Entered Wrong reg on App. messed up my appeal now.

Jamesrb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, like in this one - ignore the disability part - you might want to use some of these robust words as well:



Yes definitely leave it in and mention it in your defence later, a Judge might be interested in that level of phone call harassment, or at the very least it paints a picture of you being hounded, and that you HAVE told them to cease and desist (use those words).

Thanks for the help. I have re-drafted the letter as per the previous post. can SAR's and this letter challenging the letter of claim be emailed as proof of contact or do they require to be posted (with the proof of postage confirmation I have seen to be requested)

Coupon-mad

So I have tried to amend my letter by removing the detail that I will send separately in the SAR.

OK, and now I am adding a suggestion for TWO MORE signed letters to send with the SAR to the parking firm's Data Protection Officer (DPO), in the same envelope, but NOT referring to each other.

See here, a new idea that was a light-bulb moment in my lunch hour yesterday:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74760331#Comment_74760331

Send a Rectification Notice requiring the PPC to stop processing your data immediately whilst their DPO undertakes the check to identify and rectify the 'inaccurate data'. As per the example.

It probably doesn't matter that the data came from you, in error, IMHO you are allowed by the GDPR, to ask for it to be rectified. And your wife's VRN data is being used without her permission, by the PPC...

In fact in your case, why not also include a third piece of paper from your wife, the registered keeper of the xxxxxx VRN that you input in error, where SHE asks that the PPC stop processing HER VRN data and 'rectify the inaccurate data' because her car was never in the car park and they know the data is wrong, and need to erase her data!

Her letter (like yours) ALSO needs to be headed up 'rectification notice' and she should attach a copy of her V5 to identify herself, as the rk of the phantom car. Otherwise the DPO will delay things by asking her for ID.

This has not been tried before - but read the links and the linked threads that show an example...adapt to suit. Show us over the weekend! So you'd be sending to the PPC:

- a SAR from you

- a rectification notice from you

- a rectification notice from the rk of the 'phantom' numberplate processed in error.

And BOTH of you ask specifically for all processing of your VRN data to be put on hold, whilst these matters of inaccurate data are addressed.

You could add to your email to BW Legal that this has occurred - letters sent - and that neither they, nor their client, is allowed in law to process either VRN data (at all) whilst the rectification notices are checked and replied to under Article 18 of the GDPR.

Then - in a few weeks - the ICO gets an online complaint from you and/or your wife, IF the PPC refused to rectify and erase the inaccurate data of either of your VRNs!

Jamesrb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK, and now I am adding a suggestion for TWO MORE signed letters to send with the SAR to the parking firm's Data Protection Officer (DPO), in the same envelope, but NOT referring to each other.

See here, a new idea that was a light-bulb moment in my lunch hour yesterday:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74760331#Comment_74760331

Send a Rectification Notice requiring the PPC to stop processing your data immediately whilst their DPO undertakes the check to identify and rectify the 'inaccurate data'. As per the example.

It probably doesn't matter that the data came from you, in error, IMHO you are allowed by the GDPR, to ask for it to be rectified. And your wife's VRN data is being used without her permission, by the PPC...

In fact in your case, why not also include a third piece of paper from your wife, the registered keeper of the xxxxxx VRN that you input in error, where SHE asks that the PPC stop processing HER VRN data and 'rectify the inaccurate data' because her car was never in the car park and they know the data is wrong, and need to erase her data!

Her letter (like yours) ALSO needs to be headed up 'rectification notice' and she should attach a copy of her V5 to identify herself, as the rk of the phantom car. Otherwise the DPO will delay things by asking her for ID.

This has not been tried before - but read the links and the linked threads that show an example...adapt to suit. Show us over the weekend! So you'd be sending to the PPC:

- a SAR from you

- a rectification notice from you

- a rectification notice from the rk of the 'phantom' numberplate processed in error.

And BOTH of you ask specifically for all processing of your VRN data to be put on hold, whilst these matters of inaccurate data are addressed.

You could add to your email to BW Legal that this has occurred - letters sent - and that neither they, nor their client, is allowed in law to process either VRN data (at all) whilst the rectification notices are checked and replied to under Article 18 of the GDPR.

Then - in a few weeks - the ICO gets an online compliant from you and/or your wife, IF the PPC refused to rectify and erase the inaccurate data of either of your VRNs!

Will probably have to read through all this a few more times, but just about got my head around it and will do it over the weekend.
Only problem is I very much doubt i'll be able to get the V5 from my wife to prove things on her part as being the RK and i'll have to do a letter 'from her' as she will not want to be involved in any part of this (personal reasons)


To clarify, her car was parked there, it was my own car that I had the reg saved in the App as and paid for, I just admitted to being the driver and paid for the wrong car.


