June 2018 - start of the new PPC and DVLA fightback (GDPR related)

Umkomaas

Do we know how many tickets ParkingEye are producing a day, it seems they are really putting each NTK through a substantial checking process with human intervention, especially given the number of errors?

2016 - 1.452 million tickets
2017 - 1.788 million tickets
2018 - 0.732 million tickets (to date - do your own extrapolation).

Well over 4,000 tickets every single day of the year. Some human intervention investment from them there then!

http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/ParkingEye.html

trisontana

Regarding that "substantial checking process", does that include those supposed numerous checks on ANPR data that results in so many "double dipping" cases?

Coupon-mad

Do we know how many tickets ParkingEye are producing a day, it seems they are really putting each NTK through a substantial checking process with human intervention, especially given the number of errors?

Why not reply and tell them based on the numbers of PCNs they churn out you want to know how many humans are involved in checking every single one to see that it is appropriate to issue a PCN, before it is issued, and how this is documented.

And how do they explain the high number of ANPR failure double visit cases? Are such PCNs considered collateral damage and tough on the victims who can't prove they returned, when the fault lies squarely with the system (as exposed in a BPA article, and admitted on Watchdog).

Tell them you will be escalating a complaint to the ICO so if they will not tell you how many people actually check each and every PCN before it is issued, and prove that this is true and how those checks are documents (and explain the double-visit huge flaw with the systems), they will have to prove it to the ICO.

Ask what checks are done to exclude Motability vehicles from overstay PCNs or what 'reasonable adjustments' of time periods are added to prevent PCNs being issued to such vehicles which as they know, are only allowed to be used by and for disabled people.

I'd like to ask them what other checks are done to protect disabled people with Blue Badges from getting 'overstay' PCNs because you believe there are none carried out whatsoever, and very few sites have any mention of 'extending time' on signs. Ask how they justify processing data when statutory protection means to charge for using a disabled bay, and taking more time to do daily activities like shopping, is illegal discrimination.

abedegno

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Tell them you will be escalating a complaint to the ICO so if they will not tell you how many people actually check each and every PCN before it is issued, and prove that this is true and how those checks are documents (and explain the double-visit huge flaw with the systems), they will have to prove it to the ICO.
.

From the Gender Pay Gap Report:
https://www.capita.com/media/3082/gender-pay-gap-report.pdf
They have 345 employees.

Assuming a substantive check is 5 minutes per NTK, that's over 300 person(being gender neutral here) hours a day. They would need to have 40 staff (on an 8 hour day) dedicated to checking NTKs.

Coupon-mad

Good work.

Put that to them and suggest they are being economical with the truth about the existence of human manual checks, especially given the prevalence of double dip scam PCNs.

On a side note, IMHO those 345 employees should be ashamed of what they do.

abedegno

So ParkingEye have responded to my data erasure request and are going to anonymise the data they currently have on me, but will continue to collect and retain newly collected personal data for 12 months as per their current policy.

Dear Abedegno,

We write further to your request for erasure received on 24 July 2018.

We can confirm that we have now reviewed your request and that we taken steps to anonymise the data held.

It remains our policy, however, that vehicle data collected and processed in respect of our car park management services may be retained for a period of up to 12 months prior to anonymisation. As outlined within our privacy policy, such data may be provided to the police to assist with the prevention and detection of crime. Please note that any further data collected and processed in respect of your VRM, should you utilise ParkingEye car parks in the future, will be retained in line with this policy.

Castle

abedegno wrote: »

So ParkingEye have responded to my data erasure request and are going to anonymise the data they currently have on me, but will continue to collect and retain newly collected personal data for 12 months as per their current policy.

Let's hope they change the wording on their signs to inform drivers that their data may be shared with the police at any time over the next 12 months.

Fruitcake

abedegno, PE stated in one of your posts that they hold the data for the reason it was requested from the DVLA, which is car park mis-management blah blah blah, yet in another quote they say they are keeping it for a twelve month in case the police ask for it.

By their own admission in the former, the latter is not the original reason it was requested, and they should not therefore be hanging on to it.

beamerguy

As outlined within our privacy policy, such data may be provided to the police to assist with the prevention and detection of crime.[/B

A feeble excuse from PE.

They are only an unregulated parking company
operating dodgy ANPR and BPA confirmed ANPR
is not 100% accurate ???

The police would not want to use unreliable information
especially the double dip scenario.

This is PE thinking they are on a higher level than
they really are

Coupon-mad

How is it in any way reasonable to retain all ANPR images for 12 months in case the Police want it? That is ludicrous and excessive, and something to put to the ICO.