High Point Village PCN by PCM

Coupon-mad

I'd stick with the ICO complaint as we have not seen PCM cancel at IAS stage recently.

I think I will change the advice back to not bothering at all with IAS, even if it's PCM, because the IAS just roll out some old drivel and wave it through. The only reason for the temporary advice was when PCM were not offering evidence for a while, but now they are and the IAS are swallowing it and propping the 'outrageous scam' up, of course:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5867555/pcm-rejection-letter-received-should-i-appeal-to-ias

princess989

Hi Coupon-mad.

I received this email today from John McDonnell's office manager.

Thank you for your email. Apologies for the delay in responding



We have been battling with this issue since the turning circle at the end was closed for the station refurbishment.



PCM have been employed by the owners of the private land in front of the circle, in order to issue tickets.



John has been working with Trading Standards in regard to their practice and the signage in the area.



As this is private land, the council do not have any jurisdiction on the site either, which is the problem with private land.



We are also working with the British Motorist Protection Association, who have been supporting those who have been caught by this practice. There are other advisors on line, but we have found the BMPA to be brilliant at advising and supporting others who have been ticketed by PCM.



I am really sorry that this has happened to you.



Rest assured, John will continue to press Trading Standards about this practice.



Best wishes,



Helen

Office Manager for John McDonnell MP

Are the BMPA as helpful as she claims or would O be wasting my time?

The 14 days for reduced fine lapsed last Thursday and no answer to my email to the DPO yet. I'm sure this is the calm before the storm now. Should I be doing something or sit and wait.

Thank you.

nosferatu1001

BMPA are very good
Who cares about the reduced offer.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

princess989

I really need some help after receiving this letter from PCM's DPO today. I am not sure how to respond to this now. Any advice and guidance I will appreciate hugely.

I write in response to your recent email correspondence regarding the obtaining and use of your personal data.
I understand that you believe the data to have been obtained unlawfully and wish for processing to be ceased. While you,
indeed, have a right to request this, we do not have to comply with such a request - so long as your data is processed
lawfully and fairly, as per relevant data protection legislation.
On this occasion, we will not be removing your data as we believe we have lawful justification to process and retain your
personal data that does not rely on your consent.
I wish to advise that the legal basis for processing your data is as specified under the General Data Protection Regulations;
6(l)(b) - Processing Is necessary for the performance of a contract with the data subject or take steps to enter Into a
contract
by parking you entered and agree to a contract for the use of the land. As part of these contractual obligations,
you agreed to pay a charge and to pursue this debt, we processed your data. Photographic evidence was taken at
the time of the contravention in order to-evidence this agreement and to eofRply with all relevant legislation.
6(l)(f) - Processing Is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate Interests pursued by the controller or by a third party...
Legitimate interests include the pursuing of contractual obligations, the enforcement of Parking Charge Notices
and protection of landowners' rights as owners of private land, who may contract the operator.
The terms on this site make it clear that there is to be no parking outside of the marked bays. The signage defines what is
meant by 'parking' in the context of the terms where It clarifies - "this includes stopping, waiting & drop & collection". You
will also note that the road is marked with "NO DROP & COLLECTION / PRIVATE ROAD"
I have reviewed the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in question and must advise that I believe it to be correctly issued. The
photographic evidence indicates that you had parked on the access road (out of a bay) for the purpose of a drop off. As
described above, this Is not permitted at any time.
Any driver is, of course, entitled to a reasonable amount of time to consider the terms. The photographic evidence makes
it clear that your primary reason of parking was to drop off passengers, not read the signs. Signs at the entrance make it
clear that parking conditions apply and that one must park wholly within the confines of a marked bay. The driver seems
to make no attempt to read the signage and therefore, this issue is not particularly relevant.
It is not, nor has it ever been, a defence in contract law to say that one "did not read the terms". If one chooses not to
read the signs, they are deemed to have notice of the terms they entail. Otherwise, all drivers could simply refuse to read
the signs and be exempt from the enforcement scheme.
You allege that the evidence captured is excessive and constitutes harassment. This is denied. Images must be taken of
the contravention to act as evidence and comply with all relevant legislation and guidelines. Since drop offs in out-of-bay
areas are not permitted and this is explicitly described by the signage, photographing the drop off would be pertinent.

I have investigated as to why your browser shows our website to be 'Not Secure'. This relates to the data transferring
protocol that is used - HTTP rather than HTTPS. In July 2018, Google Chrome began marking all HTTP websites as 'Not
Secure' in an effort to encourage domain holders to make the move towards HTTPS, which encrypts data that is sent and
received. HTTP is still a relatively secure system, but HTTPS takes the extra step of data encryption.
I wish to assure you that we invest heavily in cybersecurity and protection of personal data is a priority. There have been
no previous attempted malware cyber-attacks/interceptions to our systems or breaches due to insufficient security
measures. Saying this, we have been working closely with our software providers to make the move to HTTPS. I have been
informed that this is in the final stages and should be live as of tomorrow (lO"' October 2018).
I trust this letter addresses your queries and clarifies our position on the matter
Yours sincerely,
A Clark

I refuse to give £100 away to these greedy pigs for an innocent 19 second stop in a place where the sign is 9 ft high up and the road markings can be missed if you have another car in front of you or pedestrians crossing the road. Please help. Do I write to the ICO next or have I exhausted the Data Protection Avenue?

princess989

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

BMPA are very good
Who cares about the reduced offer.

BMPA seems not to exist any more. So who now?

princess989

I am in the middle of writing a letter to the Information Commissioner and I'd appreciate the advice. I am including with this letter:

1. A copy of the letter I emailed to PCM's DPO.
2. A copy of PCM's DPO reply letter.
3. PCM's photographic evidence, which I consider to be excessive and harrassing.
4. Screenshots of PCM's website showing the site is not secure. It still isn't despite adivising on their reply letter that was changing from 11th October.
5. Photos I have taken myself of the area and the signs.
6. Copy of PCM's reply to my appeal.

I am asking the ICO to ask PCM to delete all data they hold about myself and the photographic evidence as there is no justification for them to have it because they have breached IPC's code of conduct with regards to signage, predatory tactic and grace of period.

Please can anyone advice anything else I should say in this letter?

Thank you in advance