residential parking - Recieved PCN for not displaying my Permit

Scrumpy11

No, sorry, this is mr=e issuing a joint claim against CMS and my the land owner my housing association for breach of the GDPR

Scrumpy11

CMS have ignored my Letter before County Court. My housing are admitting that they are joint controllers but are relying on the contract which I can prove, I never entered one due to signs not conforming to regulations

Scrumpy11

Housings response:

We refer to your letter before claim dated 1 July 2019. This letter is a formal response to that letter and is set out in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Clarion disputes the claim for the following reasons.
On 4 December 1995 your client entered into a tenancy agreement with Mercian Housing Association Limited (now Clarion) and we enclose a copy of that tenancy agreement at appendix 1 of this letter. You will note the tenancy agreement does not expressly provide the right for your client to park his vehicle at the communal parking area. In addition we do not accept that your client acquired an easement for parking over our client's land.
Clarion owns the land that is currently being used as the communal car park and as such is entitled to place conditions of use of that land. Your client has on many occasions been advised that to park in the communal area he will be required to display a relevant parking permit. Clarion issues these permits at no cost to your client and does not consider its requirement to display the permit as onerous.
In paragraph 10 of your letter you refer to the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 2018). This legislation was superseded by the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) on the 25 May 2018. The alleged data protection breach took place on the 25 January 2019 and these will be subject to the new legislation and not the DPA 1998.
Clarion appointed CMS to manage its parking scheme on its behalf however in relation to the processing of personal data CMS and Clarion act as joint controllers.
Clarion Housing Group Limited, a Registered Society under the Cooperative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, registered under reference 28038R and an Exempt Charity. Registered Office: Level 6, 6 More London Place, London, SEI 2DA. HCA Registered No: LH4087 VAT registration No: 675 646 394
Article 4(7) of the GDPR and sections 3(6) and 6(1) of the DPA 2018 defines a controller as a "natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of processing personal data"
CMS as a data controller is responsible for obtaining any information from the DVLA and must ensure that any personal data they receive must be processed lawfully in accordance with Article 6 of the GDPR.
Article 6 of the GDPR sets out the grounds for which a controller may process personal data. Our client asserts that we process your client's personal data pursuant to Article 6.1 (a) of the GDPR (performing a contract with the data subject) and 6.1 (b) (complying with the legal obligation) and 6.1 (f) (pursuing the legitimate interest of the data controller or a third party, except where the data controller interest or fundamental rights and freedoms override the data controller's interest). As such we do not accept that there has been a breach under the DPA 2018 or the GDPR and there cannot be an award of compensation.
Clarion disputes your client's allegations of data protection breaches for the reasons set out above. Your client has failed to demonstrate that Clarion has breached the requirements of the DPA 2018 and the GDPR and your client has failed to quantify and prove the loss he claims he has suffered.
Your client's claim in respect of his own time, your legal costs (even though a claim has not yet been issued) and compensation are wholly without merit and you have not properly set out your client's cause of action.
We trust this matter is at an end. However, if your client intends to pursue his misconceived

claim we will robustly defend the claim.

Coupon-mad

Your client's claim in respect of his own time, your legal costs (even though a claim has not yet been issued) and compensation are wholly without merit and you have not properly set out your client's cause of action.

We trust this matter is at an end. However, if your client intends to pursue his misconceived

Remind us how you set out your claim for compensation, what did you list to claim and what case law did you rely on?

Scrumpy11

My basis is that CMS were operating illegally by not having a valid registered address. CMS were using there old address of which they moved out of in 23 January 2018. They did not have permission to use their former address to Operate/ issuing PCN's from,

Their signs were not conforming to regulations and they lied on the signs which were in place at time of contravention. Giving evidence to the IAS (Image of a sign and a sign in a van) on the 8th March, and changing signs on the 20th March to match evidence... All this I can prove.

