Forum Home» Motoring» Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking

HX Car Park Management PCN wrong reg typed into machine - Page 11

New Post Advanced Search

HX Car Park Management PCN wrong reg typed into machine

247 replies 19.4K views
18911131425

Replies

  • edited 22 September 2018 at 7:12AM
    SystemSystem
    177.8K posts
    10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 22 September 2018 at 7:12AM
    the site had passed all required IPC audits.

    Love it when they do this. The IPC is run by United Trade and Industry so the audits and paperwork have been approved by a company owned by the same people that own Gladstones Solictors.

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08248531/filing-history

    Put it to the court that both Gladstones and the IPC come to this action with a conflict of interest. And you could add, if you think it is relevant, it is public record that at least one of those directors has been charged with "perverting the course of justice".
  • edited 24 September 2018 at 4:07AM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad Forumite
    86.1K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 24 September 2018 at 4:07AM
    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



    Dear Rachel,

    I am not sure why you have told me that 'images of vehicles that have not contravened are purged from the system after 3 months'. I did not ask for images of any other vehicles.

    I simply asked for the PDT lists. Supplying this record from the PDT machine requires no cross referencing against camera images; that sort of manual checking is something that firms like yours are required to do before issuing any ANPR automated PCNs, anyway.

    You may partially redact the VRNs, as parking firms commonly do when supplying such lists for court evidence.

    You may not fully redact the VRNs on the list, as it is reasonable for me as a data subject who is faced with fighting one of your meritless Gladstones robo-claims, to scrutinise the partial data to find the entry that matches the payment that your company admit and know as a fact, was made.

    This is certainly a list that must continue to exist in your records, in readiness for your company's baseless pursuit of litigation, and for IPC and DVLA audits. VRN entries on that primary list cannot have been purged because that would be tampering with a fixed record from a particular day. What I am requesting from you are the same sort of lists as Excel Parking Services Ltd were reportedly held to have altered/tampered with, in the decision made by a Skipton Court Judge and by HHJ Gosnell on appeal, in Excel v Ambler, case no. E1DP2061, earlier this Summer.

    Private registrations have nothing to do with it, and throwing that into your reply appears to be just smoke and mirrors.

    I can make it even easier for you, if it helps you to reply fairly and without refusing a data subject's reasonable request. I have supplied a copy of the PDT ticket which we still hold (they are kept for work) and the VRN that was input that matches the payment made, was the one showing '06' and clearly it matches the PDT ticket we produced. I suggest you just show me all the numbers (not letters) from the VRNs, which will show the entry made without divulging data that can identify any other data subject.

    I require you to scrutinise the VRN entry lists, find the one that says '06' (only) that day, and rectify that inaccurate data by placing a note in your system records that the payment made beside the inaccurate VRN '06' is in fact the payment made for the car with the VRN xxxx xxx.

    This communication is a 'data subject rectification request' under Article 16 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679) (GDPR). The GDPR does not give a definition of the term 'accuracy'. However, the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) states that personal data is inaccurate if it is incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact. The matter of fact here is that payment of the tariff was made by the driver of the vehicle which was captured by ANPR, and for which your company has obtained my personal data from the DVLA.

    You know the full VRN, and your two data streams (ANPR and PDT machine) conflict. I am formally requesting that you rectify the inaccurate record, or place an update in your records to acknowledge the correct VRN has been supplied which matches the ANPR image, and the relevant PDT has also been supplied, and thus, the '06' should be rectified in your records to show the full VRN that you know the payment related to.

    Your refusal to supply data that you certainly hold, and any refusal to now rectify what you know is 'inaccurate data', despite this rectification notice, will be drawn to the attention of the ICO in my forthcoming complaint, along with a picture of HX's sign and machine, which says nothing about £100 charge and misstates the reason for collecting 'CCTV' or ANPR surveillance camera images. I have a photo of the sign which says the cameras are there 'for your protection' and there is a CCTV symbol, but nothing to tell drivers how the ANPR data captured would be used and the purpose of the system, and that a registered keeper's personal data would be obtained using VRN images.

    There was no privacy notice at all, and you cannot get around this by saying the event pre-dated the GDPR because the need for a privacy notice is stated in the ICO's Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, which has been in existence and a requirement for firms operating your sort of predatory ANPR regime, for a number of years.

    I will also ask the ICO to investigate your website statement about 'Human Error', where you say that you understand that human error can occur with a VRN input, and that: ''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.''

