Parking Management Company Data Breach

suze200

I have emailed the ICO. I will update the thread when I get a reply.

Steve1500 What is Article 13 ?

The_Deep

Onthewall wrote: »

I see you are wrong, yet again. There is an offer to park but you have to be authorised. Forbidding is when there is no offer to park, I hope people don’t listen to you...

UMKO is rarely wrong, there is no offer for TMOTCO to park. Imo you are the one to whom people should not listen.

Fruitcake

suze200 wrote: »

Can someone advise please. Would the following be classed as a "forbidding" sign? So no contract?

No Authorised Parking
Terms of parking apply at all times
Failure to comply with the following at any time will result is a parking charge of £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days
! Registered users only Register your vehicle at the payment desk inside xxxx

The above is all on the same small sign (I cant attach pics)

Does it really say No Authorised Parking, meaning nobody is allowed to park there even if they are authorised to do so?

You can post pics by uploading them to a web hosting site such as Postimages, Tinypic, Dropbox etcetera, then paste the URL here but change https to hxxps.
Someone will them change them back to a live link for you.

suze200

Fruticake & Umkomaas Sorry to mislead you. I meant to type No UNauthorised parking :wall:

hxxps://www.dropbox.com/home/Untitled%20folder?preview=close-up+sign.jpg

hxxps://www.dropbox.com/home/Untitled%20folder?preview=IMG_20191013_162822619+(2).jpg

I think I have worked out how to add links to pics Thanks Fruitcake. (Edited to changed link urls https to hxxps, would someone make live links please. Thanks)

The sign which says Registered Users Only is near to the entrance to the car park . It cant be seen from the drivers seat when entering the car park in front of the entrance to Superbowl. It is high on a pole to side of the drivers field of vision. You may have a chance if entering the car park at the side.
hxxps://www.dropbox.com/home/Untitled%20folder?preview=IMG_20191013_162758897.jpg

Redx

Signs should be as plain to see as the nose on your face , a la the Beavis case, not hidden , not difficult to see or needing a precise angle to view

suze200

Fruitcake

That's forbidding signage. No offer to park for unauthorised users.
No offer to park for non-registered users.

The Registered Users Only sign appears to only apply to the car park to the right of the image.

The £100 charge is in tiny font, fails the BPA CoP and is dissimilar to the signs in the Beavis case.

suze200

Fruitcake Thank you for your response

Does that mean that an unauthorised/unregistered vehicle was parked it would be trespassing rather than breaking a parking contract? So a claim for unpaid parking charges could not arise?

Sorry if these are a stupid questions, just trying to get it straight in my head

Fruitcake

suze200 wrote: »

Fruitcake Thank you for your response

Does that mean that an unauthorised/unregistered vehicle was parked it would be trespassing rather than breaking a parking contract? So a claim for unpaid parking charges could not arise?

Sorry if these are a stupid questions, just trying to get it straight in my head

In my opinion yes, but it would be up to a judge to confirm that.

You need to find out who the landowner is and then if it gets to court, at the evidence stage you will be able to see if the scammers have a contract with them.
That's off in the future but it doesn't hurt to start collecting evidence now.

Who did you talk to at Superbowl? Complaints need to be done at manager owner level, not customer services or similar.

Umkomaas

Have a read of this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/horizon-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html

And case CS047 (Pace v Legyel) from the following link:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

Hopefully these will help you get an increased understanding.