Bromley Waitrose Double Dip

WhenIam64

Have just received a PCN from Britannia Parking for driving into Bromley Waitrose (beside the station). The PCN maintains I (driver not keeper) had stayed there the whole day. I have the receipt for another car park close by which confirms I was parked there and not in the Waitrose car park.

This is a holding thread. No need to comment

Ralph-y

sorry .... not one for waiting
complain to Waitrose .... local manager ( not customer service) and CEO


Ralph:cool:

WhenIam64

Stage 1: Transfer of Liability

If you log onto the zatappeal site, there is a form to transfer liability from the keeper to the driver. Their site is rather clunky and could do with a lot of improvement to make it easier to use. There is also the opportunity to make a challenge and to upload evidence. In this case, I have the evidence somewhere but transfer was the main issue.

There is no indication as to what happens next - which should be the driver getting their own PCN. The Keeper will be sending a SAR to see if a human can pick up a double dip when the system hasn't.

If anyone happens to pass that car park, then pics of the signs would be useful. But only if they are passing.

No need to comment as this is a holding thread to describe a process being followed.

Half_way

Will get back later, but you need to apply a zero tolerance attitude towards waitrose, there agents are using a flawed system to access and process your personal data

The_Slithy_Tove

WhenIam64 wrote: »

If you log onto the zatappeal site, there is a form to transfer liability from the keeper to the driver. Their site is rather clunky and could do with a lot of improvement to make it easier to use. There is also the opportunity to make a challenge and to upload evidence. In this case, I have the evidence somewhere but transfer was the main issue.

What are you doing transferring liability to the driver, i.e. naming them? There is no need, and it loses you a potential get-out if they are unreasonable. You can still appeal as keeper even with the evidence that the vehicle was elsewhere in the interim.
But, as stated, Waitrose should be your first port of call.

The_Deep

Whoever they take to court, they will die in a ditch imo

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

Personally, I would contest this as RK.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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

WhenIam64

Stage 2: Driver PCN Appeal

Britannia have quite quickly sent out a driver PCN maintaining money is owed. Attached to the PCN is a copy of the details from the online transfer where it clearly states this is a double dip. Seems they either have not read that or chose to ignore.

The driver does have the chance to appeal but the online site is so cumbersome that it is better to write an appeal. Don't seem to want to make it easy for those wanting to appeal online.

In this particular appeal to save Britannia cost, I've suggested the check the Subject Access Request the Keeper has made for the missing pics before deciding to reject my appeal. At least I tried.

No need to comment as this is a holding thread to describe a process being followed.

beamerguy

If you had followed the advice on here, you would have written to the CEO of Waitrose and got this cancelled ages ago

Still not too late then you would not have to put a thread on hold

Coupon-mad

Attached to the PCN is a copy of the details from the online transfer where it clearly states this is a double dip.

What do you mean exactly?

MistyZ

Either you have some specialist knowledge which you're applying or you're making this more complex than it needs to be.

I've appealed to Britannia in the past and didn't find their site complicated, though maybe something has changed.

A simple, firm but polite complaint to Waitrose should kill this dead.

WhenIam64

Stage 3: Reply to SAR

The Keeper had the following reply to the SAR. Very quick reply and by email. Confirms the transfer of liability to the driver which was the purpose of the SAR.

The is no limit to the number of SAR's you can make but the recipient could invoke a charge IF they claim the requests are "manifestly unfounded or excessive" To overcome this obstacle, there is a need to explain the reason for each request such as needing to check they have the recorded information. A SAR at each stage would go a long way to ensuring that there are no barriers in the process.

In most cases you cannot charge a fee to comply with a subject access request.

However, you can charge a “reasonable fee” for the administrative costs of complying with the request if:

it is manifestly unfounded or excessive; or
an individual requests further copies of their data following a request.
You should base the reasonable fee on the administrative costs of complying with the request.

If you decide to charge a fee you should contact the individual promptly and inform them. You do not need to comply with the request until you have received the fee.

Alternatively, you can refuse to comply with a manifestly unfounded or excessive request.

In this case, Britannia have failed to supply the images of the car that they should have so it will be bounced back to them and then the ICO.

No need to comment as this is a holding thread to describe a process being followed.