NCP Notice and BWLegal LoC - a few questions (have read #NEWBIE sticky)

mooch

I have read the #NEWBIES sticky and would just like to check that I am taking the correct action before proceeding.

I received the PCNTK from NCP followed by a demand for payment from Trace Debt Recovery and most recently a Letter of Claim from BWlegal.

I have ignored all letters up to this point.

The Letter of Claim says that a County Court Claim will be issued if they have not received a response or payment by 23/01/19.

Step 1) I have drafted a SAR. Should I go ahead and email it to NCP Data Protection Officer or post it here first to check?

Step 2) I have drafted a letter to BW legal informing them that I am submitting the SAR to NCP.

Their LoC encourages me to sign up to their online account to manage the case. Should I do so, or just email them?

The PCNTK states "the charge having been incurred due to the following breach of the car park terms and conditions of use: Parked longer than the time paid for and liability for the same having been brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the site ("XXXX") at the time of parking. The breach relating to the period of parking was recorded by an approved ANPR camera".

The Evidence (with photos) shows entry on Saturday morning and exit the following Monday evening. The vehicle is regularly parked in the car park for less than 2hr periods on Saturdays and also on Mondays for a recurring appointment, but never continuously for the entire period. It is 8 miles away from my house and would never be left there for that period as it is the only vehicle in a busy family household.

In my rebuttal to the LoC, should I send all of my evidence to why the vehicle was not parked there for the whole period (other parking tickets for same time of day on other days, credit card statement showing whereabouts elsewhere etc.) or should I keep it to bullet points without supporting photos/documents.

I did not appeal the PCNTK so does that mean I cannot appeal to POPLA?

The car park is one in the centre of town, but does not belong or is not attached to any retailer or building. Is it worth complaining the the Landowner? I'm not sure how I could find who that is.

Thank you all for you time and patience. I appreciate the voluntary efforts you all make and have and will continue to try to keep your work to a minimum by absorbing as much from the forum posts as possible before posting myself.

The_Deep

This is a double dip, easy to win, read some of these

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5550336/double-dip-parking-list-of-cases

and complain to your MP as it is the will of Parliament that these scammers, (very often former clampers), be put out of business.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

mooch

Thank you. That makes me more confident that I can fight this charge. I will write to my local MP to complain.

This is 1st time it has happened to me in 25 years of driving, I can't believe these companies get away with relying on a system that is so flawed.

Here's a video from BBC Watchdog that covers a case of double dipping.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIaKMkO3YVM

I'm shocked by how busy this forum is. I think my post from this morning is already on page 3. I would truly appreciate it if someone in the know could answer some of my questions above so that I can start fighting back.

KeithP

Send the SAR and the response to BWL soonest.


When you receive your Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre, please post the Issue Date here.

mooch

Thanks. I'll compose and email the SAR and BWL response tonight.

In the BWL response, should I keep it brief or fully present my evidence with accompanying documents?

KeithP

mooch wrote: »

In the BWL response, should I keep it brief or fully present my evidence with accompanying documents?

IMHO, keep it brief.

Coupon-mad

But with evidence of the double dip and telling them your MP is now involved.

Redx

mooch wrote: »

Step 1) I have drafted a SAR. Should I go ahead and email it to NCP Data Protection Officer or post it here first to check?

Step 2) I have drafted a letter to BW legal informing them that I am submitting the SAR to NCP.

3) Their LoC encourages me to sign up to their online account to manage the case. Should I do so, or just email them?

4) In my rebuttal to the LoC, should I send all of my evidence to why the vehicle was not parked there for the whole period (other parking tickets for same time of day on other days, credit card statement showing whereabouts elsewhere etc.) or should I keep it to bullet points without supporting photos/documents.


5) I did not appeal the PCNTK so does that mean I cannot appeal to POPLA?

6) The car park is one in the centre of town, but does not belong or is not attached to any retailer or building. Is it worth complaining the the Landowner? I'm not sure how I could find who that is.

Step 1) CORRECT

Step 2) CORRECT

3) NO , DEFINITELY not

4) as above in post #7, include COPIES of the evidence of the double dip scenario

5) CORRECT

6) check with the COUNCIL who pays the NDR

alternatively (or as well) , check with the Land Registry for about £3

mooch

I emailed the SAR to NCP and the rebuttal to bwlegal.

I received an acknowledgment from bwlegal and a response from NCP.

This is what NCP wrote back

Dear Mr XXXXX XXXX

I refer to your subject access request received 21/01/2019.

Please find attached a copy of the information we hold in regards to your request.

If there are any specific pieces of information which you do not believe has been provided, please contact us and we will seek to address your concerns.

If you feel that the company’s actions have fallen short of your expectations, then you can contact the Information Commissioner to highlight your concerns.

The Information Commissioner’s contact details are;

Telephone: 03031231113

Address: The Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
SK9 5AF

If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact DataProtection@ncp.co.uk.

Antony Wooller

National Car Parks Ltd
NML House, 61 High Street, Manchester. M4 1AZ

---

The email response came with 2 attachments.

