Aldi Parking Eye - Successful Appeal with apology from Aldi...

bergkamp

AmaniA wrote: »

.......I am telling you without a shadow of a doubt some of the comments I’ve received from the negative few are more than enough to cause hurt. It’s not worth hanging around if your potentially vulnerable with this.

That sums up the ' Internet ' does it not.....

AmaniA

Just for info - response from DVLA to my GDPR breach email via Resolver:

Dear xxxxx

Thank you for your correspondence.

Regulation 27 of Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 allows vehicle keeper details to be disclosed to third parties who can demonstrate that they have a reasonable cause to receive it. This Regulation provides a legal gateway for the release of information and is not based on the consent of the data subject.

The release of information to private car parking companies is considered to be a reasonable cause. Landowners would have great difficulty in enforcing their rights if motorists were able to park with impunity on private property. This does not infringe Data Protection Law and the Information Commissioner (ICO) is aware that personal data held on the vehicle register can be used in this way.
I have investigated your complaint and have been advised it appears that the ANPR system may not have recorded the vehicle movements correctly. From the photographs, the rear of the vehicle has a covering of dust/ dirt which starts just above the vehicle plate. This may have contributed to the ANPR camera failing to capture the VRM accurately on the date of the event.

ParkingEye Ltd has confirmed the parking charge notice has been cancelled and you were informed of this on 6th February. All personal data will be removed from their systems.

The names and addresses of registered keepers of vehicles can be lawfully released to those who can demonstrate reasonable cause to receive it. The DVLA provides vehicle keeper details as a first point of contact, to establish where liability for an incident or event may lie. Refusal to disclose these details to private car parking management companies would mean that motorists would be able to park on private land with disregard for the conditions applying with little prospect of being held accountable.

The company in question, ParkingEye Ltd is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) which is an Accredited Trade Association for the parking industry. The BPA’s code of practice is published on its website at https://www.britishparking... under the heading “Approved Operators Scheme”. If a member of this scheme does not comply with the code of practice, it may be suspended or expelled, during which time no data will be provided to it by the DVLA. If you feel that any of the practices used by the company do not comply with the BPA’s code of practice, you may wish to contact the BPA at Stuart House, 41- 43 Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, RH16 3BN.

I trust I have explained matters but, if you remain unhappy with the service you have received, you can write to our Complaints Team and I have provided a link to our complaints procedure for your reference.

Yours sincerely

AmaniA

Just for info, my reply:

Thank you for your recent response.

Before I escalate my complaint as you suggest and make my report to the ICO, I would like to give you a reasonable opportunity to respond to my points below, which directly and fairly address the points made in your response.

I agree that landowners must be able to reasonably deter those who do not adhere to their private car parks' terms and conditions. Not least of all for the benefit of customers like me so we are able to find a parking space at their sites so we can provide them with revenue and purchase the good and services we need. And personally, I agree that private car parking companies should be able to obtain motorists' details from the DVLA if the private car parking companies can demonstrate reasonable cause and good enough evidence of an infraction.

However, with the wealth of information and large number of case studies available in the public domain, I see evidence that an unacceptable number of motorists over an unacceptable number of years, have and are continuing to be contacted with notices to pay penalty charges completely unfairly as a result of ANPR system use by private car parking companies. I believe this demonstrates with irrefutable evidence that the DVLA’s ‘reasonable cause’ parameters to release motorists’ personal data under these circumstances need to be urgently reviewed. Why has this not been done? BBC’s Watchdog reported on this activity in 2018 and the activity even has a name - "Double Dipping Scam”.

The BBC Watchdog Report in April 2018 has a quote from ParkingEye about cases like mine being rare. I’m sure, following this report, the DVLA looked into the number of occurrences? Can you tell me how many cases like mine occurred at Parking Eye sites in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 and how many sites Parking Eye managed in each of those years?

Here’s the BBC Watchdog summary for your information: bbc....uk/programmes/articles/1Q8WCKXkmC75Qq4zTPbnbGv/parkingeye

The private parking companies have other alternatives to ANPR - ticket machines with a refund when a motorist spends money in the landowner’s business, smart phone apps, or a system where motorists log their registration number etc. However, the responsibility of fixing the ANPR failures issue and finding solutions falls to you and the private parking companies.

You advise, that from the photographs of my vehicle, you believe that dust or dirt above my rear number plate may have contributed to the ANPR camera failing to capture the vehicle leaving the car park on 26 Jan 2019. If I accept that this happened, why did the ANPR camera subsequently fail to capture a clear picture of my front number plate (the front plate had no surrounding / above / below obscuring dirt or dust) when I entered the car park on 27th Jan 2019?

And regarding my rear number plate, doesn’t a number plate normally get dirtier with time and road use rather than cleaner? Therefore if the rear number plate was clearly visible enough (and not obscured at all) to enable Parking Eye’s ANPR camera to provide you with clear 'reasonable cause evidence’ readable photo of it on 27 Jan 2019, the propensity of evidence regarding this would surely indicate that there is no legitimate reason that the camera was unable to take a clear photo of my rear number plate as it left the car park on 26 Jan 2019?

