pcn to registered keeper

Coupon-mad

Good, you mean the ICO are investigating PP's intransigence about the SAR and the fact they tried to charge you £30 for it, saying it was ''excessive'' for a victim of their scam to actually want to see data and evidence?

Pdmum

Response to SAR was not dealt with appropriately.

Concerns about use of ANPR will be looked into further if i provide evidence.

Coupon-mad

Hmmm, the ICO will need evidence and a good argument that exposes this ANPR system as in breach of the ICO Code of Practice for ANPR & Surveillance Cameras.

So evidence about the excessive & disproportionate use of data, specifically, could be:

- that ANPR operators like this are using ANPR excessively and without proportionality (use those words, they are the ICO's own words from the CoP).

- in this case, they use ANPR 24/7; excessive & unnecessary at this site where the signs are unlit, so the contract cannot be read and enforcement should not be taking place.

- they misuse and abuse the two data streams for profit, and routinely use against consumers, the ANPR data stream with the unknown 'alternative time' that they call 'total stay' that works most onerously against unsuspecting, genuine paying drivers.

- PP fails to properly inform people of this, and these are paying customers who will be reasonably relying on the tangible PDT issued by the machine, as that has actual 'parking time' on it. Misleading data with no warning printed on the ticket.

- e.g. they should have a wealth warning: 'PLEASE NOTE: Your total stay time has been calculated from the point of your car's entry, by ANPR, and you will only be allowed a total of 10 minutes extra, for driving in/out before a PCN is issued - so the time shown on this ticket may not be relied upon as the time to return to the car if it took you more than 10 minutes to park today!''.

- PP use the ANPR 'data stream' (a) to create an artificial 'total stay time' when in fact, this trader has the actual 'parking contract' time in their hands already, via the second 'data stream' (b) of the PDT machine.

- The two times conflict, and yet the PDT data stream is surely the truest data (for those people who have paid) because the time taken to drive round and find a space before parking and paying can vary, due to all sorts of factors that PP are disproportionately taking advantage of.

- and they retain the data of people who the PDT machine 'data stream' tells them HAVE paid, then simply churn out a PCN if ''(a) - (b) = more than 10 minutes'', this despite the fact that the BPA Code of Practice and a well-cited BPA article* state that 'observation time' (on arrival) and 'grace period' (at least 10 minutes purely for the end of paid for time) are two different things, and clearly a car cannot possibly teleport into a space and have the tariff paid, in zero seconds flat...! A 'grace period' does not negate the 'observation period'.

- and PP make wholly 'automated decisions' to issue PCNs with no human intervention, clearly nothing is checked individually by a person.

- it's just an algorithm between the data from the ANPR versus the data from the PDT machine, regardless of any other factors (very busy car park due to a local event, bad weather, hours of darkness where it takes longer to read signs and use a crappy scratched old PDT machine with faded keys...disability of a driver or passenger, which remote ANPR systems cannot pick up, but which is a factor within the population at large)

- this method of enforcement fails to grant disabled people any additional 'reasonable adjustment' of say, an added hour of parking time, nor even an extended grace period, contrary to this court case below, the lawful findings of which relate just as much to private car parks as public ones, yet this has never been tested or looked at by the ICO:

https://www.wake-smith.co.uk/news/council-car-park-case-settled-a-victory-for-blue-badge-holders/

Not that you have protected characteristics, but some 10% of the 'population at large' do (not just mobility issues), and if the ICO are investigating a complaint about this misuse of data of people at large, you ask that they also consider that court case (high time it was applied to ANPR private car parks). As a public body, the ICO must consider disability discrimination aspects of a trader's operation as a whole. Such a 'reasonable adjustment' would be easy to display on signs at the disabled bays and on the machines which should offer the option of 'more time needed' for disabled people or explain how to claim it.

- to ignore the needs of such people and the myriad of other (external conditions) factors that can easily make the 'total stay' minus 'parking time purchased' more than ten minutes, is unjustified, unreasonable and data misuse.

- whilst ANPR may have its place in a 'free for 2 hours' car park - although it discriminates against disabled people there too - it has no place used in this automated way alongside a misleading timing that consumers will rely on (the PDT in their hand).

- The Parking firms using ANPR in this way, do so purely in order to profit from genuine paying drivers whose tariffs do match their actual parking time, but simply could not complete the in/out actions in 10 minutes flat. And who never knew they had to...


*Google: Kelvin Reynolds BPA good parking practice observation and grace periods and attach that as evidence too, along with the para 13 of the BPA CoP about the TWO grace periods.

Pdmum

Belated thanks Coupon Mad.
Will adapt to my circumstances and submit.Every bit helps i hope.

Coupon-mad

I think this latest fightback of reporting any and every 'data misuse', or 'GDPR failure to reply to a SAR or a rectification notice' and /or 'excessive use of ANPR' examples to the ICO can only be a good thing.

Hopefully the ICO will get the above argument, which you can use verbatim.

Pdmum

Starting to put down a few words in anticipation of needing to provide witness statement.
Is it neccesary to submit all correspondence as evidence and should this include POPLA documentation and ICO documentation or does all of this just need to be in court on the day.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

You must submit with the WS, everything you intend to rely on.

Should this include POPLA documentation and ICO documentation

I doubt you will want to submit the POPLA farce stuff, why would you?

Pdmum

Thanks for clarifying Coupon Mad. Good to see you back!

Coupon-mad

Good to be back - although we've moved house so I was busy, and still am up to my eyes in stuff!

:eek:

Pdmum

Ah good luck with that, hope it all goes well x