The one named "*SITE NAME* Site Enforcement Pack - POPLA.pdf" is 0 bytes when I try to download it and will not download, preview or save.

The second named "Subject Access request *MY NAME*.pdf" just has :

- My details
- My vehicle details
- a note to say they imported my details from DVLA.
- 1 photo of entry and 1 of exit (as in the PCN)
- 2 photos of the license plate
- a copy of the Keeper Liability Notice
- a copy of the PCN

That's all they sent. I'm not sure what was supposed to be in the Site Enforcement Pack, but this is the data I have NOT received that was requested in the SAR.

- ALL photographs taken of the vehicle registration number XXX XXX registered to XXXXX between 01/08/2018 and 21/01/2019. In particular 11/08/19 between 0930hrs and 1130hrs and 13/08/19 between 1630hrs and 1830hrs. There is should be one entry and one exit for both the 11/08/19 and 13/08/19, so I expect at the minimum to receive 2 photos on each of these days.
- A close up photograph of the signage in and around the site (*SITE NAME*) on 11/08/2018 and 13/08/2018.
- Documents to show that Trace Debt Recovery UK Limited have been paid to facilitate the collection of monies relating to this charge.
- The PDT machine records of NCP site (*SITE NAME*) on 11/08/2018 and 13/08/2018.

---

* Note I requested all the photos from 01/08/2018 to this point because I want evidence that the vehicle is regularly parked in this car park several times/week, always for approx 1hr and always on the same days of the week and same time of day.

What would you advise I do next regarding the lack of information requested and the empty file attachment that I was sent?

Thank you all for the time taken and advice given.

Coupon-mad

Email them back, but don't ask for these of the DPO, as these are not personal data:

- A close up photograph of the signage in and around the site (*SITE NAME*) on 11/08/2018 and 13/08/2018.
- Documents to show that Trace Debt Recovery UK Limited have been paid to facilitate the collection of monies relating to this charge.

You can ask BW Legal for the above, citing the PAP for Debt Claims.

Personal data requests are not to be mixed with requests for info under the PAP.

mooch

I emailed the DPO back and they sent the Transaction Report with registrations showing that parking was paid for on 11/08/18 and 13/08/18 but they claim that "we don’t have two images for each date as we have no record of you exiting on 11th and entering on 13th."

The email goes on to say "You have not contravened since the above date but have used the car park. See attached the other images captured. We only hold none contravention images for 90 days."

and they have attached a zip file will only 4 photos of vehicle + close ups of license plate.
The timestamps on the photos are 31/10/18 1638hrs (front), 05/12/18 1654hrs (front), 05/12/18 1815hrs (rear) and 07/01/19 1811hrs (rear).

I was very clear in my previous email that I wanted ALL of the photos they hold of the vehicle.

This is what I said:

---

"In my request, I asked for ALL photographs taken of the vehicle registration number XXXX XXX registered to XXXXXX between 01/08/2018 and 21/01/2019. In particular 11/08/19 between 0930hrs and 1130hrs and 13/08/19 between 1630hrs and 1830hrs. There is should be one entry and one exit for both the 11/08/19 and 13/08/19, so I expect at the minimum to receive 2 photos on each of these days.

I only received 4 photographs in the file named "Subject Access Request for XXXXX.pdf".

These photographs are 2 timestamped vehicle photos and 2 close up license plate photos.

Are these all the photographs that you hold of vehicle registration number XXXX XXX taken between 01/08/2018 and 21/01/2019?

My request for photographs is to establish that the vehicle exited the site on 11/08/18 and entered the site on 13/08/18. The ANPR photographs should show that. In addition, you should hold many more photographs of the vehicle entering and exiting the site on previous and subsequent dates within the period of 01/08/2018 to 21/01/2019, as the vehicle is regularly parked there multiple times per week.

The photographs you hold will establish that these times are repeated week on week and show a pattern that is not consistent with the prolonged parking period alleged in Parking Charge Notice number XXXXXXXXX.

If you are not able to supply me with the photographs requested, I will take that to show that the ANPR system used in XXXXXXX site is defective in so far as it does not record all vehicle entries and exits."

---

The vehicle has entered and exited the site easily more than a dozen times in the 90 day period they say they have records for and yet they have only provided me with photos from 3 days in that 90 day period AND 1 of those days only has the entry photo and another day only has the exit photo. The email says that I have not contravened since the date of the claimed infraction, so does that not show that the ANPR is not working if they do not have photos for all the times the vehicle has entered and exited the site (I have made sure to keep the tickets since getting the PCN)?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Email them back, but don't ask for these of the DPO, as these are not personal data:

You can ask BW Legal for the above, citing the PAP for Debt Claims.

Personal data requests are not to be mixed with requests for info under the PAP.

Thanks. I realise now that information should not have been requested in the SAR to the DPO. The NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread #2 of the stickie implies that you should ask for those in the SAR which is why I made that mistake. Maybe that should be updated.