of the spaces - a lease by another name. Admiral takes each space for £156 per quarter and recoups £150 of this from the employee. I realise this document is dated May 2016 and am trying to get the one in force at the relevant time, but for the time being let's assume this agreement reflects the previous one.


There is reference in it to the employees having to display permits etc and to PCNs but it doesn't say how much and doesn't give Excel rights to sue.


What do you all think?


https://www.dropbox.com/s/15cnwg3468vaaan/EXCEL%20-%20Contract%20Parking%20Agreement.pdf?dl=0


2. When she gets her permit and enters into the agreement with Admiral, this is what she's given and which she signs - it sets out the terms of the Admiral-employee agreement. It's clear to me that the agreement is with Admiral, not Excel. Any views?


https://www.dropbox.com/s/dq5b01bw7wzrlsd/Salary%20Exchange%20and%20car%20parking%20agreement%20and%20blank%20car%20park%20form.docx?dl=0


3. At the same time as she gets 2 above, the employee is given this document which sets out terms and conditions - these are referred in the above document which states she agrees to abide by them:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/u7lzq53xwpzxlcg/EXCEL%20-%20Terms%20and%20Conditions%20of%20Use%20and%20Permit.pdf?dl=0


So yes she's agreed to display the permit in the prescribed manner but:
1. her contract is clearly with Admiral not Excel.
2. Excel have no right at all to sue her in the Admiral-Excel contract.
3. the windscreen display pocket was not fit for purpose - it fell off when she was not in the car. When she left the car it was stuck on the window and fell off while the car was unattended. She used all reasonable endeavours to comply with a term which was impossible to comply with for reasons out of her control.
4. Neither the Excel terms and conditions nor the contract with Admiral define what the "pcn/charge" might be. As she's paying £50 for the pleasure of parking she is entitled to assume it will be nominal, or nothing if they check the reg number and realise she has a genuine permit.

DoaM

Right to sue ... surely that would be in the lease contract between Excel and the council? In the contract between Excel and Admiral, Excel are the lessor and Admiral are the lessee, so it's not surprising that the contract doesn't mention Excel's right to sue? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding the process).

Loadsofchildren123

It's a funny agreement, it isn't described as a lease - they are contracting out the right to use the parking space (which is why I say it's a lease in any other name), I suppose it can't be a lease because it doesn't give exclusive occupation of the land to Admiral, only the right to use the spaces. Excel continue to occupy the land to the extent they can issue pcns
I'm assuming that the landowner is the council, it may be excel but I doubt they are in the business of buying carparks

The point about the right to sue is the Admiral-Excel contract says that Excel can issue pcns, but then says nothing about their right to sue on them. The contract to park is clearly between Admiral and the employer, even though it incorporates the Excel t&cs.

DoaM

And as I said ... the contract between the council and Excel has primacy. If this doesn't allow Excel to take legal action in relation to the land then even if it WAS in the contract with Admiral it would be an unenforceable term. Getting sight of that council/Excel contract would be interesting.

But I'm no legal expert.