High Point Village PCN by PCM

Coupon-mad

Can I reply to their letter using their online appeal form again

No. Stop appealing. It's pointless.

You must contact their DPO and I told you how to find their contact details, and what to say, and what to do after that, and what to say to the ICO.

princess989

I have just noticed their website is not secure. So, they are holding photo evidence on unsecured servers and God knows what else. Even the appeals page isn't secure.

Coupon-mad

Great, more ammo for the ICO complaint then, after you have gone through the motions with PCM's so-called DPO.

You sound like you could build up quite a complaint here for the ICO. Let us know.

princess989

Hi Coupon-Mad.

Please can you advise if this will be enough to email the DPO together with photo evidence? Thank you.

Dear A Clark,

I am writing to you to complain about the data processing of my personal details that I strongly believe you have obtained without a good valid reason.

I believe there is no reasonable, justifiable cause for you to obtain my details from the DVLA based on a 28 second stop photographic evidence because:

The signs identifying High Point Village are located half way inside the road, thus not providing drivers with fair, advanced warning that they are entering a private road.

The signs show a distinctive green P, which misleadingly leads drivers to think that parking is available there and think nothing else of reading the rest of the sign or you'll be blocking the traffic behind you if you stop to read it. There is little time to read what the signs say exactly in full and drive safely at the same time. It is not possible to read detailed signs with small fonts and drive at the same time. In addition, no information is given about entering any contract or any parking charges and the amount being charged on the first signs drivers encounter as they enter the road half way through. There are additional signs displaying these details by the parking bays but at an unreasonable, unfair height that can easily be missed by drivers on a drop off basis only because there is no need for them to get out of the car.

Reasonable time should be provided for drivers to read and understand the signs with the full terms and conditions, particularly if the signs are positioned in such a way that requires the driver to stop and get out of the car. If you look at your own photo evidence the driver of this car could not have possibly spotted the sign and read it from inside the car. He would have had to get out of the car to spot and read the sign, which requires a reasonable amount of time and 28 seconds is not a reasonable amount of time. You can see it is unreasonably high in relation to the passenger standing by the car. It is not at a reasonable eye level, you must tilt your head back to read it even standing outside the car.

In this retrospect you are actually breaking IPC's Code of Practice point 15.1 which reads:

Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.

The white road markings identifying it as a private road and the restrictions of no stopping , collecting or dropping are partially obscured by a hump. In addition, no driver stands a chance to spot these road markings if there is another car driving in front of you or you are in a line of traffic. Moreover, as shown on my own photo evidence the white road markings are partially faded due to lack of maintenance and therefore, not clearly readable instantly in addition to being obscured by the hump and the fact they will be completely obscured by other cars driving in front. In your reply letter, you sent me an enhanced photo of the same road markings taken from a standing position that does not compare to what it looks like now and it is of a pedestrian's view standing right in front of the sign with no cars blocking the markings.

I have serious concerns about PCM taking intrusive photos of the passenger and daughter walking away from the car and into the building. I believe the parking attendant took more photographs than were necessary and I am not happy with a number of them being held in your servers. You are breaking one of the eight principles of the data protection act: the information obtained must be adequate, relevant and not excessive.

As seen on photo evidence, I am extremely alarmed at the lack of a security certificate on your site. This means that all information you are holding on individuals, including photo evidence and information entered online onto your appeal forms is being compromised. You are failing to meet one of the eight principles of the Data Protection Act: keeping data secure.

The land owner did not suffer any damages or losses that justify a charge of £100, particularly as the vehicle was not causing any obstruction and no service was provided to the driver that justify such an exorbitant charge.

Coupon-mad

No, that reads as an appeal. You must start again, stop trying to appeal.

The DPO complaint is only about data processing concerns, with you having read the GDPR so you know what to say (I did explain briefly, what to say).

Post #5 explained how to word your brief data processing complaint, no expanding on it, except to add what you also observed about the insecure webpages.

Your complaint should be focussed ONLY on the data use concerns, and will be under a quarter of what you have got there!

princess989

Thank you. This is all so new to me. I have made changes.