Thanks again for the help. I will feedback all letters on here before sending anything to double check.
(hopefully people dip into the forum over a weekend as up to Sunday is the very latest day I can get any computer access due to my shift patterns at work......and you would have no idea how long typing takes me)

Coupon-mad

I very much doubt i'll be able to get the V5 from my wife to prove things on her part as being the RK and i'll have to do a letter 'from her' as she will not want to be involved in any part of this (personal reasons)

OK, do that then - I would!

To clarify, her car was parked there, it was my own car that I had the reg saved in the App as and paid for, I just admitted to being the driver and paid for the wrong car.

Oh, other way round then, with the rectification letters.

But don't blame yourself at any point, you didn't have the app 'saved as'...the app company stored and saved your previous VRN data and brought it forward automatically - and effectively in error - which could be deemed by the ICO as excessive and unjustified data storage (would be better for consumers to have to type in the car they are using every time).

Instead putting it right, because they knew that payment did not match any other car in the car park (and they knew 'on the balance of probabilities' that it related to your car when you appealed and told them) they used the data mismatch to blame you as a paying patron, and profit from you a hundredfold.

Jamesrb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK, do that then - I would!

Oh, other way round then, with the rectification letters.

But don't blame yourself at any point, you didn't have the app 'saved as'...the app company stored and saved your previous VRN data and brought it forward automatically - and effectively in error - which could be deemed by the ICO as excessive and unjustified data storage (would be better for consumers to have to type in the car they are using every time).

Instead putting it right, because they knew that payment did not match any other car in the car park (and they knew 'on the balance of probabilities' that it related to your car when you appealed and told them) they used the data mismatch to blame you as a paying patron, and profit from you a hundredfold.

So below is my attempt for the rectification notice. Any feedback/red penning, is more than welcomed.
Hope I have understood what it is I should be putting. I have addressed it to BW legal, should I be actually sending this to Brittannia? they stated that all future correspondence should be with them. Thanks in advance:


BW Legal


Data Rectification Notice


Dear Sirs,


FTAO the Data Controller.


In relation to reference xxxxx: the vehicle data being used in this case is not my vehicle, I am not the registered keeper and I am not the registered owner.


Under GDPR rules I request you to stop processing either vehicle registration details which you do not have the permission of the registered keeper to process. Stop processing the data immediately whilst your DPO undertakes the check to identify and rectify the 'inaccurate data'. The vehicle in question detail and the payments I made to a car that was not in your car park, yet proven to be in relation to the vehicle in question needs to be rectified, which then clearly shows full and final payment was made for the parking session in question ergo making the ticket invalid.


Due to a processing error on the part of the ‘paybyphone’ app, they have brought forward in error, old data regarding a vehicles registration number and wrongly applied it to your request for a parking session for a different vehicle

This is a data mismatch and/or error, not caused by the consumer.
As such, I require that BW Legal tell their agents to rectify the error, which was not keyed in by the driver, but was brought forward by the app which had unfairly stored a registration number.

I very rarely use the app and hadn’t done since 11/04/15 so retaining that data for 2 years is excessive and unjustified data storage, and for that, Brittania Parking is at fault and places consumers at risk of detriment by carrying forward data that makes an assumption about a vital piece of information – registration number - that will cause consumers to suffer loss as a result.

To expect a consumer to assume the burden of having to notice and override incorrect data every time they use a phone app, when the app company have stored that data and introduced it for a completely different parking session by presumption is wholly unreasonable, and this undoubtedly a serious matter for the Information Commissioner to consider.


I require a reply from the Data Controller within 30 days, and i wish to exercise my right to request 'restriction of the processing' of my personal data during this period from contesting the data accuracy, while Britannia Parking, yourselves and its phone payment agent check it, in accordance with Article 18 of the GDPR





Regards





James

Coupon-mad

should I be actually sending this to Brittannia?

Yes, this is different, not related to Bw Legal's involvement, and should not be addressed to the DPO of BW Legal. It's not their data.

This is meant to be for the DPO of Britannia, who hold the core data.

No such thing as a registered owner.

Please note the correct spelling of BRITANNIA - such detail is important in a legal notice.

I've made a few suggested changes:

URGENT - DATA RECTIFICATION NOTICE - CEASE PROCESSING, RECTIFY AND/OR ERASE YOUR INACCURATE DATA IMMEDIATELY


Dear Sirs,

FTAO the Data Protection Officer, Britannia Parking

In relation to reference xxxxxxx, Britannia Parking is breaching the GDPR in its data storage and continued processing of the VRNs of two vehicles belonging to me and a member of my family, and your inaccurate data use is causing me detriment, distress and potential loss, contrary to the Data Protection Act and contrary to the Information Commissioner Office's (ICO) ANPR/Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.

The ICO has already confirmed that a VRN is 'personal data'.

