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

DonnySaver

I've been onto the ICO about this.


They say the DVLA have acted correctly. However, NCP have not accurately processed my information. I have the right to get my data corrected - that's it.

Coupon-mad

As expected really.

abedegno

So an update from Parking Eye today advising me they have amended their data retention policy - nothing at all to do with my complaint to the ICO of course

Dear Abedegno
Thank you for your email regarding our review of our retention policy. We can confirm that ParkingEye’s privacy policies remain under regular review. A review was underway prior to your complaint to the ICO in which you expressed concern about our 12 month retention period for ANPR data within ParkingEye car parks where there is no contravention of the terms and conditions of the site.

We can confirm that this retention period has been reduced to 6 months for the storage of data, including the registration mark, relating to the entry or exit of a non-contravening vehicle. Any associated images are retained for 3 months only. Retention of non-contravention data in this way is necessary for effective car park management to enable ParkingEye to treat consumers fairly and cancel PCNs where appropriate for a variety of reasons that are evidenced by the cross referencing of non-contravention data. An example of this is where a regular car park user enters and exits a site more than once in one day but for reasons such as poor weather or other camera obstruction only the first entry and last exit are recorded resulting in a PCN being issued through no fault of ParkingEye. Cross referencing the motorist’s historic regular visits enables ParkingEye to cancel that PCN upon appeal several months later or later still when notified at court proceedings, which cannot happen if that non contravention data is not retained.

Coupon-mad

Well done - the 12 months was excessive.

Computersaysno

I'm amazed the PE are actually admitting that double dipping exists.


No surprised that they then claim that such tickets are issued "through no fault of PE"...of course it's their fault....they could do more to stop double dipping tickets but they choose not to because it earns them money.


Pure scum....

The_Deep

I'm amazed the PE are actually admitting that double dipping exists.

They would struggle to deny it.

The_Deep

We can confirm that this retention period has been reduced to 6 months for the storage of data, including the registration mark, relating to the entry or exit of a non-contravening vehicle

In my view 6 months is unacceptable and unlawful. I am currently contesting a similar reply from PE with the ICO.

fisherjim

An example of this is where a regular car park user enters and exits a site more than once in one day but for reasons such as poor weather or other camera obstruction only the first entry and last exit are recorded resulting in a PCN being issued through no fault of ParkingEye.



From the horses mouth, that's worth keeping for future use isn't it?

trisontana

Computersaysno wrote: »

I'm amazed the PE are actually admitting that double dipping exists.


No surprised that they then claim that such tickets are issued "through no fault of PE"...of course it's their fault....they could do more to stop double dipping tickets but they choose not to because it earns them money.


Pure scum....

I thought they had said previously that all tickets are subject to nearly 20 checks and examinations before they are issued? So how come double-dipping cases still get through?

beamerguy

trisontana wrote: »

I thought they had said previously that all tickets are subject to nearly 20 checks and examinations before they are issued? So how come double-dipping cases still get through?

Because they are living up to their name .. Parking LIE