Parking Eye are taking me to County Court (and I haven't done anything wrong!!!!)

Loadsofchildren123

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I believe that this would be contrary to the Data Protection Act, I am afraid.

I did wonder about that. How could the request be phrased to get around that? A request to produce the first 4 digits of all VRNs, or something like that?

Guys_Dad

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

I did wonder about that. How could the request be phrased to get around that? A request to produce the first 4 digits of all VRNs, or something like that?

You could ask them to redact the registration numbers but simply show the vehicles for the period in question or to produce a sworn witness statement on oath that, following your appeal, they have re-examined the pictures.

In honesty, you are in their hands on this. It is not in their interests to provide evidence that would cost them their claim. Some PPCs are less scrupulous than others on this, of course.

But I would bring up that with your clear evidence apart from the photos, should you win the case, that this proves conclusively that, at this location at least, their equipment is not fit for purpose.

Loadsofchildren123

You have to produce all relevant documents, whether they help your claim or not. You are not allowed to "sit" on something that shows your claim is a pile of pants.

Guys_Dad

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

You have to produce all relevant documents, whether they help your claim or not. You are not allowed to "sit" on something that shows your claim is a pile of pants.

That's the law, of course. But it's PPCs we are dealing with and tampering photos, ghost ticketing, dodgy cameras etc are not unknown so I would not want to rely on them following the rules.

GeorgeKnows

Well, they replied! Here's what they had to say. What does everyone make of this? (Below):

Dear Mr Clark,

Thank you for your correspondence received in relation to the above referenced Parking Charge, which was issued following a parking event that took place on 20 September 2016 at Welcome Break Birchanger Green car park.

Please refer to our previous correspondence dated 18 July 2017 and 06 July 2017 this advised you that we recently sent you a Letter Before County Court Claim which informed you that this Parking Charge remains outstanding and had now been processed for further action. This is because your appeal to POPLA was unsuccessful and the independent adjudicator found in ParkingEye’s favour.

As POPLA have now found in ParkingEye’s favour in relation to your appeal, the appeal period is over. However, as a gesture of goodwill, ParkingEye will consider additional representations at this stage if there are mitigating circumstances. If you wish for ParkingEye to consider your further representations, please include all information to assist. This may include: evidence confirming you were not on site for the time as stated on the Parking Charge Notice.

ParkingEye use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and not CCTV cameras to monitor car parks. This technology captures and photographs vehicles entering and exiting the car park and compares this data to the maximum stay that vehicles are entitled to and, where applicable, any payment or permit that may relate to the registration captured.

ParkingEye’s Parking Charge Notice contains further detail of the Parking Event and also contains time stamped images of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park.

It is ParkingEye’s position that our Letter Before County Court Claim is fully compliant with the Pre-Action Practice Direction (Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols) and that all the relevant information pertaining to this case has been provided. Further information has also been provided throughout the lifespan of this case to make you fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the Parking Charge. [For your reference, please find copies of these notices attached.]

All of ParkingEye’s correspondence has been in line with the British Parking Association Code of Practice and we are a member of the Approved Operator Scheme. We do not believe that our letters can be considered threatening. They are informative and include all the information required to support the Parking Charge, as well as informing you how to pay or appeal the Parking Charge.

ParkingEye can confirm that we are authorised by the ICO to collect and process data from the DVLA for the purpose of car park management. The ICO have also confirmed to ParkingEye that we are authorised to collect and process data by the means of our ANPR cameras.

ParkingEye complies fully with the Data Protection Act 1998. All personal data is processed fairly and lawfully and we satisfy 2 conditions of Schedule 2 of the said Act, those being:

1. The data subject has given his consent to the processing.
2. The processing is necessary—
(a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party

The signage at the car parks operated by ParkingEye gives a privacy notice to motorists that their registration details will be captured by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras.

“By entering this private car park, you consent for the purpose of parking control and enforcement of the Parking Contract to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras and to the processing of this data, together with any data provided via the payment or permit systems, by ParkingEye Ltd to check compliance with the Parking Contract; and to the processing of this data to request registered keeper details from the DVLA.”

By entering and remaining on site, the motorist gave consent to the processing of their data by means of the ANPR cameras for the purpose of parking control and enforcement of the parking contract.

ParkingEye also satisfies one condition of Schedule 3 of the said Act, this being:

6. The processing—
(a) is necessary for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings),
(b) is necessary for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, or
(c) is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

ParkingEye has fulfilled these criteria as data processing is necessary for the purpose of legally enforcing the breach of contract between ParkingEye and the Defendant, and is also necessary for exercising and defending our client’s legal rights.

ParkingEye is prepared to take legal action if necessary and should court proceedings be issued, the further costs incurred by ParkingEye will be added to the amount outstanding. These will include all court fees and our solicitor’s fees.

Payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444, by visiting [I've removed the URL], or by posting a cheque or postal order to the address detailed below. Please note that you must quote the above Parking Charge reference on the reverse of the cheque or postal order.

Yours sincerely,

ParkingEye Enforcement Team
ParkingEye
Part of Capita Parking Services
40 Eaton Avenue | Matrix Park | Buckshaw Village | Chorley | PR7 7NA
Tel: 01772 450970 | Fax: 01772 450979 |

Coupon-mad

If you wish for ParkingEye to consider your further representations, please include all information to assist. This may include: evidence confirming you were not on site for the time as stated on the Parking Charge Notice.

Do that. Reply and show them evidence of you being at work (a witness statement would do).

Call them out: there was no breach on your part and the DPA breach WAS on their part. Don't believe them just because they quote the DPA, two can play at that game.

Are you emailing the Enforcement email address?

GeorgeKnows

Superb, will do - I am emailing their enforcement email address, yes.

Would you recommend a written witness statement?

Herzlos

Coupon-mad wrote: »

But then there's less scope for a claim as PE will have cancelled and won't have thrown a baseless claim at the case to intimidate and distress the victim.

I thought that was the point of the counterclaim? To force them to attend, or let them lose by default.

Coupon-mad

Yes I would say, get a few (more than one) staff member to write a short WS that says 'on {date/ at this time} I confirm that George Knows was at his place of employment working alongside me at xxxxxx xxxxxxxx in xxxxxxxxxx and arrived by car, VRN xxxxx xxxxx.

Signed

Date:

Then attach them to an email and fire that robust email back, with attachments and any other proof, demanding they cancel it and telling them you feel they are protesting too much and certainly breached the DPA, seeing as this ICO expert felt the same:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/parkingeye-subject-to-data-protection.html

Tell them the longer they prolong this harassment, the more significant distress they are causing (use those words). Oh, also tell them the email was not 'an appeal' and was clearly a response to the LBCCC, sent to the Enforcement 'team' (not the appeals 'team') and worded to spell out ParkingEye's mistake, not as any 'appeal'. You do not have to appeal, you did nothing wrong - say that again.

Coupon-mad

Herzlos wrote: »

I thought that was the point of the counterclaim? To force them to attend, or let them lose by default.

Yes but most posters would rather get this cancelled at LBCCC stage. They can still make a £25 small claim of their own afterwards, when less stressed and with careful guidance about the DPA and the level of distress to spell out.