Parkingeye exceeded paid for time limit

MotoristPaper

Hi,


I have had a further unhelpful response from Parkingeye detailed below, avoiding the questions around the ICO CCTV CoP and stating that they don't have to tell me anything about internal procedures and stating that I can make a subject access request should I wish. Deliciously, they have sent me a broken link to their privacy policy


I will of course respond to them reiterating that they need to answer the points raised and berate them for providing me with a broken link. Other than this should I include anything else? Or simply persist with demanding that they answer the questions around excessive ANPR usage.


It was news to me that PE have been sold to another company, not sure if the new guard will be more or less litigious or just carry on as usual.


Any insights greatly appreciated.


Dear x


Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the above referenced Parking Charge.

We can confirm the signage on site complies with the BPA Code Of Practice.

We wish to confirm that ParkingEye take the proper handling of personal data very seriously, however, we note that there is no requirement for details of our internal processes or policies to be published or provided to individuals. We would refer you to https://parkingeye.co.uk/privacy -policy/ for additional information on our Privacy Policy. If you wish to make a Subject Access Request this can be completed on Privacy Policy link on the website, or alternative a request can be made in writing.

Our position remains as per our previous correspondence and whilst we have reviewed your recent correspondence but we maintain our position that the full amount of the Parking Charge remains outstanding and that we have been unable to reach an agreement in respect of the same via the Reply Form.




We now require full payment of the outstanding sum of £100.00 within the next 14 days or legal action will be taken. Should court proceedings be issued, further costs will be incurred. These will include, but are not limited to, the court claim issue fee and the solicitors costs referred to within the LBCCC.

If you wish to make payment, you can do so by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444, by visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk, or by posting a cheque/postal order to the below address. 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

Coupon-mad

stating that I can make a subject access request should I wish. Deliciously, they have sent me a broken link to their privacy policy

Good.

Now issue them with a SAR, and tear into them for the broken link.

And why not now lodge an ICO complaint saying you suspect that PE are breaching the Surveillance Camera CoP with excessive ANPR use 24/7 but they are refusing to answer reasonable questions about the excessive use, have not justified it at all.

When replying to you they disingenuously misled you by saying the 'CoP' was updated in January 2018, deliberately making you think they meant the ANPR Surveillance Camera CoP, and when you took advice and realised they were misleading you, they then fobbed you off with a broken link to their privacy policy (then demanded money yet again).

You do have to set out your concerns clearly to to ICO, but do it now, I say, make PE answerable to the ICO if they can't be bothered to answer you:

https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/your-personal-information-concerns/

And at the same time bung in a SAR asking for all data held about you/your VRN, including all images including the raw images from ANPR, all letters sent, all status updates internally stored for your case, all discussions and internal memos or emails about your case or your complaint, everything.

KeithP

Their Privacy Policy link is 'only slightly' broken.

Remove the blank in the middle of 'privacy -policy' and you get:

https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy/

MotoristPaper

Hi Coupon,


Thank you very much for the advice. I have sent a SAR to all the PE emails I could asking for everything. I'll get on with contacting the ICO now.


Just one question for you please, when I email PE should I mention that I've raised the SAR and complaint to the ICO to strengthen the tone of my email? I've read on other threads that the ICO can take a while to respond, not that PE are quick to respond either.


Cheers

Coupon-mad

Yes I would, and tell them that:

- you have issues with the content of the information ParkingEye hold and how ParkingEye have obtained (by excessive ANPR use) and processed your data, and so

- you object, and require them under Article 18 of the GDPR, to restrict any data processing while the ICO investigates their excessive, unchecked and unlawful use of ANPR at this site, and also whilst the Data Protection Officer replies to the SAR sent to ParkingEye.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-restrict-processing/

''Individuals have the right to restrict the processing of their personal data where they have a particular reason for wanting the restriction. This may be because they have issues with the content of the information you hold or how you have processed their data.

In most cases you will not be required to restrict an individual’s personal data indefinitely, but will need to have the restriction in place for a certain period of time.''

https://eugdprcompliant.com/knowledgebase/the-right-to-restrict-processing/

''...processing will be restricted when the individual objects to it – if the data had been necessary for the performance of a public task but you, as an organization, are unsure of your legitimate grounds. Also, restriction will be mandatory when the processing has been unlawful but the data subject refuses erasure...''

MotoristPaper

Hi Coupon,

Thank you again for all your help. I have just sent off a detailed formal complaint to the ICO and I am about to email PE now. They have actually responded to my SAR pretty quickly. I've reviewed it and there are some oddities in there including a number of pages that are scanned and are illegible (from what I can tell its part of a planning enforcement enquiry form I sent to the local council regarding their lack of advertising consent for their signs. There also appears to be some corruption of the form when it appears later on with a date form this week inserted over it. I thought I'd also take the chance to highlight their terrible photographs and incorrect site plan that is on the bundle. How does this sound?


