HX Car Park Management PCN wrong reg typed into machine

Ibcus

Going off a pretty much parallel case on here it seems very likely that this will go to court, I'm just waiting for it to pop through the letter box.

I've searched and googled for a template letter to send for requesting such data and can't find one, maybe I'm using the wrong search technique.


I'm not great(rubbish) at writing letters at the best of times.


Is this worth sending to the DPO of HX?

Good Morning,


I am writing in regard to [PCN NUMBER]

As it seems very likely that [PARKING COMPANY] will issue unfounded court proceedings against the registered keeper I am hereby requesting all the raw data from the pay and display ticket machine at the location in [CAR PARK LOCATION] for the whole day of the alleged incident, that day being [DAY OF PARKING].

Ideally I would like this as a spreadsheet (CSV/Excel etc) with the following columns:
Unique identifier for machine
Location of machine
Date&Time ticket printed
Text entered
Amount paid

I also request the date [PARKING COMPANY] took over management for this car park, who the contract is with and when this particular pay and display machine was installed on this site.

Please advise at your earliest convince if you will comply with my above requests, not complying may be deemed as unreasonable behaviour if this incident does go to court.

Kind regards

[NAME]

Should I bother sending it?

Ibcus

I have received this response to the request:


Good Morning,
In regards to the below, as what you are requesting contains personal data relating to other individuals, due to data protection and GDPR regulations, this will not be provided.
Regards


Is a VRN personal data?

KeithP

Ibcus wrote: »

Is a VRN personal data?

Stick that question into google and your answer is immediately available.

Ibcus

It seems a grey area but most agree it is personal data.


I've asked for the data for 3 days now with all VRN data verified by ANPR to a macthing vehicle to be redacted and all other data left as is

System

Just one final letter to them advising them they can redact the other personal data and send yours. Tell them they have 7 days or it is off to the Information Commissioner for a ruling.

If they want to play games, talk to the umpire too.

Ibcus

I sent them this:

[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Good Afternoon,[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]If that is the case I request all the data from the pay and display ticket machine at the location in [ LOCAT ION] for the day before the alleged incident [DATE], the day of the alleged incident [DATE] and the day after the alleged incident [DATE] with all VRN data verified by ANPR to a matching vehicle redacted and with all other data left as is. This data should only show incorrectly entered VRN details that will not relate to other individuals so will not breach data protection or GDPR regulations.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]I would like this data as requested below.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Ideally I would like this as a spreadsheet (CSV/Excel etc) with the following columns:[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Unique identifier for machine
Location of machine
Date&Time ticket printed
Text entered
Amount paid[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]You also did not respond to my other requests, I would like you to do so now please.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]I also request the date HX Car Park Management took over management for this car park, who the contract is with and when this particular pay and display machine was installed on this site.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Regards[/FONT]

luverlyjubbly

No reason why they can't react - it's just easier to fob people off.

I have been in touch with the ico some time ago on a different matter and they said hx weren't on their radar. I suspect more and more people bringing these problems to the ico's attention will change that!

fil_cad

This site has been a hot topic in the local paper, many other victims are being scammed there, maybe someone will spend time there and warn future cash cows about this and upset their gravy train. :rotfl::rotfl::money:

Coupon-mad

Ibcus wrote: »

I sent them this:

When the Data Protection Officer rejects that, send him/her a Rectification Notice to rectify the inaccurate data held by the keypad and interrogate the ANPR data instead to see which is the 'accurate data' (a fact that was in their gift all along, and should have been rectified without fuss). This has been written recently in other cases.

See the other threads about a 'RN', there are several now, with examples.

If after that, the DPO refuses to rectify the data that they KNOW is 'inaccurate' then report them to the ICO for failing to deal properly and proportionately with a SAR, then failing to rectify (when asked to) an error that they KNEW about, that did not affect the fact they knew (confirmed in the appeal and by their own ANPR data) that the driver was authorised to park.

It is not a lawful excuse to refuse to 'rectify inaccurate data' because they want it to stay 'inaccurate' so they can penalise a consumer!!

Parking charges cannot be raised just to penalise human error - tell the ICO in the eventual complaint, that the ParkingEye v Beavis case confirmed that charges cannot be recoverable if they do not have a 'legitimate interest' to save them from the penalty rule. So inaccurate data (even if emanating from the driver's human error) cannot be used against them and MUST be rectified when spotted.

A simple data adjustment to 'overwrite' the inaccurate (but innocuous) error held by the keypad/machine data stream, with what the PPC knows is the correct VRN (after all they've used it to get the DVLA data!) is surely a DPO's duty, once the error came to light.

And, the refusal to rectify KNOWN TO BE inaccurate data, when specifically asked to do so by the data subject, is unlawful under the GDPR. As is using ANPR excessively or disproportionately, which is certainly the case when a PPC tries to use the ANPR to 'prove a driver wrong' on something as innocuous as human error.

And talking of humans, tell the ICO that this sort of 'we know the data is inaccurate but we want it to stay that way, so the driver has to pay us £100 as a 'fine'' shameful and unjustified episode is repeated day in day out by all ANPR using PPCs (whether BPA or IPC firms, they all do it). The fact it is so common, proves there is no 'human intervention' and that ANPR data is being cross-checked with keypad data but only by an automated system, to churn out PCNs.

Tell the ICO that, clearly no 'human checks' of these automated decisions are actually being done, because if they had been, the GDPR requirements (on keeping accurate data used in a proportionate way) have been breached, by whoever claims they carry out those checks.

An ANPR using PPC is damned if a human checks the data, and damned if they don't - and so they should be! This conduct in blaming consumers for errors that are easy to rectify and where the trader already knows the correct data all along, cannot possibly have a 'legitimate interest' (Beavis case definition) and neither is it compatible with the GDPR.

It's like a retailer blaming a dyslexic person for a spelling mistake - clearly excessive.

And show the ICO this from HX's website and ask them to comment on the fact HX are saying they *can* punish people who make more than an arbitrary '2 digit' VRN error, and ask how that fits with the consumer's right to rectification (of the entire VRN, if that's what has happened):

Allowing for Human Error
In the BPA's statement, mention is made to the possibility of a parking charge notice (PCN) being issued as a result of human error, saying we do recognise that errors can occur and they can be upsetting for the motorist.
In many cases, parking tickets are cancelled by the operator when they are given additional information, said the BPA.

We can confirm that, with HX Car Park Management, this is absolutely the case. Not only that, but in every instance of a PCN being issued, we will actively assess the possibility of human error. To this end, if the number plate entered by the motorist displays up to two characters difference from the number plate of the vehicle in question, we will automatically dismiss the case as human error and recall the relevant parking charge.

Ibcus

After a few emails back and forth Rachel, the DPO for HX, has given the reason why they won't give the data.

Good Afternoon
Images of vehicles that have not contravened are purged from the system after 3 months. You are requesting data from April therefore it is impossible to cross reference entries with the machine logs to establish whether an entry was incorrect due to some vehicles having private registrations, therefore you are unable to have this data.
The information you are asking for is commercially sensitive and therefore will not be provided; at the point your PCN was issued, the site had passed all required IPC audits.
Regards

Rachel

This is convenient as the LBC from Gladstones was sent exactly 3 months after the alleged contravention.