Britannia Parking is already aware of the inaccurate data yet continues to process it, and this data processing failure must cease, and be rectified immediately. Britannia Parking is aware of the following facts already and has no excuse in law for its conduct, given its duties under the GDPR, and the right of a data subject to request rectification:

The vehicle data that was wrongly/automatically carried forward from an old parking session by your pay by phone contractor, is the household's other vehicle. I am the registered keeper of that car but was not driving it on the occasion and date stated in your 'PCN'. With no human intervention, the app your company uses for payments made an automated presumption that the payment related to my other car. I very rarely use the app and had not done so since 11/04/15. Clearly, even if a car had not been sold in the meantime - as could be likely for an average consumer - retaining VRN data for three years is excessively long data storage by your agent.

Britannia Parking cannot wash your hands of this matter. You already know that car was not in the car park on the material date, and you know that I did not key the incorrect VRN in, so I am not at fault.

Britannia and your agents are at fault, and this fault lies squarely with your Data Protection Officer (DPO) for failure to ensure the timely and accurate data handling of VRNs, by your chosen agent. I require you (and BW Legal and any other agents of yours) to stop processing BOTH vehicle registration details immediately, whilst your DPO undertakes the necessary check to identify and rectify the 'inaccurate data'.

The two VRNs in question are:

- xxx xxxx (this is my vehicle, but your ANPR records show that you beyond doubt, that it was not in the car park that day, so the data should be erased and replaced with the correct VRN data that was in my contemplation at the time I paid the tariff in good faith).

- xxx xxxx (the vehicle that I was driving on the material date) - you are processing an ANPR data stream which proves which car was actually being driven by me, and you are aware from my early appeal that I made payment intended for that car alone.

It does not take much for a professional parking company to 'join up those dots' of data information, rectify/erase or overwrite the inaccurate data stream in-house, and apologise for your system errors. Britannia had more than one opportunity to consult both data streams within your full control, recognise any mismatches and act fairly, especially after being alerted to it when receiving an appeal corroborating that this automated data error has occurred. Britannia should have simply put it right, as the GDPR requires, and your DPO will know that the law has no caveats allowing a trader to continue using inaccurate data in order to pass blame to and sue a consumer.

As well as data protection law, it seems to me that Britannia is in breach of:

- the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (key consumer rights law, covering contracts for goods, services, digital content and the law relating to unfair terms in consumer contracts).

- the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, which relate to distance contracts such as this which involve an exchange of information (more than just a single text) and require certain prescribed information to be accurately supplied in a timely manner.

- the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (specifically, section 6 'Misleading Omissions':
6.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—

(a) the commercial practice omits material information,
(b) the commercial practice hides material information,
(c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,
...and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

Due to a processing error on the part of the 'paybyphone' app, your payment handling agents have brought forward in error, old data regarding a VRN relating to a long-expired parking session, and wrongly applied it to my request for a parking session for a completely different car. This is a data mismatch and/or error, not caused by the consumer.

The data is wrong and untimely and in continuing to use it, Britannia are breaking the law.

As such, I require that Britannia check all data streams and information processed and received, rectify the system error, and ensure that your payment app handler erases any old session data linked to my account, to avoid any repeat of this data processing abuse. Even if the intention behind storing previous VRN data was innocent - perhaps originally aimed at time-saving, pre-GDPR - and even if a consumer had (perhaps by ticking a temporary 'save' box in 2015, or by not 'opting out') agreed to some data being saved by the app at the time, this is not sufficient reason for you or your agents to store the VRN data for an unconscionable three years, then use it again by presumption.

I am sure that the ICO will agree that this is ludicrously unwarranted data storage. This misleading business practice is akin to an online manufacturer storing items in a virtual shopping basket from 2015 onwards, then hiding them in small print and expecting that consumer to notice and delete the old draft, and if they do not, leading them to unknowingly pay for those long-forgotten items in 2018. Meanwhile the trader ignores the customer's intended order for something completely different, and blames the consumer when they complain, adding insult to injury by demanding £100 fine on top. Ridiculous? Yes.

To expect a consumer to assume the burden of having to notice and then override unexpected and long-forgotten incorrect data every time they use a parking phone app, when the app company have stored that data and introduced it for a completely different parking session by presumption, is wholly unreasonable. It is unconscionable and illegal for a service provider (whether as a result of deliberate or negligently excessive data storage) to use their own system failings to set a consumer up for a fall. Whilst saving some innocuous data for a short period of time can be justified to allow ease of use of an often-used app, it is not justifiable to process and introduce potentially inaccurate VRN data in the context of the notorious and litigious private parking industry.

There is a question of proportionality, and the risk of loss or detriment to consider, given the context of the ''outrageous scams'' (Hansard 2.2.18) operated on a daily basis by so-called 'accredited' parking companies and their widely reported propensity to use 'any old excuse' to issue millions of unfair and predominantly automated and unchecked 'parking charge notices' every year.

