Parking Eye noticeI

Vikingfan

I received a PCN stating that I had over stayed my payment time by 39 minutes , I appealed via writing to them showing them I had paid for 24 hrs as the car park was £5 for 24 hrs at the weekend.
Now I have had a letter back saying I had input my reg incorrectly (which I'm doubting I'm thinking faulty machine).
My reg ends YMA and on the ticket it says YNAM. I never noticed this at the time.
Now they are saying they have reduced my fine to £20 as a sign of goodwill and if it is not paid in this time the payment will increase to it's original value of £100 and a POPLA code will be provided.

Can anyone offer me some advice TIA

Umkomaas

Pay £20 to end it now might be a pragmatic solution for you. PE will have incurred some costs so far in making contact with you and will want some recompense for that.

On the other hand, you might take a principled stance and refuse their offer to settle, but you will need to win an appeal at POPLA (incorrect VRM input, no matter how minor, won't win your appeal at POPLA) to kill off the charge.

If you lose your POPLA appeal, you'll be faced with up to 6 years of potential hassle from debt collectors (ignorable), or the receipt of court proceedings (not ignorable) from PE, which will require a good deal of work by you, then a court hearing, which you might win and pay nothing, or if you lose look at having to pay ~£175 in costs.

Vikingfan

Is reg incorrect sufficient to ask for a penalty payment, when I have paid for sufficient time for my parking,and as far as I'm aware I input the correct number when I put in my reg number as a checked the screen however the parking ticket printed didnt correspond with my reg number.

Vikingfan

or in other words if I went to court do they have to prove their machine is working correctly?

nosferatu1001

If you allege the machine wasn't working and recordd a "0" as "O" (or otherwise) then they woul dhave to provide enough evidence to tip the balance back against you. But are you alleging that>

Le_Kirk

Vikingfan wrote: »

or in other words if I went to court do they have to prove their machine is working correctly?

prove their machine [STRIKE]is[/STRIKE] was working correctly at the time of the incident.

Vikingfan

Le_Kirk wrote: »

prove their machine [STRIKE]is[/STRIKE] was working correctly at the time of the incident.

Yes that's what I meant thanks.
Just wonder do they catch many people out like this.

I sent a scan of my ticket too them which I believe they would have to pay to see, so therefore I believe asking for £20 as a gesture of goodwill is too much, maybe £3 or so for postage

Coupon-mad

My reg ends YMA and on the ticket it says YNAM. I never noticed this at the time.
Now they are saying they have reduced my fine to £20 as a sign of goodwill and if it is not paid in this time the payment will increase to it's original value of £100 and a POPLA code will be provided.

Can anyone offer me some advice TIA

How about a new tactic, which forces them to stop processing the data and consider 'rectifying it' as one of their TWO data streams is clearly inaccurate:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74758519#Comment_74758519

Then if they kick & scream and disagree, drag them to the ICO (an online PDF complaint, easy to do and might work if you explain the issue to the ICO in the right way).

I have tried to explain it in that link and in the example linked within that post. It's a new idea I had today at work, and I think anyone with a wrong VRN (whether caused by a keypad/system error or even fat fingers!) or wrong location code (telephone payments error in data held) should try this.

It can run alongside an appeal or defence...the sooner the rectification notice is lodged the better, do it by email once you've shown us your draft based on my ramblings!

info@parkingeye.co.uk

The two data streams (ANPR versus keypad) mean that a PPC has no excuse IMHO - the ANPR images tell them which data set is correct, and which one needs to be rectified.

No excuse. They know they keypad data is inaccurate and can hardly disagree...surely?

HTH

Vikingfan

Thanks Coupon-Mad
Here is my draft so far.
Dear Sir/Madam
In regards to Ref Number xxxxxxx
It seems to me that after I provided evidence that I had in fact paid the correct amount for my parking, now you have changed tactics and accused me of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration number.
I can assure you that I input my registration details correctly at the time of inputting my detail to purchase my ticket, which leads me to believe if you hadn't at first thought I had outstayed my paid time for the occurrence then this discrepancy would not have been noticed.
I would therefore like the data from the keypad terminal to be checked as, how is it possible to confirm that there is no printing error, sticky keys or anything to cause discrepancies between what is recorded by the ANPR system and the data handled by the ticket dispenser, therefore I would request that your two streams of data are checked and rectified of any errors

Coupon-mad

That's not a rectification notice. That will not get you anywhere; it doesn't mention the GDPR Article 18 and nor is it addressed to the Data Protection Officer.

You are not asking for ''the data from the keypad terminal to be checked''.

Please look again at the link I gave you, for what to say and how to say it.

You must do this properly so they put the data processing on hold and have to reply within 30 days.

Vikingfan

Here is my draft, I have made changes as the company issuing the pcn is Parking eye, and in my case it is a discrepancy between ticket information and ANPR and not a wrong location as in the example you linked too, how does that look, do i need to mention the bit about id as I had already sent a copy of the ticket I purchased to parking eye



Data Rectification Notice - FTAO the Data Controller

It has been brought to my attention that you and your agent connect cashless are aware that your company are storing and processing data that is incorrect, and that Parking Eye know to be incorrect. Under the GDPR,it is required that this be rectified, Parking eye has a legal duty as set out in simple terms by the Information Commissioner, here:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-rectification/

Due to a processing error on your system,there has been inconsistencies between ANPR and the ticket dispensed.
This is a data mismatch and/or error, not caused by the consumer and Parking Eye are aware of this.
As such, you require that Parking Eye tell their agents to rectify the error, which was not keyed in by the driver, but was brought forward by the new system

To expect a consumer to assume the burden of having to notice and override incorrect data every time the system is used by presumption is wholly unreasonable, and this undoubtedly a serious matter for the Information Commissioner to consider.

And it is not just the system that is at fault (Parking Eye being reminded that they remain liable for the actions of their agent, anyway). By failing to rectify the error when advised of it in an appeal, Parking Eye have breached the GDPR and must not continue to rely on what they know or should know, to be inaccurate data.

Not only that, their own data images tell Parking Eye that the vehicle was parked and car park, and that the payment needs to be rectified and matched to that site. The ANPR image is a data stream in its own right and Excel must consider it when addressing this data error, and not blame a consumer

This is clearly wholly within the control of (and is indisputably the data liability of) Parking Eye, and for a parking firm to reject the information in an appeal and mislead a consumer by saying ''we must clarify that this is third-party software for which we are not responsible'' is not only disingenuous, but an untrue statement from the company and the Data Controller must take steps to prevent that sort of flagrant disregard for data protection rules - and negligent misinformation about the law of agency - from happening again.

I require a reply from the Data Controller within 30 days, and you wish to exercise your right to request 'restriction of the processing' of your personal data during this period from contesting the data accuracy, while Parking Eye and its phone payment agent check it, in accordance with Article 18 of the GDPR: