ES Parking IAS

Tabz123

BTW also saw this following thread from mid November regarding a fluttering ticket and my heart has sunk somewhat knowing that the person defending lost...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5445806/es-parking-enforcement-ltd&highlight=es+parking+lbc

Coupon-mad

Tabz123 wrote: »

BTW also saw this following thread from mid November regarding a fluttering ticket and my heart has sunk somewhat knowing that the person defending lost...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5445806/es-parking-enforcement-ltd&highlight=es+parking+lbc

We do see the odd case lost. Learn from it! The Judge said:

The matter that the ticket had flipped over - if the Defendant had checked the car before leaving the car park then they would have noticed the ticket was incorrectly displayed.

So what we learn from that is the Defendant needs to say that they DID check the car when it was left and the ticket was clearly on display the right way up. And the D puts the C to strict proof as to when the ticket flipped and why, at the point when their employee was leaning over the vehicle as it is possible to flip a ticket by blowing into the vents/rocking a car.

(I like to play dirty with them, as PPCs have been known to do the above, so say so).

Tabz123 wrote: »

Apologies I am confused...the Subject Access Request? You mean the request for information I sent to ES under GDPR?

Yes, have you already sent that online or by email to the Data Protection Officer (as per their Privacy page)?

Then say so in your LBC reply. Your LBC reply draft made no mention of it and listed a whole load of stuff, which is pointless if you've already listed it in a SAR to their clients...just say so.

Tabz123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We do see the odd case lost. Learn from it! The Judge said:



So what we learn from that is the Defendant needs to say that they DID check the car when it was left and the ticket was clearly on display the right way up. And the D puts the C to strict proof as to when the ticket flipped and why, at the point when their employee was leaning over the vehicle as it is possible to flip a ticket by blowing into the vents/rocking a car.

(I like to play dirty with them, as PPCs have been known to do the above, so say so).



Yes, have you already sent that online or by email to the Data Protection Officer (as per their Privacy page)?

Then say so in your LBC reply. Your LBC reply draft made no mention of it and listed a whole load of stuff, which is pointless if you've already listed it in a SAR to their clients...just say so.

This worries me since I was one of the few whom had not read this forum and had replied to ES suggesting that the ticket may have not been visible due to air vent. Therefore 1.I disclosed that ticket may not have been visible through summisation 2. Responded to the PCN' therefore allowing ES to make assumptions about the identity of the driver
Both I fear will lead to an ill fated outcome.

Tabz123

I have sent them a SAR in the form of two letters. Do I need to send via email too in that case?

Below is my updated LBC response as per your comments:

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter of LCB dated xx.xx.xx

I wish to take this opportunity to point out to you that your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim for costs in question.

I politely request that you send me the following information/documents such I maybe able to better :

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. Whether your clients is pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. Whether you client is relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. What the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. A copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. Any photo evidence applicable to the claim which clearly represents the claim as well as allowing the vehicle to be identifiable (in all representative photos)
9. Copies of any invoices and/or costs of claims your client has allegedly issued

All of the above information has been sent to your client in the form of a SAR. The request has been made on two separate occasions and there have been nil responses to date.

Unfortunately I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it until you are able to provide me with the above information. I greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter

Yours faithfully

xxxxx

Tabz123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We do see the odd case lost. Learn from it! The Judge said:



So what we learn from that is the Defendant needs to say that they DID check the car when it was left and the ticket was clearly on display the right way up. And the D puts the C to strict proof as to when the ticket flipped and why, at the point when their employee was leaning over the vehicle as it is possible to flip a ticket by blowing into the vents/rocking a car.

(I like to play dirty with them, as PPCs have been known to do the above, so say so).



Yes, have you already sent that online or by email to the Data Protection Officer (as per their Privacy page)?

Then say so in your LBC reply. Your LBC reply draft made no mention of it and listed a whole load of stuff, which is pointless if you've already listed it in a SAR to their clients...just say so.

Have now also completed the right of access form online on the ES website... as well as 2 letters in the post. Have also emailed ICO a response that I have received nil response from ES

Tabz123

Below is the response from ICO regarding my ES complaint:

Dear xxx xxx

We write further to previous correspondence. We have now contacted ES Parking Enforcement Ltd (‘ESPEL’) in relation to your data protection concern.

You submitted your request for information on xx June 2018, and a response should therefore have been provided within a calendar month, the day after receipt of the request. We understand no response has been provided to date.

We are therefore of the view that ESPEL has not complied with its data protection obligations in this case. We have now asked ESPEL to reconsider its handling of your request and provide you with a response within 14 days. We have also asked ESPEL to ensure it responds to future data protection concerns raised by you within the statutory time-frames.

If you do not receive a response from ESPEL within 14 days please inform us. We have also contacted ESPEL to provide further advice and guidance in light of this concern.

We do not intend to take further regulatory action in relation to this case, however we will keep details of this case on file to help build a picture of ESPEL’s information rights practices over time. Details gathered from concerns may form the basis for formal regulatory action in the future where appropriate.

We would like to thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Should you wish to discuss this matter further please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely xxx xxx

Tabz123

In the mean time I also received the below email from ES:

Dear Sir

I enclose a Word & PDF version of the same Subject Access request form that we require completing in order for you to identify yourself. Inline with the ICO requirements then we are expected to verify that the data we are sending you is in fact being sent to the correct person. In order to achieve this we require to verify your name & address because this is included within the information that we would be sending back to you.

We will endeavour to return the information within 14 days upon receipt of the completed form and requested validation documentation being received and verified by myself. I can confirm that we have located the requested information and its available for us to send to you with no delay.

Can I therefore request for one of the documents to be completed, duly signed and returned alongside your verification details to this email address

I can confirm now that the verification evidence that you send will ONLY be used for verification purposes and no other purpose.

Regards

Paul Johnson
Data Protection Officer

Tabz123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We do see the odd case lost. Learn from it! The Judge said:



So what we learn from that is the Defendant needs to say that they DID check the car when it was left and the ticket was clearly on display the right way up. And the D puts the C to strict proof as to when the ticket flipped and why, at the point when their employee was leaning over the vehicle as it is possible to flip a ticket by blowing into the vents/rocking a car.

(I like to play dirty with them, as PPCs have been known to do the above, so say so).



Yes, have you already sent that online or by email to the Data Protection Officer (as per their Privacy page)?

Then say so in your LBC reply. Your LBC reply draft made no mention of it and listed a whole load of stuff, which is pointless if you've already listed it in a SAR to their clients...just say so.

Just a few questions for next steps:

1.Send reply to Gladstones covering your earlier points above?
2.Next steps in respect of the ICO/ES data request ?

Coupon-mad

OK so send them the form to identify yourself as the keeper of the car, which they already know from the DVLA but hey...play the game to get the data.

And send a holding reply to Gladstones with a copy of the ICO reply, saying their client is in breach of the GDPR and is addressing that omission, and the case needs to be on hold to address the matter. Say you require data restriction for 30 days, or you will report Gladstones to the ICO as well.

Tabz123

Hi

I have been on holiday and will get these actions sorted this weekend.