Dear ParkingEye,

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 14/09/18. Since you have continued to refuse to provide answers to my wholly relevant and legitimate concerns that your excessive usage of ANPR cameras does not comply with the ICO code of practice for the use of surveillance cameras, along with your refusal to provide evidence of a privacy impact assessment and the evaluation of less data intrusive methods before commencing the use of ANPR and a regular review of ANPR usage, I have lodged a complaint with the ICO to investigate my concerns.

Furthermore you have again attempted to deliberately mislead me by supposedly providing a link to your privacy policy in your correspondence dated 14/09/18, yet the link does not work. You are continuing to act against the spirit of the Pre-action Protocol by not providing information and also providing deliberately misleading information. As such I have issues with the content of the information that ParkingEye hold and how ParkingEye have obtained it by excessive ANPR usage and processed my data. Therefore I object, and require that under Article 18 of the GDPR, you restrict any data processing whilst the ICO investigates excessive, unchecked and unlawful use of ANPR at this site.

I have also made and received a response my subject access request and would like to bring to your attention a number of errors and inaccuracies in the supplied SAR bundle:

-Your photographs on pages 42-45 are blurred and clearly show that your signage is inadaquate and illegible
-As previously highlighted in my correpondance the number of signs and the site plan is wrong
-The photograph on page 51 is very blurred and another example that your signage is inadaquate and illegible
-Your landowner witness statement is dated 22/09/18 which is after the date of the alleged parking contravention and is not sufficient evidence of landowner authority
-Pages 58-63 and 66-79 are wholly illegible so it is not possible to determine their content
-Page 108 and 112 have been altered, particularly page 112 which has a date of 19/08/18 inserted on it when the original was dated a year before on 12/09/17

Cheers

Coupon-mad

Good stuff, glad to hear the ICO complaint is lodged. I hope they investigate.

I would only point out these two errors:

-Pages 58-63 and 66-79 are wholly illegible so it is not possible to determine their content
-Page 108 and 112 have been altered, particularly page 112 which has a date of 19/08/18 inserted on it when the original was dated a year before on 12/09/17

The rest - leave those errors in your back pocket ready to use as evidence if they try a small claim in the end. You positively want them to have holes in their evidence re signage and landowner contract, so don't tell them how to put it right!

Finish by reminding them that this communication is an Objection to Processing under the applicable Article in the GDPR, and since there is a current complaint now lodged with the ICO to investigate concerns relating directly to how PE have used and abused your data, ParkingEye cannot ignore the objection, and must put the matter on hold and answer to the ICO now whilst the investigation is undertaken.

MotoristPaper

Hi Coupon,


Thank you for the suggestions. I have emailed this back to PE with the changes added and I will await news from them or the ICO.


Cheers

MotoristPaper

Hi Coupon,

I've had the following response below from the PE privacy team rejecting my request that they cease processing data, could you please help me with any further rebuttals?

They state that the illegible pages are due to scanned documents being received by post in my original appeal and the originals have been destroyed. However all my appeals/correspondence have been over email! So I cannot fathom why they would have been printed and scanned this.

The formatting errors in the word document do appear to originate from my end. Should I reply and have a go at them for losing the originals or asking them how they got them by post/why they scanned them in the first place? Is there any recourse for them rejecting my request to cease processing my information as I have not yet heard anything from the ICO about my complaint.

Also I know its a minor point, but their email signature still states they are part of Capita and not the new owners. A very professional setup they are.

Cheers

Dear x

Thank you for your email to our Enforcement Team on 21 September 2018 and we note the points you have raised with regards to the SAR response we have issued.

Upon review, pages 58-63 and 66-70 are scanned copies as we have received the original appeal by post which has subsequently been destroyed. The data we enclosed in our bundle is exactly how it appears on our system.

It appears as though the document you refer to on pages 108 and 112 has corrupted, this was a Word document attached to an email you sent to our Enforcement inbox. Each time said Word document is opened, there appears to be a number of formatting errors including numerous question marks, and as you refer to, defaulting the date (on page 112) to the date on which the document is opened.

We apologise that the link to our Privacy Policy did not work due to a small typo. For further information about your rights as a data subject, plus information about the categories of data we process, data transfers, the legal basis for our processing, and the purposes of processing, please visit: https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy/

We also wish to confirm that we have rejected your request that we cease processing in this instance, and can confirm that your correspondence has now been passed back to the appropriate team for consideration. Please note you have the right to make a complaint to the ICO in respect of this response, should you wish to do so. You may also seek a judicial remedy.

Yours Sincerely

ParkingEye Privacy Team
ParkingEye Limited

Part of Capita Parking Services

Coupon-mad

Is there any recourse for them rejecting my request to cease processing my information as I have not yet heard anything from the ICO about my complaint.

Also I know its a minor point, but their email signature still states they are part of Capita and not the new owners. A very professional setup they are.

No more replying to them.

Send all of the above observations and their refusal to case processing (where they have not explained why they refuse) to the ICO, as an update to your complaint.