Parkingeye exceeded paid for time limit

MotoristPaper

Hi Coupon,


Thank you very much for your advice, I will email the ICO now.


Cheers

MotoristPaper

Hi Coupon,


Interestingly I have received the following additional email from the PE Privacy team not long after posting here, it would seem that this thread may have an admirer from a certain company or its a massive coincidence.


I'll await the ICO's response to my update to them as per your original advise unless you would suggest otherwise?


Cheers


Dear x

Further to the below regarding our rejection to your request that we restrict processing, it is ParkingEye’s position that this charge has been issued correctly and that we had reasonable cause to request the Registered Keeper’s details from the DVLA following a breach of the terms and conditions of parking in operation on site. For your information, we are authorised to collect and process data for the purpose of car park management, which includes dealing with appeals and any subsequent recovery action required.

If you have any queries regarding the above please respond by return to this email.

Yours Sincerely

[FONT=&quot]ParkingEye Privacy Team[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ParkingEye Limited[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Part of Capita Parking Services[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye Limited
Part of Capita Parking Services

Didn't think they were still part of Crapita...are they really that incompetent that they can't update their settings/signatures?

MotoristPaper

I know what a bunch of clowns hahaha, the bad kind.

Coupon-mad

Looks like it's not completed yet:

https://www.capita.com/news/news/2018/capita-announces-the-disposal-of-parkingeye/

I would be tempted to prod the hornets' nest again, though:

Dear Privacy Team,

Odd that you rushed to add that template response, but it tells me nothing useful except to confirm that you think you can process data with impunity. It does not explain specifically, and with relevant detail, why you have rejected my request. I trust the Information Commissioner's Office investigation regarding my case, will put you straight.

You have not answered my data concerns at all, regarding the excessive use of ANPR 24/7 and using those misleading timings against the interests of your consumer victims, even though you have the true data stream from the PDT machine, relating to actual parking (not driving) time.

You choose to use the data stream that works against the rights and interests of consumers, despite having better information from your primary data stream. That fails the first data protection principle and falls within the prohibitions listed under the CPUTRs.

I remind you that Hertfordshire Constabulary was issued with an enforcement notice, as the BPA published in a warning article for its members a couple of years ago. Did you miss it? The force were ordered to stop processing people's information via ANPR until they could comply. The Information Commissioner ruled that the collection of the information was unlawful; breaching principle one of the DPA.

So, tell me why you have rejected my clear request for restriction of data processing? You need to explain why, not blather on about 'reasonable cause' that does not apply in this case. Do you not understand the concept of excessive and unfair data processing, or just routinely disregard ICO investigations and plough on to litigation, regardless?

Any claim will be premature and I urge ParkingEye to take precautions against that and put the robo-claim plans on hold, in this case.

yours faithfully,

MotoristPaper

Hi Coupon,


Thank you for that. I have sent this on them. It would appear that PE literally do believe they are above the law when it comes to ANPR then!


Cheers

MotoristPaper

Hi Coupon,


I eventually received this response on Friday from the ParkingEye privacy team maintaining that the ANPR data is more accurate. Should I converse with them further?


Cheers


Dear x

Thank you for your email.

Parking Tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at Bailey Lane Car Park and payment for parking can be made using the machine at any point during your stay. In addition, we offer a PayByPhone service where parking tariff can be purchased up until midnight of the same day. Therefore in order to efficiently manage the site and monitor the time a vehicle remains in the car park the entry/exit data captured by our ANPR cameras is the more accurate of the two data streams you refer to.

Yours Sincerely

ParkingEye Privacy Team

Coupon-mad

I would.



Dear Data Privacy Team,

So my valid data processing complaint only merits a 4 line response, does it, telling me you operate 24/7 at that site (which is part of the problem, excessive data collection and excessive use of ANPR)? This demonstrates all that is wrong with your company and modus operandi.

You have failed to answer my questions and you wrongly think I will be satisfied with your bald statement: '' in order to efficiently manage the site and monitor the time a vehicle remains in the car park the entry/exit data captured by our ANPR cameras is the more accurate of the two data streams you refer to.''

That is hogwash. Your profit cannot override consumer rights to fair, transparent terms, accurate timing data and open dealing.

Why do you consider the data stream that starts well before a car even parks and the driver can read terms on any signs and has been afforded a fair opportunity to make a payment (in cash or by phone, all of which takes time) ''more accurate'' than the actual timing of when the money goes into the machine/or the app is enabled and used?

It is certainly not 'more accurate'. It is clearly more profitable for you because you can issue more PCNs than you would be able to otherwise. That is not a lawful excuse to process data this way.

Case law disagrees with your bland interpretation, which does not appear to come from a Data Protection Officer/GDPR or fairness standpoint at all. In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] QB 163 it was established as trite law, that the contract started at the point of sale when the money went into the machine, and if terms are to be successfully incorporated, they must be communicated before money is placed into the machine.

