OK whats my next move?

Redx

sparkyhx wrote: »

I the guidelines are there and seem fairly clear, why don't the parking companies fix the NTK's to make them POFA compliant? It seems bizarre they deliberately don't follow process and continue to not follow process, surely it would be easy to correct them and remove the defence

Or am I missing something?

yes you are missing something , its in their interests to keep it complicated and fool the public and not comply with any laws, especially when parliament didnt make it MANDATORY

what you are missing is the 18 month debate so far by MP,s on these issues, so read this https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5929244/parking-code-of-practice-bill-what-should-be-in-the-new-code-of-practice and read some of the posts by THE DEEP where he lists the iplayer videos you can watch

lets assume that before this time next year the new CoP will be in place and let us hope they make POFA2012 mandatory and not discretionary as it is now

think of it as like the traffic light system on labelling, its been around for 5 years yet Kelloggs are only just starting it from jan 2019 !! (despite Hugh Fearmley Whittingstall taking them to task over it last year) - ie:- its not mandatory, but it SHOULD BE

nosferatu1001

I would suggest you ensure you inform them of your intention to claim full costs, as they are fuly aware they have no reasonable prospectt of success, and are behaving unreasonably by making this claim.

Coupon-mad

Some do fix their NTKs. CEL, Britannia and NCP recently have done.

nosferatu1001

Its just amazing it took them 6 years to do so
POFA compliance isnt even hard.

sparkyhx

@nosferatu

That's the bit that's puzzling me - its not hard - so why do they not fix them and remove that one particular 'get out' for the keeper? From what I can gather - if they follow the correct process there is no argument - responsibility is the keepers. Is it just laziness?

The keeper is then left arguing other points.
Ah well, all hail non POFA NTK's

re-claiming costs.........all done.
I wonder how many and how frequent SAR's can you put in before you get refused.

Castle

sparkyhx wrote: »

I wonder how many and how frequent SAR's can you put in before you get refused.

Every time you pass an ANPR camera your personal data is being captured and then processed; so you could send a SAR every time you use an ANPR car park.

sparkyhx

technically, but there is an 'excessive request' clause allowing them to refuse/charge a fee.

Mind you even proccessing the request and 'refusing' will cost them :-)

nosferatu1001

You can also argue that, as thi sis a new event with a new data capture, thi sis not excessive - yo are not asking for the same data, but new data. Then if they refuse, complain to the ICO who will cahrge them for investingating them...

Castle

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

You can also argue that, as thi sis a new event with a new data capture, thi sis not excessive - yo are not asking for the same data, but new data. Then if they refuse, complain to the ICO who will cahrge them for investingating them...

Indeed; simply restrict your enquiry to a specific but different month each time. It quite easy to visit 20-30 car parks in a month, each visit meaning a new contract.

sparkyhx

oh I do like the sound of that, we probably use the same car park weekly