Claim against Indigo/ZZPS - no lawful basis

Woppyman72

First draft of claim;

I would like to raise an official complaint/breach of privacy against your company, Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd, now trading as Saba Park Solutions UK Ltd (ICO Registration: Z8325727).

It is my firmly held belief that Indigo Parking Solutions Ltd has obtained my personal details without ‘lawful basis’ and then in their role as Data Controller of my personal information and contrary to the requirements of the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) have shared my personal information with two other parties, again without ‘lawful basis’.

I base this assertion on the following GDPR provisions;

Without my consent. I have specifically informed Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd that I do not give my permission for them to obtain my details from DVLA or pass these on to any Third Party. I have asked to exert my right to restrict processing to which I have not had a satisfactory response.
Contract. No contract has been established between myself and Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd.
Legal Obligation. There is no common law or statutory obligation and this lawful basis does not apply to contractual obligations.
Vital Interests. Not applicable.
Public Task. Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd is not acting in the ‘exercise of an official authority’.
Legitimate Interests. This GDPR exclusion is persuasive “You must balance your interests against the individual’s. If they would not reasonably expect the processing, or if it would cause unjustified harm, their interests are likely to override your legitimate interest”.
Criminal Offence Data. No criminal offence is proven to have taken place. Merely being accused, without any evidence of a criminal offence having been committed, does not constitute a lawful reason to process an individual’s data much less pass on to Third Parties.


Background;

On the x/x//18 ZZPS Limited trading as PCN Admin Centre supplied me a ‘Notice to Owner’, alleging that a criminal offence had been committed against Railway Byelaw 14 (Not parked correctly within a marked bay).

Under Regulation 27 (1) (e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 PCN Admin Centre have obtained my details from the DVLA as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
The quoted regulation states “The Secretary of State may make any particulars contained in the register available for use… by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him.”

My position is that no reasonable cause exists.

Under Railway Byelaws which are a Statutory Instrument under section 219 of the Transport Act 2000, only the driver can be prosecuted, an owner ‘may’ be liable. As I was not the legal owner of this vehicle at the time in question and no evidence has been produced to suggest the identity of the driver, Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd had no reasonable cause for obtaining my details from DVLA as no criminal offence exists for being a Registered Keeper of a vehicle in contravention of a Railway Byelaw.

Even more concerning, ZZPS Limited has made me an offer that if I was to pay them a sum of £100.00 they would not pass my personal details to the Train Operating Company recommending criminal proceedings.
This is an offer I believe contravenes the Bribery Act of 2010, by attempting to influence a right and proper course of action e.g. a Criminal Prosecution, by solicitation of a ‘fee’ (or bribe). This is a serious offence with potential for a 10 year jail sentence to both parties making and receiving the bribe. Notwithstanding this point, at this point ZZPS Limited would be in further breach of my reasonable request to restrict processing.

My personal information has been passed to two debt collection agencies (ZZPS LTD and QDR Solicitors) who have continued to falsely refer to this bribe as a debt, causing me and my family considerable distress and anxiety.

Contained within these letters are consistent threats of criminal prosecution, county court judgements and increasing costs due to ‘administration’.

These intimidating and threatening letters caused directly by this abuse of my personal data, obtained and shared in breach of GDPR regulations, have been the direct cause of my recent distress and anxiety over the last 6 months.

For this reason I am claiming the sum of £500.00 in damages from Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd, now trading as Saba Park Solutions UK Ltd. This is to cover my time, distress and inconvenience in dealing with this matter.

I will also be writing to the ICO to register this formally as a breach of my privacy rights.

Failure to make payment in full or contact me in writing to discuss payment may result in me passing this on to my solicitor for litigation.
This may mean they will look to obtain a County Court Judgement (CCJ).

The possibilities of having a CCJ registered against your company are:

Negatively impact your companies credit file.
Make future borrowing difficult
Affect current contracts or future contracts
Enable enforcement action to commence.

BrownTrout

Anyone got the time?

Woppyman72

Just wondering if every time we win a case we complain to the ICO/threaten PPC with counter claim, taste of their own medicine.

Like you say, it is time consuming though

Coupon-mad

Give it a go; I like people taking this sort of stand against bullies.

Computersaysno

Woppyman72 wrote: »

Just wondering if every time we win a case we complain to the ICO/threaten PPC with counter claim, taste of their own medicine.

Like you say, it is time consuming though

Of course it's worth it if you do it right...


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5723229/maxing-out-the-counterclaim-call-to-action&highlight=maxing+out+counterclaim

The_Deep

I am not sure that a PC needs your permission to access DVLA records, they must show "just cause", but AFAIAA, anyone can do it.

In the case of land covered by bye laws, a PCN can enquire of the keeper the identity of the driver. Passing your details to debt collectors may well however be a breach of the DPA, So complain also to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Le_Kirk

I would reword your opening sentence - it is too nice!
I am raising an official complaint against ......... OR
Please treat this as an official complaint against ..........

Treensie

I've had a letter from ZZPS replying that they cannot discuss with me due to the data protection act. I am the keeper and wrote to them as per the template, advising I was keeper not accepting liability or implying who the driver was. Do I ignore this? They addressed the initial letter to PREVIOUS keeper, but at my address.

Le_Kirk

@Treensie did you mean to post on your thread rather than on someone else's?

snorben100

I have today written to the DVLA asking why Zantos have sent me SIX letters before action for a totally different car and registration number to mine, The car which they alleged had failed to pay at Luton train station was an Audi whose VRM ended in an X. My Micra ends in an A. After receiving 4 letters, I sent a strong reply accompanied with a Specsaver leaflet. I received a further lba then an apology withdrawing all 5 notices. apologising and stating it would not happen again. It HAS. In those circumstances I have written to the Data Protection Officer at the DVLA as clearly it is impossible for Saba Park/Govia Thameslink/ZZPS to claim that Regulation 27 applies. Furthermore, it would appear that having unlawfully obtained my data , the applicants have compounded the situation by wrongfully retaining my data and breaching the undertaking not to further misidentify my car. I

snorben100

From other persons posts and my unhappy experience, there is an issue as to whether ZZPS are properly applying for data under section 127of the RVR 2002. I thought I read somewhere that if an Applicant is shown to have made unreasonable searches, the DVLA can refuse to co operate with them? Having sent my complaint to the DVLA( 6 misidentifications, one after they had promised not to make any further false claim), I am wondering what further action to take. Arguably , having committed data protection breaches and defamed me Saba Park/ ZZPS are not fit and proper operators of parking enforcement under licence of Govia Thameslink?