You operate two data streams and actively choose the one that works against the consumer, who has no information about the time the car drove in. You cannot expect a consumer (who has spent several minutes - which could be as much as 20-30 minutes in Summer/at busy times - driving round looking for a space, then parking, getting passengers and bags/buggies out, walking to a machine then queuing to read the signs, download an app/or sort out coins and pay) to guess their arrival time, and nor can you provide a 'ticket' with a stated, specific expiry time on it, then pull that rug away two weeks later with a PCN alleging an 'overstay that wasn't' contravention long after most people will have thrown away the tangible proof that you are wrong.

Further, it is open to firms of your ilk to have the actual data of the correct VRN and the matching entry/arrival time, displayed at the machine (for example, Highview does this as some Tesco stores and it cannot possibly be prohibitively expensive if other BPA members can do it).

As Data Protection Officer, please answer with full consideration given first, to the rights consumers enjoy from the GDPR, the Consumer Rights Act and the CPUTRs: why do ParkingEye continue to rely on the inaccurate and unknown timings that work against the rights an interests of consumers in a PDT car park? What puts you above consumer and data processing law?

You and I both know that you cannot rely on the Beavis case nor any other case law to excuse this ''outrageous scam'' of an operation in a PDT car park, and you are simply answering with your average 'ParkingEye clerk whose job is to obtain monies and say anything' hat on, to try to extort a sum that is not owed. Your reply comes across as dismissive (a 4 line fob-off) and is far from 'sincere'.

Are you even trained in data protection and how it relates to the rights and interests of consumers? Are you the DPO? Who is your DPO? Please pass this complaint to them because I was not expecting a lecture from any random ParkingEye employee with no regard paid to data protection and consumer law.

Please don't insult me by telling me about a few minutes 'grace' allowance, pretending the BPA CoP only allows a total of one ten minute grace period applied to a total stay, because this is not true. The BPA's Kelvin Reynolds confirmed that good parking practice includes TWO SEPARATE grace periods, either side of paid for time, in this article:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

Your continued processing of my data is objected to and I require you to cease processing it, answer my questions properly and cancel the unfair PCN. Your responses will be supplied to the ICO as part of my complaint and you will need to explain your excessive data processing - and your wholly abusive and anti-consumer rights reliance on unknown timings to make more profit - to that office.

MotoristPaper

Hi Coupon,


Thank you very much, I have sent that on the privacy team. I hope that they enjoy reading and responding to it


Cheers

MotoristPaper

Hi Coupon,


I've just received the following from the Parkingeye enforcement team telling me they will not correspond with me further. I've had no response from the privacy team as of yet. Do you think I should respond and reiterate to them that they are still breaching the spirit of PAP and refusing yet again to answer my relevant queries. I've had no further news from the ICO yet.


Cheers


Dear x



Thankyou for your email.

Parking at this site is available to motorists 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. As parking is constantly available at this site, we have a legitimate interest in having the ANPR cameras in operation constantly in order to provide effective car park management for the landholder. Similarly we are also required to monitor the entry and exit times of vehicles, rather than beginning the monitoring at the point a parking tariff is purchased. As previously stated, at this site, motorists are able to purchase a parking tariff at any point during their stay. If we were to only monitor from the point ticket was purchased, this would enable motorists to park onsite for much longer than the duration they had purchased or would allow them to park without purchasing any tariff at all. ParkingEye understand that motorists need a period of time in order to park and purchase a ticket and therefore there is a grace period on each of our sites. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose and are in line with that stipulated by the BPA.

In the case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, this case maintained that a contract could not be altered after it was formed. In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, tickets purchased from a ticket machine contained further contractual clauses which only became apparent after payment was made and the contract was formed. This was deemed to be unfair. There was no contention about whether or not a contract could be formed through making the Defendant aware of the terms and conditions of the contract and allowing him to choose to enter or not enter into it. The case centred upon when the contract was entered into. Only the conditions imposed after the contract was entered into were deemed to be unenforceable. Therefore this case actually serves to uphold the idea that a contract can be formed by making a party aware of the terms and conditions by which they will be bound and allowing them to choose whether or not they enter into it. The terms and conditions of parking are clearly outlined on the signage throughout the car park, to be read by motorists prior to purchasing a parking tariff.

It is ParkingEye’s positon that we do not rely on inaccurate and unknown timings. We refer you back to the first paragraph of this email which outlines the reasons why our ANPR cameras begin monitoring upon entry to the car park.

ParkingEye contend that the Parking Charge has been issued correctly as insufficient payment for parking was made. This decision has also been upheld by POPLA. ParkingEye will therefore not be cancelling the Parking Charge in this instance.

ParkingEye believe we have outlined our position in respect to this matter and therefore will not be entering into any further correspondence with yourself. You have a right to make a complaint to the ICO and we will address any queries that they may raise at this stage.

Yours Sincerely,

ParkingEye Enforcement Team