Breach of GDPR 2018 - Article 6 of the GDPR sets out the grounds for which a controller may process personal data. No contract had been entered into by myself and CMS as set in under Article 6.1(a) Performing a contract with the Data Subject

Facts of the case
1. I, for some 23 years, have been the occupier of the property situated at Flat 8, Winifride Court, 6 Albert Road, Harborne, Birmingham, B17 0AN, under the terms of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement.

2. In or about 2012, Clarion Housing Group (“Clarion”) appointed Comprehensive Management Services Limited (“CMS”) as its agent to patrol the communal parking areas, and issue private parking charge notices to vehicles not displaying a permit. Unable to give the exact date as Clarion nor CMS seem to know.
.
3. On 25 January 2019, I had parked my vehicle, which was a replacement for his previous vehicle that had been written off in an accident, in the communal parking area, Later that day, I noticed a piece of paper entitled ‘Advance Warning of Parking Charge Notice’ underneath his windscreen wiper. This was the second such incident, the first having occurred on 14 September 2018.

4. On 30 January 2019, I received a Notice To Keeper from CMS, demanding payment of £100. This stated an incorrect location of where the vehicle was parked. This was issues from an invalid address. CMS did not have permission to use the address to which their company is registered to of which the PCN (Invoice) was issued from.

5. I subsequently made an appeal on 8 March 2019 to the Independent Appeals Service (“IAS”), operated by the trade body (“the IPC”) to which CMS belongs. The appeal was dismissed, despite CMS giving false evidence to the IAS regarding which signs were at our scheme, due to actual signs did not conform to current regulations. Therefore, were unenforceable by law. CMS continued to pursue me for the charge and passed my details to an unlicensed debt collector (“ZZPS”) who also sent letters demanding payment.

6. After numerous complaints made to the IPC, they eventually agreed on 10 May 2019 that CMS had not operated in accordance with their Code of Practice, and the charge was cancelled. I believe this was because I had requested for Disclosure to the DLVA, Local Councillor, Trading Standards.

7. I continued to seek reimbursement of my costs from CMS, and on 22 June drove to the registered office of the company in Lytham St Annes, only to find that CMS no longer operated from there, or had any means of receiving post, and the new occupiers had a drawer full of letters addressed to CMS, including some from Companies House.

8. I pay a service charge which includes maintenance of grounds, (carparks) ect. Therefore, I do have rights without to park without conditions being set.

9. CMS are the second company introduced to our scheme, the first was Midlands Parking Contracts (2006-2007), the directors where sent to prison for fraud. CMS are operating in the same way as MPC once did.

Contract/ Signage

11. I had not entered any contract with CMS as their signs did not conform to current regulations (Article 6.1(a) of the General Data Protection regulations 2018 - Performing a contract with the Data Subject). There were no terms and conditions set, so I had not breached any.
12. CMS’s sign was their old companies sign with a piece of paper stuck on top, showing a po-box address; a premium phone number and purported that CMS were a member of the British Parking Association of which they were not.
13 The signs were not made from the right material, not was the text the right size.
14. Subsequently, the signs did not conform to current regulations and the IPC’s Code Of Practice. Further breaching the DVLA;s KADOE contract.
11. Consumer Contract Regulations 2013 - The signage at this location fails to create any contractual liability due to the failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The purported contract created by the signage is a ‘distance contract’ as defined in section 5 of the Regulations and is therefore subject to the mandatory requirements set out in section 13, relating to the statutory information which must be provided by the trader. - CMS's sign did not conform to regulations. Therefore, there was no contract
12. CMS denied me a fair right of appeal, fabricating evidence against me regarding what signs were at our scheme on the date of alleged contravention. This was supplied to and accepted by the Independent Appeals Association.
13. CMS’s new signs which appeared on the 20 March 2019 do not conform to current regulations. CMS are displaying the address and phone number of ZZPS LTS, an unlicensed debt company which CMS use for Administration and Debt collection purposes.
14. ZZPS have stated, “ZZPS Limited and Comprehensive Management Service Limited (CMS) are separate legal entities and do not operate from the same business address.”
15. Clarion are held to be jointly and severally liable, in that they failed to ensure that their agent acted in accordance with Statutory legislation, and/or in compliance with the IPC Code of Practice. Further breaching the DVLA’s Keeper at Date of Entry (“KADOE”) contract.

