Parkingeye fine - Aire Street Leeds

Silvercloud18

I don't really understand their paragraph 7 either :undecided

Coupon-mad

It's just the sort of legalese that thrilled the captive audience of Capita-shareholding(!) Judges at the Supreme Court in (at the time Capita-owned) ParkingEye v Beavis:

The consideration given by the motorist is executory, and is to pay the Parking Charge should a breach of the terms and conditions occur. Further, there is a value in the motorist’s agreement to comply with the terms and conditions of parking as these are commercially necessary. Further, there is a tangible value to ParkingEye in the motorist’s agreement to comply with the terms and conditions of parking. If motorist’s did not agree to comply, ParkingEye’s operation onsite would be obsolete and this would result in monetary and reputational loss to ParkingEye.

Just verbose rubbish, IMHO.

And some might observe that PE have no reputation to lose:

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.parkingeye.co.uk

How can they say you exceeded the grace period if they are not open about what that time is?

Why not upload all your complaint/letters evidence to the ICO, saying that you are concerned that your personal data has been misused and that 'automated decisions' have been made by comparing ANPR images against an undeclared 'grace period'. No human checks have been made and even when you asked what this secret grace period was, PE refused to tell you, and continue to process your data harvested by excessive and unjustified use of ANPR 24/7, at a site that is unlit and difficult to drive or walk through, let alone find a sign to read.

So no victim knows that their time is being started from the moment they enter the car park, the clock is secretly ticking, even though this is not a free car park, it's one with PDT machines which produce tickets with a completely misleading expiry time printed on them, contrary to good faith.

One data stream (PDT machine) is being played off against another excessive data stream (ANPR) and the latter timing is used against drivers unbeknown to them until it is too late. Clearly the ANPR system, running 24/7 at this pot holed cash cow of a site, is excessive capture of data and then for the trader not to even answer when asked to justify the timing captured, is surely outside of the fair use of data and proportionate use of surveillance cameras/ANPR?

You can upload letters an do that ICO complaint tonight online. Don't sit on it another week, strike now and hope the ICO pick it up quickly.

Make sure you talk about your DATA and the excessive use of the ANPR, which are the two things that are within the ICO's remit here.

Nothing waffly, not a general complaint about PE, but a specific one about your concerns about how they have used your data, yet are not operating in an open way and are using ANPR as the timing, instead of the PDT payment time (the point/time of sale), to catch people out.

Silvercloud18

Thanks for all that, brilliantly helpful as ever. This isn't the sort of correspondence I've seen from other cases on here. I was quite shocked at the refusal for the grace period. They could make this up as they go. I think they know I'm close to it and obviously as I mentioned my friends was cancelled by popla for 16 mins that they're just trying to scare me in to paying up!

I will do this tonight using what youve said, as don't want to put it off. do I upload all my previous letters and the appeal etc as evidence or leave that out? Didn't want to over bombard them.

Also the bit about them saying they didn't come to an agreement via the reply form or whatever crap they said.... do they mean their reply form wanting all my details like our going etc?

Thanks again

Silvercloud18

Also, should I reply to PE?

beamerguy

As Coupon-mad says above

The "ONE EYED SNAKE" .... Parking Eye getting down
to the real nitty gritty of rubbish

Silvercloud18

On another note mother in law just got one through from PE for not paying enough in the hospital car park apparently had only paid £2.50 out of the £3.50.... annoyingly she paid it before I spoke to her!!!!:mad:

Coupon-mad

She can still appeal a PE PCN, even when paid. Nothing to lose. May as well (don't let her do it herself though). Also complain to PALS about it, see if they support her and a refund can be got.

With PE, appeals and refunds ARE possible if you act quickly. A quirk of theirs that they will consider an appeal even when the PCN was paid, and will refund if a landowner tells them to.

As for your own case, email PE and tell them about your ICO complaint and ask them to cease data processing, putting the case on hold, whilst the ICO investigates your concerns.

Silvercloud18

Great thanks I'll do it for her. She panicked and paid it.

I'll make sure I do that to PE as well for my case

Silvercloud18

I’ve Heard nothing back from ICO?! But have had an email reply from PE saying they’re under no obligation to put the case on hold and that was the end of the email pretty much.

Do I just sit and wait for a court letter now then?