DPA claim against ParkingEye for invalid PCN

situation-observer

Deleted message

Umkomaas

There are very few reported success stories against PPCs on the basis of breach of the DPA principles. The most recognised are detailed in the Parking Prankster’s blogs.

As PE discontinued fairly rapidly - I think it might have been a different matter had they ploughed on regardless - I think this could be a very hard row to hoe. My view, but see what others think.

If you really want to make a much bigger dent in PE - and all other PPCs - join the cause here. You seem to have some handle on this stuff and providing newbies with help in defeating unfair PCNs will have significantly more impact.

Personally, I’ve never received a PCN, but after PE started messing with one of mine some 5 years ago, I decided to get involved. I bet I’ve cost PE a good bit more than the £100 they tried to drag out of my family, as well as affecting dozens of other operators. I bet if the amount could be quantified, those other operators I’ve ‘cost’ would, I’m sure, be out for PE’s blood!

bargepole

I would say the chances of succeeding with a DPA breach claim in these circumstances would lie inbetween slim and none, and tending towards the latter.

The Claimant would have to make the case that they suffered distress and damage resulting from the breach. If they had been receiving demands for payment from PE, or their debt collectors, over a sustained period, that may be possible, but the fact that they cancelled the PCN almost immediately, kills off that argument.

Computersaysno

bargepole wrote: »

The Claimant would have to make the case that they suffered distress and damage resulting from the breach. If they had been receiving demands for payment from PE, or their debt collectors, over a sustained period, that may be possible, but the fact that they cancelled the PCN almost immediately, kills off that argument.

I'm happy to be corrected but AFAICR there's no need to actually prove distress and damage to get an award for a DPA breach???

logician

situation-observer wrote: »

The argument is therefore - since ParkingEye were the ones who designed the scheme (I've seen their planning permission/advertising consent documents) they would surely have known that the signage is unilluminated,

Parking Eye having advertising consent/planning permission????

Well standards are improving a bit as most of their sites they have none:D

with respect to the DPA breach - forget it - chances as Bargepole states are slim to none in this instance IMHO.

The_Deep

with respect to the DPA breach - forget it - chances as Bargepole states are slim to none in this instance IMHO.

No no no no no.

If you have the time, are not short of the odd copper, and can string together a half decent letter, go for it. Even if a judge declined to find for you, as long as your conduct was reasonable, it could cost them a lot more than it will cost you.

Many on here think that a PoPLA win is a victory, it is not, at best it is a draw. The only way to damage PPCs is to hit them on the bottom line with an unreasonable costs order.

Computersaysno

The_Deep wrote: »

If you have the time, are not short of the odd copper, and can string together a half decent letter, go for it. Even if a judge declined to find for you, as long as your conduct was reasonable, it could cost them a lot more than it will cost you.

Deep.....true or false....there's no need to actually prove distress and damage to get an award for a DPA breach???

nosferatu1001

There is none. None would be suitable. You need to draft somehting here
There are a few consumer issued LBas around, have read up. Or draft something

I would not go merely with DPA but also harassment. Tricky depending on how quickly they gave up, but its another angle

Vidal-Hall vs Google 2015 I believe stated that the mere fact of a breach of the DPA means damages are caused, and that the amount of damages does not need to be quantifiable in order to come up iwth an amount you can claim for.

logician

situation-observer wrote: »

This is what I was about to ask - what's the worst that can happen? RK will have to pay the Court filing and hearing fee.

Worst case scenario...

if the case is not struck out or dismissed early, then the worst case scenario will be that the judge will find the RK behaved unreasonably in bringing proceedings and make such an award for costs.

PE are very likely to instruct a barrister ...


The PCN was cancelled on instruction of the landowner - PE will no doubt argue that this was an unforeseen computer glitch and therefore the charge cancelled very quickly.

logician

The_Deep wrote: »

with respect to the DPA breach - forget it - chances as Bargepole states are slim to none in this instance IMHO.

No no no no no.

If you have the time, are not short of the odd copper, and can string together a half decent letter, go for it. Even if a judge declined to find for you, as long as your conduct was reasonable, it could cost them a lot more than it will cost you.

Many on here think that a PoPLA win is a victory, it is not, at best it is a draw. The only way to damage PPCs is to hit them on the bottom line with an unreasonable costs order.

The Deep will no doubt dig deep into his own pockets and indemnify the OP with their claim:D

logician

situation-observer wrote: »

Good to know - but their claims that it is a "one-off" won't stand. Both the RK and I heard the hotel staff mentioning that false PCNs from ParkingEye at that site are frequent - be it for 'overstaying' when only there for less than the 20 minute grace period, or for whatever else.

There's no harm in just sending an LBA I guess...

So what are the hotel doing about this then...

Is this a site where the guests are required to input their VRMs to avoid a charge?

Many staff at these hotel locations do not do enough to point guests in the right direction.