Parking Operator’s registered address of which PCN’s were issued from

16. CMS were in Breach of the Companies (Trading) Regulations 2008, The companies Act 2006 from 23 January 2018 – 24 July 2019, for: Not having a registered address which their company was registered to; Running their company from their former address of which they did not have permission to.
17. CMS have knowingly been operating fraudulently by stating to clients and various agencies, that they still collect mail from their old address, in a vain effort to try and legitimise their right to run their company from their former address.
18. Any PCN issued from 24 January 2018 – 24 July 2019 has been issued fraudulently as the company were aware of their trading obligations.
19. CMS have been Issuing, taking payments for, or threatening legal action for Parking Changes which were incorrectly issued against a motorist. A PCN is an Invoice, which was issued from their former address, thus invalid and issued fraudulently.
20. Ropert Pinkus Property management state that CMS do not have any permission to use their former address for any purpose.
21. Clarion are held to be jointly and severally liable, in that they failed to ensure that their agent acted in accordance with Statutory legislation, and/or in compliance with the IPC Code of Practice. Further breaching the DVLA’s KADOE contract.

Clarion Housing

22. Clarion Housing have stated that I have no complaint against them, my complaint should be addressed to CMS directly
23. I believe, as Clarion Housing are the Landowners whom contracted this parking company to our scheme, should be held jointly and severally liable as their client has not conformed to statutory legislation, fabricated evidence against a long-time resident (myself).
24. Clarion have let CMS continue at our scheme, despite the company operating fraudulently. Also, fabricating evidence against me of which they would have committed perjury in a Court of law to secure payments.
25. We as residents were never consulted, not agreed to such companies operating at our scheme. Although Clarion Hosing state we did and their legal team state that we did not need to be.
26. These companies offer no Security to our scheme, we have had vehicle thefts, theft from vehicles, criminal damage, fly tipping, people rummaging through our bins looking for personal information to commit identity fraud. Drug dealers and users using the carpark where used needles were left behind
27. Clarion have stated that these companies are needed to stop non residents parking on our carpark, this is false. They were introduced to stop vehicles parking in the entrance to our scheme, restricting access to bin lorries and emergency vehicles. This failed and bollards were introduced.
28. The first company which was introduced was Midlands Parking Contracts (2005-2006) whom were showed on the BBC’s Inside Out programme and ousted as Cowboys. Even after watching the programme My landlord tried to defend their agent.
29. My friend was towed demanding £385 for her vehicle back, not bad for a first date.
30. The Directors and operatives of MPC made threats towards me and even contacted me at my place of work.
31. MPC’s directors faced justice in 2012, by being sent to prison for fraud, (operating without a valid registered address and fabricating evidence), much in the same way CMS have operated.


Breach of the General Data Protection Regulations (“GDPR”) 2018

32. Consequently, CMS had no reasonable cause to obtain and process my personal data, and to share that data with third parties. Clarion, in appointing CMS as its agent, act as joint controllers and were culpably negligent in failing to ensure that data was processed lawfully.

33. Article 4(7) of the GDPR and sections 3(6) and 6(1) of the DPA 2018 defines the controller as a “natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of processing personal data”.

34. CMS as a Data Controller, is responsible for obtaining any information from the DVLA and must ensure that any personal data they receive must be processed lawfully in accordance with Article 6 of the GDPA

35. Article 6 of the GDPR sets out the grounds for which a controller may process personal data.

36. CMS have not fulfilled their obligations under Article 6.1(a) Performing a contract with the Data Subject. Due to their signs did not conform to regulations and no contract was formed.