    But it isn't 'absolutely the case' is it? HX choose to only cancel a PCN when there is up to a 2 digit error, which would exclude anyone who had in good faith, input all the numbers only, or all the letters only, or perhaps their other car VRN in error. When they prove the PDT transaction, HX still refuse to rectify the data and cancel the PCN.

    In my case the SAR revealed something even worse. Your staff member EB added the note '06' on 6th April 2018. '06' is what was entered on the PDT, so you knew about the inaccurate data BEFORE the NTK was even posted. The NTK was sent on 09-04-2018. If I was of a suspicious nature I would think that you have tried to hide this comment in the pdf you supplied for my SAR, by overlapping the attachments box.

    I wonder what the ICO will make of all of the above.

    You must now respond to my queries and the a data subject rectification request I have made, and being the DPO, you will be aware of your time limit to respond to a data subject.

    For the avoidance of doubt, I require you to restrict data processing, and note my objection to any use of my data except for the purposes of replying to me and then to the ICO when they investigate my complaints. This means any planned litigation MUST be placed 'on hold' until the ICO case has concluded, and it is your duty to inform Gladstones about this fact, immediately.

    regards,

    data subject's name (your partner, the registered keeper)?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    28.7K posts
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Great draft CM, as per usual. Excuse me making one slight alteration please.
    in readiness for your company's baseless pursuit of litigation, and for [STRIKE]BPA[/STRIKE] IPC and DVLA audits.
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
  • edited 25 September 2018 at 1:05AM
    IbcusIbcus Forumite
    165 posts
    edited 25 September 2018 at 1:05AM
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    Dear Rachel,

    I am not sure why you have told me that 'images of vehicles that have not contravened are purged from the system after 3 months'. I did not ask for images of any other vehicles.


    I think the reason she mentioned the images being purged is because we asked her to redact any VRN that matched a VRN from ANPR data to remove any data that would relate to other individuals, leaving only incorrect VRN's because she was hiding behind GDPR.

    The private registration part baffled me too.

    We will send Rachel another email with your draft when she answers our latest email.

    Rachel, bless her, seems incapable of answering more than one question at a time, we've asked her four times now when HX took over the management of the car park and when the P&D machine(s) were installed on site.



    I say we because she refuses to speak to me as I'm not named on the PCN, data protection.



    It would be interesting to see if they print any of this thread out if it does go to court, as they won't speak to me as I'm not on the PCN can they they use what I say in court?
  • edited 25 September 2018 at 11:35PM
    IbcusIbcus Forumite
    165 posts
    edited 25 September 2018 at 11:35PM
    Got a reply from Rachel about the last email.


    Simply asked when HX took over the car park and when machines installed.

    Good Morning
    You have already been given an answer to your questions, please see below again:


    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
    Coupon-mads draft has been sent via email but I'm pretty sure I know what her reply will be.


    I fear Rachel doesn't like me/us



    Now I know when they took over, it was 2/11/17, but I wanted it from the horses mouth.


    I believe the new system was installed around March, but not 100% on that yet.


    I can see why they are reluctant to admit to it as it would be comercialy sensitive to them as they didn't put up signs saying it had changed, apart from slapping a CCTV sign on the main notice board and a few small signs yards away from the machines.
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad Forumite
    86.1K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Coupon-mads draft has been sent via email but I'm pretty sure I know what her reply will be.
    Me too.

    But that's the beauty of the fact that it's a stepping stone to the ICO. Who cares how she kicks & screams, in fact the worse her reply, the better the complaint to the ICO.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • nosferatu1001nosferatu1001 Forumite
    9K posts
    1,000 Posts Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    Indeed, and the more chance you can have of making her personally liable for HER refusal to abide by the DPA.
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad Forumite
    86.1K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    ICO complaints are starting to bear fruit, keep it up, open the ICO's eyes:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5846166&page=2

    :D
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • I actually sent a letter ,with proof of posting, to HX more than two weeks ago containing a notice of rectification, not as comprehensive as coupon's example on this thread, but it contained some of the important points. No reply or even an acknowledgement from HX.

    About a month after my PCN, I sent a request for confirmation to HX that They had taken in and kept the tariff for the partial VRN that was entered, guess what! The DPO said they haven't got that information, no reason given.

    I have also sent a letter to Gladstone's requesting the same information, plus a list of vehicles captured by ANPR on the date in question, partially redacted, except for the one that resembles mine, also two weeks ago. No reply and no surprise. I keep all proof of posting and copies of letters. After the 30 day deadline I will most definitely make a formal complaint to the ICO. Regards.
  • UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    28.7K posts
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    No reply or even an acknowledgement from HX.
    Yo must have used some big words! :)
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support