PCN where permit not transferred to vehicle

Coupon-mad

Reply to ALL OF THEM again and again until they might give up. 

Re the GDPR point, data can be shared for purposes that are necessary and I think it was necessary to share that data with the PPC to exempt your car - and it’s a good thing it included your name because that’s what gives you the clear argument now, that ‘all they needed to do when they heard from you, was look at the list and there you are, admittedly with a different vehicle but clearly intended to be exempt all along.’

And REALLY IMPORTANT PLEASE: 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78411172/#Comment_78411172

Please, please come back every week to check and make sure your voice - AND YOUR FRIENDS’ AND RELATIVES’ VOICES TOO -  is/are not missed from this final opportunity to take part in the Government Consultation, coming very soon!

Beanthere2020

Coupon-mad said:

Reply to ALL OF THEM again and again until they might give up. 

Re the GDPR point, data can be shared for purposes that are necessary and I think it was necessary to share that data with the PPC to exempt your car - and it’s a good thing it included your name because that’s what gives you the clear argument now, that ‘all they needed to do when they heard from you, was look at the list and there you are, admittedly with a different vehicle but clearly intended to be exempt all along.’

Have contacted the shopping centre manager, AGAIN, and advised them they are not being asked instruct a third party, but the PPC that they have the contract with, as the PPC can legally cancel the PCNs before court proceedings. Have also highlighted that the driver submitted their name to PPC permits team, albeit with a different VRN, but it is clear they were intended to be permitted to park on the site.

Have also followed up with PPC directly and received the following response:

 "Your appeal against your Parking Charge Notices (PCN) XXXXXX and XXXXXX for the incident at XXXXXXXXXXXXX for the alleged contravention of ‘Exceeded Maximum Stay Period’, cannot be considered as it has been submitted outside of the permitted timeframe for appeals.

Your original appeals were answered on the XX/XX/XXXX and options were given to you then if you wanted to take things further.

As no correspondence has been received since then and the PCNs are now 673 days old, they have been passed to Debt Recovery where they have added their charge of £60 per PCN, making each PCN £160.

This decision is final, and no further communication will be accepted by Care Parking with regard to this appeal, therefore you are requested to now submit your payment of the monies owing.

You now have the following options from which to choose:

1.     Pay the parking charge.

2.     If you choose to do nothing, we will continue to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you."

'Their charge' is intentionally ambiguous, but supports the argument of abuse of process by the DRP for court. The original appeal they refer to is from July 2019, and would have been in fact when it was under the NTK appeal and not when liability had been transferred.

673 days ago is August 2019, when the liability had been transferred to the driver from the RK. These weren't appealed (in error) as driver believed they couldn't due to rejection of appeal/POPLA to RK. However, in the same reply, the PPC are advising that the original appeal was answered in July 2019 (this is before the driver liability had been confirmed).

Coupon-mad

If they are writing to the keeper then reply and tell them to take the matter up with the driver, as liability was transferred in 2019.

Beanthere2020

Coupon-mad said:

If they are writing to the keeper then reply and tell them to take the matter up with the driver, as liability was transferred in 2019.

Apologies if that wasn't clear. This was in reply to an email from the driver to the PPC. The point I was trying to make (poorly), was that they are saying to the driver, their 'appeals' were answered back in July 2019. But those appeals were before liability was transferred. Therfore, they were the RK appeals. 

Coupon-mad

Ah, I see.

But the driver chose not to appeal so can’t really say much about that.

Beanthere2020

Coupon-mad said:

Ah, I see.

But the driver chose not to appeal so can’t really say much about that.

It's a fair point. This was a genuine miss by the driver, as the appeals had been turned down by PPC and POPLA, when submitted by the RK for these 2 PCNs and worded to say now payable. Driver thought they couldn't appeal. Lesson learnt. 

Beanthere2020

Latest reply from the shopping centre manager

"I have again at your request asked Care Parking if the PCN’s can be cancelled.  Their response is below

 “Having looked into the below, Care Parking can confirm we are unable to cancel the below at this stage. As the motorist has had their letter before action, it is now a debt and no longer a charge.”

There isn’t much I can do here in honesty, the length of time this has been going on means that it has passed the stage where I would normally be able to intervene.  Once it is at the debt stage, there isn’t a great amount I can do to influence the procedure.

 Appreciate this isn’t the outcome you were hoping for, unfortunately it is now passed the stage where I can change the decision."

Has the PPC genuinley convinced this landowner they have no authority on their own site and can tell them what to do? The local MP is also going to contact the shopping centre manager, although unlikely to be able to influence them.

Is the driver in their rights to send a SAR to the shopping centre to confirm the information they hold, i.e. name, employee number, VRN?

Likewise to the PPC, as having checked back through the SAR they returned to the driver, they have not included any redacted document which shows driver name and details submitted to the permits team to park on the site. Can this specifically be requested from the DPO at the PPC?

Fruitcake

It is not a debt until a judge says so. The PPC are being untruthful, and sadly the shopping centre manager has believed the unregulated PPC.

An SAR is a request to be supplied with ALL personal data about the data subject (the person making the request). It is a legal requirement to supply All such data held, upon request.
If you know something is being withheld, make a repeat request clearly stating what you know or believe to be missing, and give them seven days to respond. Warn them that you will contact the ICO if they fail to comply, and follow through with the complaint if required.

Beanthere2020

Fruitcake said:

It is not a debt until a judge says so. The PPC are being untruthful, and sadly the shopping centre manager has believed the unregulated PPC.

To the shopping centre manager I propose the following reply:

"Thank you for your reply. I would note, however, that it is very misleading of Care Parking to say this is now a 'debt.' They should know that this can only be deemed a debt once a judge determines this. Therefore, I would ask that as this is not at 'debt stage' and as landowner, you insist Care Parking cancel the PCNs, which is well within their power to do so."

Coupon-mad

I would add:

You are being played and this is wholly unacceptable for you and me and your company. 

A Letter before Claim is not commencing court action, and it doesn't change the status of what remains an unfair charge.  The principal (you) can certainly cancel it before court action by simply telling the agent (Care Parking) to stop misleading you and simply cancel the thing as a goodwill gesture for a genuine customer, who there is no intention for the scheme to penalise.  Unless your company has signed a contract preventing you from doing so and letting the tail wag the dog - I hope not?