37. By obtaining and processing the data unlawfully, contrary to the provisions of article 6 of the GDPR 2018, CMS/ Clarion Housing are liable for compensation for the damage and distress consequent upon each breach. Clarion are held to be jointly and severally liable as joint controllers. Clarion failed to ensure that their agent acted in accordance with statutory legislation, and/or in compliance with the IPC Code of Practice.

38. Pursuant, I am entitled to seek damages for the breach. I rely upon the binding authority in support of his Claim, of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333. In Halliday, the Court of Appeal held that a compensatory sum of up to £750 was deemed ‘appropriate and sufficient’.

39. There were two breaches, at £750 each, totals £1500.
a) the first relates to a PCN dated 18th September 2018, PCN no: 266125000689.
b) The second relates to a PCN dated 30th January 2019. PCN no: 266125001427

Action to be taken:

40. CMS to be removed from our scheme with immediate effect due to their conduct and the manor in which they have been operating.
41. Clarion Housing to Contact all residents to see has fell victim to CMS’s fraudulent Activities.
Fore me to be compensated for the two breaches of the General Data Protection Regulations (“GDPR”) 2018
42. For me to receive compensation to be decided by the courts for the way I have been treated by my landlord. Making me out to be a liar and not believing my evidence which I supplied them. Clarion took the word of their agent over my hard evidence.
43. If the Courts are able to impose sanctions on CMS, then for this to be made so.
44. CMS to be held accountable for their actions.

Coupon-mad

Clarion are held to be jointly and severally liable, in that they failed to ensure that their agent acted in accordance with Statutory legislation, and/or in compliance with the IPC Code of Practice. Further breaching the DVLA’s KADOE contract.

I can't see that Clarion have any duty to ensure the above?

Scrumpy11

This is where I am not sure...

Clarion have admitted that they are joint data contollers.

CMS had no reasonable cause to obtain/ process my personal data from the DVLA. So if clarion are joint data controllers would they also be liable. There was no contract between myself and the parking operator

Clarion are allowing a parking operator to continue operating illegally, of which they have been doing for 19 months.

Im not sure how to approach this as CMS are ignoring my correspondence of which I have not sent to their new registered address.

Coupon-mad

This is a bit specialist and I am not legally trained. Have you got an answer or two from Legal Beagles about this GDPR 'joint data controllers' point as I am not sure we can add anything or advise whether it's worth including Clarion as a Defendant based on their contractor's own actions and omissions that Clarion are not necessarily liable for.

Scrumpy11

I have only got Clarions response to my LBA which states:

"Clarion appointed CMS to manage its parking scheme on its behalf however in relation to the processing of personal data CMS and Clarion act as joint controllers.

Article 4(7) of the GDPR and sections 3(6) and 6(1) of the DPA 2018 defines a controller as a "natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of processing personal data"
CMS as a data controller is responsible for obtaining any information from the DVLA and must ensure that any personal data they receive must be processed lawfully in accordance with Article 6 of the GDPR.
Article 6 of the GDPR sets out the grounds for which a controller may process personal data. Our client asserts that we process your client's personal data pursuant to Article 6.1 (a) of the GDPR (performing a contract with the data subject) and 6.1 (b) (complying with the legal obligation) and 6.1 (f) (pursuing the legitimate interest of the data controller or a third party, except where the data controller interest or fundamental rights and freedoms override the data controller's interest). As such we do not accept that there has been a breach under the DPA 2018 or the GDPR and there cannot be an award of compensation."

Im not a legal expert but I can only assume, "Article 6.1 (a) of the GDPR (performing a contract with the data subject)" is fully relying on their being a contract formed between myself and the operator of which their was not due to their inadequate signage.

Clarion have already stated that they are joint controllers, so to me this is admission that they can be held jointly accountable.

This is all above me and I cannot afford legal assistance. I have tried legal beagles in the past and got no response... I will try again

Thanks all you have been of great assistance regarding this matter.

Coupon-mad

This is all above me and I cannot afford legal assistance. I have tried legal beagles in the past and got no response... I will try again

Does your home insurance include free legal cover? I used mine for free once, with success.