And why are Parking Eye still keeping the photographs of my vehicle and its number plates when the parking ticket was cancelled on the 6 Feb 2019? Surely under their own data holding and use terms they should have deleted and safely disposed of all my personal information as soon as the charge was cancelled?

I do not believe there is just, reasonable cause for you to have released my information. The numerous publicly stated cases of this "Double Dipping" scenario involving Parking Eye that you have a responsibility to be aware of, and are now even more aware of due to the information I provide you with, means that I believe the DVLA is actually in dereliction of its duty with regard to personal data in this matter. I hope and strongly recommend that you now suspend passing the personal data of motorists to Parking Eye, requested by them purely on the basis of ANPR captured photographic evidence, pending a full investigation carried out by an impartial organisation.

And can you tell me how much revenue the DVLA has received from Parking Eye by passing Parking Eye the personal information of motorists due to pure ANPR evidence in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018?

I would also like to point out that the British Parking Association (BPA), although a not for profit organisation, is not a legal or impartial regulator of the industry. Again I believe you are in dereliction of your duty by misleading with the statement you make about this to me (and seem to provide in other replies to similar GDPR breach reports made by motorists to the DVLA). I believe that your wording about the BPA misleads members of the public into thinking that the BPA have legislative powers. The BPA was set up by the Private Parking Industry. BPA members pay to be members and the BPA exists for the benefit of its members, it has no public responsibilities or duty of care to motorists or users of private car parks.

I look forward to hearing form you at your earliest convenience.

BrownTrout

you appear to enjoy complaining to no avail

Half_way

I would take it further, your repy appears to be a standard brush off, particularly this :

I have investigated your complaint and have been advised it appears that the ANPR system may not have recorded the vehicle movements correctly. From the photographs, the rear of the vehicle has a covering of dust/ dirt which starts just above the vehicle plate. This may have contributed to the ANPR camera failing to capture the VRM accurately on the date of the event.

If ANPR can be fooled by a mere dirty car, then it is not fit for purpose.
These flaws are well known, and the fact that a company is relying on flawed data systems is no excuse.
If there is no manual data checking, such as osmeone physicaly checking the car park for overstaying vehicles to back up flawed autoamted ANPR systems then it could be argued that reasonable care has not taken place to ensure data acuracy.


Pull the reply to bits, a continue up the chain.
If you can pull ALDI into this as well

AmaniA

Half_way wrote: »

I would take it further, your repy appears to be a standard brush off, particularly this :





If ANPR can be fooled by a mere dirty car, then it is not fit for purpose.
These flaws are well known, and the fact that a company is relying on flawed data systems is no excuse.
If there is no manual data checking, such as osmeone physicaly checking the car park for overstaying vehicles to back up flawed autoamted ANPR systems then it could be argued that reasonable care has not taken place to ensure data acuracy.


Pull the reply to bits, a continue up the chain.

If you can pull ALDI into this as well

Absolutely, I will. And the photo of the number plate they say was dirty wasn’t dirty enough to obscure anything... the photo still very clearly shows the reg number, even at a distance... but none of the DVLA reasons had any substance or even much common sense about them. I thought they’d make much more of an effort. But I guess complete ‘innocence’ in regard to even Parking Eye’s own definition of ‘innocence’, and irrefutable proof of this on my part helps - it’s always very hard to put a good case against someone who is just simply in the right.

What you say about Aldi, defitiely for sure. i’ll Involve Aldi officially in the GDPR complaint when Parking Eye come back to me, most likely dismissing the GDPR breach complaint i’ve put into them, or when the 30 days are up should PE just ignore the 30 day timescale. No rush, i’ll just take each part as it comes.

I’m using MSE’s Resolver online tool for each case too which is really helpful.

Coupon-mad

I have investigated your complaint and have been advised it appears that the ANPR system may not have recorded the vehicle movements correctly. From the photographs, the rear of the vehicle has a covering of dust/ dirt which starts just above the vehicle plate. This may have contributed to the ANPR camera failing to capture the VRM accurately on the date of the event.

How did the DVLA see any photographs, from you?

DoaM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

How did the DVLA see any photographs, from you?

I think I know where you may be going with this.

AmaniA

Coupon-mad wrote: »

How did the DVLA see any photographs, from you?

Very good point ...because Parking Eye sent them the photos... I’ve addressed that in my reply to the DVLA

AmaniA

Coupon-mad wrote: »

How did the DVLA see any photographs, from you?

DoaM wrote: »

I think I know where you may be going with this.

: ) I addressed it like this in my reply back to the DVLA:

‘...why are Parking Eye still keeping the photographs of my vehicle and its number plates when the parking ticket was cancelled on the 6 Feb 2019? Surely under their own data holding and use terms they should have deleted and safely disposed of all my personal information as soon as the charge was cancelled.”

Although DVLA already hold all my personal data inc car info so it’s not necessarily a GDPR breach passing it back I think (?) so I just simply asked the question about any personal data PE may be keeping. PE may argue they reasonably need to keep it because i’ve raised a complaint against them and they need it to investigate...