Only first letter of number plate entered - Quick response would be appreciated PCN Appeal

Le_Kirk

Kingmonkey77 said:

Got an email from PPS this morning with the PDT printout. I’d already received this from BWL. 
On the copy BWL sent me, they blanked out the second half of the VRM’s. On the copy PPS sent me, they blanked out the first half of the VRM’s so I now have the  VRM for every vehicle that used the car park 🤦‍♂️

Oops!  Is that a data breach even if accidentally?

Kingmonkey77

Le_Kirk said:

Kingmonkey77 said:

Got an email from PPS this morning with the PDT printout. I’d already received this from BWL. 
On the copy BWL sent me, they blanked out the second half of the VRM’s. On the copy PPS sent me, they blanked out the first half of the VRM’s so I now have the  VRM for every vehicle that used the car park 🤦‍♂️

Oops!  Is that a data breach even if accidentally?

That was my first thought I must admit 

Castle

Le_Kirk said:

Kingmonkey77 said:

Got an email from PPS this morning with the PDT printout. I’d already received this from BWL. 
On the copy BWL sent me, they blanked out the second half of the VRM’s. On the copy PPS sent me, they blanked out the first half of the VRM’s so I now have the  VRM for every vehicle that used the car park 🤦‍♂️

Oops!  Is that a data breach even if accidentally?

Yes it is, since BWL are acting as agents of PPS and BWL's copy would have been supplied to BWL by PPS.

(But as we all know, mitigation cannot be taken into account!)

Kingmonkey77

Castle said:

Le_Kirk said:

Kingmonkey77 said:

Got an email from PPS this morning with the PDT printout. I’d already received this from BWL. 
On the copy BWL sent me, they blanked out the second half of the VRM’s. On the copy PPS sent me, they blanked out the first half of the VRM’s so I now have the  VRM for every vehicle that used the car park 🤦‍♂️

Oops!  Is that a data breach even if accidentally?

Yes it is, since BWL are acting as agents of PPS and BWL's copy would have been supplied to BWL by PPS.

(But as we all know, mitigation cannot be taken into account!)

So if each VRM is a data breach, that’s 88 data breaches in the emails. Dear oh dear. 

Chico_talent

If you have all of the VRN, you can check how many of them are actual incorrect VRN's, i think you said there was up to 6 of them.  At least now you can check.  

If there are multiply incorrect VRN, then it would certainly suggest that there is a problem with that pay and display machine

Castle

Chico_talent said:

If you have all of the VRN, you can check how many of them are actual incorrect VRN's, i think you said there was up to 6 of them.  At least now you can check.  

If there are multiply incorrect VRN, then it would certainly suggest that there is a problem with that pay and display machine

Indeed and the OP can do so using this:-
https://www.gov.uk/check-vehicle-tax

Kingmonkey77

Chico_talent said:

If you have all of the VRN, you can check how many of them are actual incorrect VRN's, i think you said there was up to 6 of them.  At least now you can check.  

If there are multiply incorrect VRN, then it would certainly suggest that there is a problem with that pay and display machine

Already on it. Interestingly there are 3 of the suspect VRM's that have come back as not being correct, including the one directly after mine. I have only checked the suspect ones at the moment but think it will be worthwhile going through the whole list when I have the time. Do you think I need to report the data breach to the ICO and inform PPS and BWL of it?

Kingmonkey77

Evening all. I've just put together the below email to send to PPS and BWL concerning the data breach and the fact they have now acknowledged my payment so was just hoping to get an opinion on it before I send it. Thanks in advance.

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your email. As mentioned in my last email, the ICO deem it as personal data as I can be indirectly identified from that information in combination with other information so thank you for sending it through.

I have also received the information from BW Legal. In the copy sent to me by BW Legal, the first half of all the VRM's was redacted and in the copy I received from you, the second half of the VRM's was redacted. As a consequence, I now have the full VRM of each car that used the car park between 08:02 and 20:58 on 31 January 2020. As there were 89 VRM's on the printout, I believe that to be 88 data breaches.

However, having looked through the printout, I can see straight off that my payment is traceable by the M and the other details that match the ticket I purchase, but there is also a VRM of WWW. It is number 53 on the list. Despite what I was told by xxxx xxxx of BW Legal in her email dated 17/11/20, I don't believe that car registrations are legal with just a single character. I believe that for a car registration to be legal, it must have at least one number and one letter, meaning that WWW is not a valid registration either. I have also run a check on some of the vehicles that used the machine around the time that I did and at least one other appears to be an invalid VRM.

This would seem to refute the claim that no one else had a problem with the machine that day.

The accompanying emails I received with the print outs clearly acknowledge that I paid for my parking time so what you are now trying to impose is punishment for an error, whether it be human or mechanical, on me. Private companies cannot impose penalties, reinforced by the relevant part of the Parking Eye v's Beavis judgement. Damages for breach of contract can only put the claimant back in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. As my payment has now been acknowledged and there was no overstay in the car park, there is no change to the position you would have been in had this not occurred, therefore the charges have to be deemed as a penalty.

Many thanks
xxxxxx

Umkomaas

Many thanks

Don't 'Many thanks' an outfit trying to sue you through the courts, it's only one step away from 'Kind regards', two steps away from 'Love and kisses'!  Why do you want to 'thank' them?

This is a business letter. You have correctly used the salutation 'Dear Sir/Madam', therefore use the valediction 'Yours faithfully'. 

Coupon-mad

Your email isn't timebound (doesn't point the way ahead to what you want them to do and by when).

Also 2 x use of the word 'it' without any context of what 'it' is, so change these as suggested:

the ICO deem it a VRM as personal data 

so thank you for sending it  through the machine record proof that I paid.