How does it look now? Will this be ok? I realised looking at the photos again that the actual stop is 19 seconds and not 28 as the last photo is from the car driving off and the previous one, with the car still stationery, was taken 9 seconds earlier.

I am writing to you to complain about the data processing of my personal details that I strongly believe you have obtained without a good valid reason.

I believe there is no reasonable, justifiable cause for you to obtain my details from the DVLA based on a 19 second stop photographic evidence because:

Reasonable time should be provided for drivers to read and understand the signs with the full terms and conditions, particularly if the signs are positioned in such a way that requires the driver to stop and get out of the car. If you look at your own photo evidence the driver of this car could not have possibly spotted the sign and read it from inside the car. They would have had to get out of the car to spot and read the sign, which requires a reasonable amount of time and 19 seconds is not a reasonable amount of time. You can see it is unreasonably high in relation to the passenger standing by the car. It is not at a reasonable eye level, you must tilt your head back to read it even standing outside the car.

In this retrospect you are actually breaking IPC's Code of Practice point 15.1 which reads:

Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.

The Keeper at Date of Event Contract with the DVLA requires private parking companies to comply with its accredited trade association code of practice, in your case IPC, and you have clearly failed to do so by breaching point 15.1 above. This means you have obtained my data from the DVLA fraudulently by denying the driver sufficient time to park and read the sign.

I have serious concerns about PCM taking intrusive photos of the passenger and daughter walking away from the car and into the building. I believe the parking attendant took more photographs than were necessary ( this is harassment) and I am not happy with a number of them being held in your servers. You are breaking one of the eight principles of the data protection act: the information obtained must be adequate, relevant and not excessive.

As seen on photo evidence, I am extremely alarmed at the lack of a security certificate on your site. This means that all information you are holding on individuals, including photo evidence and information entered online onto your appeal forms is being compromised. You are failing to meet one of the eight principles of the Data Protection Act: keeping data safe and secure.
Your intrusion and illegal acquisition of my data is distressing to myself and the passengers. I demand that you immediately cease and desist from processing my personal data, except to inform me that you have complied with this demand. Any further processing of my personal data, including demands for payment or passing my personal data to any third party, will be considered harassment and a flagrant disregard of the GDPR, which will be reported to DVLA and to your ATA, and may result in legal action against you for compensation or damages, including Exemplary or Punitive damages.

Coupon-mad

which will be reported to DVLA and to your ATA, and may result in legal action against you for compensation or damages, including Exemplary or Punitive damages.

...no...you need to point the real way ahead:

which will be reported to the Information Commissioner's Office as soon as I receive your response, along with the evidence I have compiled.

princess989

Hi Coupon-mad. I emailed the letter above to the DPO on 26th September and I have not heard anything from them yet. I wonder whether I have made a mistake by not posting a copy too. What do you think? Should I post one? Do I wait the 28 days to email the ICO with my evidence if I don't get a reply or can I email him sooner?

I went to High Point Village today again and I took some more photos. Their signs are at least 9 feet high but on the opposite side of the road to the parking bays I noticed for the first time ever their signs about a metre tall. This can be easily missed by drivers coming into the road because they are along the double yellow lines, where no one would think of stopping or parking and facing the passenger side and not the driver side. They are too far and small to read from the parking bays on the other side of the road too. Their signs are so wrong. I also saw who must have been their PA standing on the road with a mobile phone waiting to pounce.

Coupon-mad

That's just THREE working days you've given them! I'd expect an acknowledgement at some point this MONTH...they have 30 days to deal with data concerns.

The ICO will expect you to have complained to the trader first, to give them a chance.

I also saw who must have been their PA standing on the road with a mobile phone waiting to pounce.

Mrs Sunglasses?

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/heath-parade-graham-park-way-scam-site.html

princess989

😂😂 Mr Sunglasses. He turned his back when he noticed me taking photos.

I haven't appealed to IPC as I've read other threads that it is a waste of time since the board of directors is the same as Gladstones. But then I saw your thread advising to do it for PCM. I'm a bit confused.