Please do not insult me by trying to blame me, or the app, and pretending that you cannot be held responsible for this data inaccuracy. I remind you of the law of agency and your 'joint and several' liability for the actions of your agents. To any reasonable man on the proverbial Clapham Omnibus, retaining a VRN for months (and certainly for years) then automatically reintroducing it when other data streams under your control prove it was the wrong VRN, is likely to be considered untimely, excessive and unjustified.

Clearly the incorrect VRN data must be erased, and the correct VRN retrospectively overwritten, based on the information you hold from your ANPR data stream regarding the right vehicle, which I confirmed in my appeal. You had the information and data streams you needed all along, and I assert that with the advent of the GDPR, parking firms have no lawful excuse to punish and blame drivers for such errors and mismatches, where the data is easy to rectify and causes no loss to your company given that the ICO's ANPR CoP actively requires you to make checks to avoid errors and ensure human intervention is applied to what is otherwise a purely automated decision.

This is undoubtedly a serious matter for the ICO to consider. Failure by Britannia to assume the responsibility to put right the error will be reported to the ICO without delay, should you refuse this rectification notice.

Do not try to delay matters by an unjustifiable request for 'ID'; you have no right to inspect my V5 for the wrong vehicle and I am not named on the V5 for the one I was driving, and you already know who I am and can identify me from this email and the information in it. Britannia holds full information, including my full name and address and you can identify that both VRNs are connected to me. I remind you that personal data that identifies me will undoubtedly include both the VRNs of both vehicles, in the context of the known facts of this case.

I require a reply from your Data Protection Officer within 30 days, and I wish to exercise my right to request 'restriction of the processing' of my personal data while Britannia Parking check it, in accordance with Article 18 of the GDPR.

For the avoidance of doubt, this notice means that you now have no option but to cease/put 'on hold' any planned legal action because you are now legally barred from processing my data, and so are BW Legal or any other agents acting on your behalf.

Yours faithfully,



James (Surname as well!)

Jamesrb

Been away from computer access for a while so not had chance to get on to thank you for this, thank you!!
I sent the letter you very kindly drafted for me. Just received a reply from Britannia a few days ago. They have basically said:
'Britannia laid clear the terms and details of our appeals process and payment to resolve this PCN,
As this PCN has been passed to BW Legal, BP have no further comments to add regarding this PCN. Please refer all correspondence to BW Legal'


So not quite the response I was hoping for.
Do you recommend I send the same letter to BW Legal?
It will have to by email I should think as they only gave me until 02nd October to respond.


I have computer access all week so will be able to respond easily now.


Thanks in advance


James

Coupon-mad

Well you know what to do now. Your letter said it!!

Do you recommend I send the same letter to BW Legal?

No. I pointed the way ahead in the letter to Britannia:

This is undoubtedly a serious matter for the ICO to consider. Failure by Britannia to assume the responsibility to put right the error will be reported to the ICO without delay, should you refuse this rectification notice.

So you now do an ICO complaint, online, showing them your RECTIFICATION NOTICE letter to Britannia and your previous appeal where the 2 VRNs were mentioned (all the emails exchanged recently) and the ANPR pictures of the right car, and the screenshot or evidence that the app carried forward an old 2015 VRN - and Britannia's woeful reply.

Your complaint will be that Britannia have failed to properly reply to a Rectification Notice under the GDPR and are deliberately processing what they know is inaccurate data provided by their own system, not by any error on your part, and they are not only refusing to rectify the data to the right VRN (that they already have, from ANPR images) but their reply doesn't even come close to caring about privacy and the GDPR.

You ICO complaint is about Britannia and their agents (not BW Legal as such).

Once you have submitted all your evidence to the ICO online (and be quick, don't delay) then email Britannia and BW Legal with an email headed GDPR OBJECTION TO PROCESSING - RE VRNs XXX XXXX and XXXX XXX - your ref XXXXXXXX

And simply tell them both that the matter is now with the ICO as a formal complaint, so processing data MUST now be on hold and the file marked as 'objection to processing - ICO complaint'. As such, this is locked in the pre-action phase and there must be NO court claim until the ICO has investigated in full and issued a response.

Jamesrb

OK, ICO complaint submitted. No surprise that there doesn't seem to be an email contact address for Britannia so I will have to ring them when I wake up to advise them (I am working night shifts all week)
Thanks so much again for all the help, hopefully the ICO can get it rectified.

Redx

I would not be ringing anybody, its not a viable method of contact as its not written down and not a written record or evidence either

you want all this in writing, as written evidence

if you cannot email BRIT, then print and post with a free cert of posting from the P O Counter (not SIGNED FOR)

you should be able to email B W LEGAL

ringing up people is NOT RECOMMENDED