One parking solution PCN

D_P_Dance

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

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, when life gets back to normal, it will become impossible for those scammers who are left to continue their vile trade, 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.

Scrapit

KeithP said:

Scrapit said:

Also whats the timescale on popla?

Read your letter that supplies the PoPLA code. Does it not say?

Re read the email, yes it does. 28 days.

Scrapit

Coupon-mad said:

Timescale is get a short appeal in and it will be 'on hold' right now, as per BrownTrout's thread, and you will then get a chance to add more later as long as POPLA don't muck up their promise:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6126237/popla-update

Which car park please, as OPS are usually in Sussex (my area)?   
What contravention? 
Did you use the blue writing template appeal from the NEWBIES thread & not admit to driving?

Not in your area.

Scrapit

So as an update:
I've rattled off an emotive complaint email in a letter form to 2 MP's. 1 my MP and 2 the MP for the car park it's self. The constituencies are adjacent.

I've also paid to find out who owns the gaff. I used the HM land registry page. Cost 6 quid for the title holder and the title plan. Could have just got the title holder for 3 quid without the drawing but I wanted to be certain.

Now I have the land owners detail I have looked them up on company house to send them a letter of complaint. Here's the thing, they are just a car park company and therefore the letter of complaint is going to fall on deaf ears. It amazing how little they picked it up for, I suspect they will cover the cost of purchasing the land within the first years trading. Anyway, I copied and pasted the letter of complaint on the other website and will be posting that.

I've also been back to the site and taken photos of the signage.

Ive also had a look at planning consents for the site and see there isn't any application for the ANPR, although this may be mounted on existing light poles. Further to that the signs aren't lit even though it wasn't dark at the time of parking. So this and the location of the signs is gonna form the basis of me popla appeal which I've started in earnest.

Coupon-mad

And the wordiness and small print of the OPS sign, put next to the larger Supreme Court 'Beavis case' sign...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/it7518rshgmnppy/IMG_8716%20%281%29%20Beavis%20sign%20comparison.PNG?dl=0

Scrapit

Right, I've had a look through alot of the previous posts and concluded this is a complete nonsense with inconsistencies.
Why is it not more appropriate to complain to the DVLA for selling the info and enabling the firm's or the information commissioner for allowing it?
Anyway, done a first draft popla appeal using others on here as a template. Some of the points are clutching at straws and irrelevant. 
Also I've not broached what I feel are the main points. These are:
1.The car park is recently private after previously being operated by the council. The council do not charge anywhere in the borough for parking on a Sunday. This parking took place on a Sunday.
Further to this i have a Google street view image of the old council parking signage, clear and placed at the entrance to the car park showing when a ticket is required and relevant charges etc. The car park under new management hasn't got a sign at the entrance but signs near the entrance, on the passenger side of vehicles entering the site.
2. The old council site allowed free parking for 30 mins,the new owners do not. From the NTK it is seen that my vehicle is on site for less than 30 mins. A parking ticket was required for the free minutes, a ticket wasn't obtained in this case- not sure how that plays out.
I'm looking for some guidance on these points please.
Also, I've not mentioned the signs aren't lit, is that key bearing in mind this parking took place in pretty much the middle of the day.
Draft appeal to follow in next post.

Scrapit

some of the links dont work, what are we trying to show here? Where links did work i have imported the picture and added that into the text.
With regards to the links to the font size what can I put in? And the case from Goodmayes?
Due to size this is gonna be over a few posts:

Parking Charge Notice appeal re POPLA Code

 

Vehicle registration: XXXXX

POPLA ref: XXXX

 

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated XXrd March 2020 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator  - One Parking Solution –was submitted and acknowledged on XXth March 2020 but subsequently rejected by an email dated XXth April 2020. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal on the following grounds:

 

1.       The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

 

2.       The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

 

3.       No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

 

4.       Failure to comply with the data protection ‘ICO Code of Practice’ applicable to ANPR.

 

5.       Vehicle Images contained in the PCN – Non-compliant to the BPA Code of Practice.

 

6.       No Evidence of Advertising Consent for Signage.

 

7.       No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice).

 

 

 

 

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN DOESNT GO ANY WHERE

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:



This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed concentrated in one corner and not positioned at the entrance for motorists to read as they enter. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on most of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx DOESNT WORK

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

Scrapit

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

 

 

No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

 

Failure to comply with the data protection ‘ICO Code of Practice’ applicable to ANPR – No information about SAR rights, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is Justified, Fair, and Proportionate, resulting in a serious BPA Code of Practice breach.

BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) states that:

“It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:

• Be registered with the Information Commissioner.

• Keep to the Data Protection Act.

• Follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data.

• Follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.

The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:

“This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment including:

• Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);”

“The private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any organization using cameras to process personal data should follow the recommendations of this code.”

“If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.”

“You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on individuals”

“You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper assessment.”

“If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary.”

“Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to minimise these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park.”

“Note:

... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations should therefore also consider these issues.”

“A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate.”

The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that if One Parking Solution wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary. It also states that One Parking Solution must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.

It therefore follows that I require One Parking Solution to provide proof of regular privacy impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact assessments to show that its use has “a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate”.

 

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state:

“5.3 Staying in Control

Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the code’s requirements in practice. You should:

• tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their request;”

“7.6 Privacy Notices

It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground level or more prevalent then it may first appear.

One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s right of subject access.”

One Parking Solution has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keeper’s right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, One Parking Solution has not stated any wording even suggesting the keeper’s right to a SAR on any paperwork, Notice to Keeper, Reminder letter or Rejection Letter. This is a mandatory requirement of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the BPA’s Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR, such that it makes the use of this registered keeper’s data unlawful.

As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and in turn the BPA’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law, POPLA will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given.

Scrapit

Vehicle Images contained in the PCN – Non-compliant to the BPA Code of Practice.

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The PCN in question contains two images of a vehicle in transit. None of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph” itself, nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all. I require One Parking Solution  to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp on the photographs and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.

Recent investigation (27 Apr 2018) by BBC:

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43912327) shows that the private parking industry is unregulated and does not have any accountability. Various cases show the industry’s priority is maximising the penalty received from the motorist without due regard to the integrity of the evidence. Private parking operators are financially incentivised not to use the original image as evidence but putting partial evidence together to generate a case biased towards generating a penalty fee. Based on the fact above, I require One Parking Solution to produce strong evidence, audited by a qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.

 

No Evidence of Advertising Consent for Signage.

One Parking Solution does not have advertising consent for signage exceeding 0.3m2.

UK government guidance on advertisement requires:

“If a proposed advertisement does not fall into one of the Classes in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 to the Regulations, consent must be applied for and obtained from the local planning authority (referred to as express consent in the Regulations).

Express consent is also required to display an advertisement that does not comply with the specific conditions and limitations on the class that the advertisement would otherwise have consent under.

It is criminal offence to display an advertisement without consent.”

This clearly proves One Parking Solution is/has been seeking to enforce Terms & Conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, for which no advertising consent has been obtained.

I request that One Parking Solution provides evidence that Advertising Consent was obtained for signage exceeding 0.3m2 prior to the date to which this appeal relates.

 

No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)

As per section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice: 'You should allow the driver a reasonable 'grace period' in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.' Therefore, if a driver stops for a short period of time to read a sign, they must have the opportunity to leave and not accept the terms of an alleged 'contract'.

There is no mention of the 'grace period' applied in this case, and therefore APCOA are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:

“If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow

the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before

enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a

minimum of 10 minutes.”

Coupon-mad

Why is it not more appropriate to complain to the DVLA for selling the info and enabling the firm's or the information commissioner for allowing it?

Because you'd be banging your head against a brick wall, at least with the DVLA complaint (however you have to complain to them first, BEFORE you can complain to the ICO about the DVLA):

https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/dvla-hands-over-details-of-23-million-vehicle-owners

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/861052/inf266-release-of-information-from-dvlas-registers.pdf

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dvla_giving_out_an_individuals_p


We know verbatim, the stock answer from the DVLA so please don't copy it here when you get it - spare us!!

The ICO have done nothing except shuffle some papers yet but there looks to be a window of opportunity here (below) so I'd say a complaint to the DVLA then the ICO, specifically citing Edward Williams' complaint, IS worth people doing, to pressure them more:

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/cars/dvla-could-face-watchdog-inquiry-into-sharing-of-driver-details-500641

''The ICO said it had not yet launched an investigation but that it was “aware of the issues around the sharing of registered keepers details between the DVLA and private parking companies, and [was] currently considering if and how new data protection laws affect this data sharing”.''

https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/64735/dvla-defends-sharing-vehicle-keeper-data-with-private-parking-companies/

''Following a request from campaigner Edward Williams, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has said it will consider “the broader issues” raised in relation to the sharing of keeper data by the DVLA and how that processing complies with the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation).

The ICO said: “The DVLA has advised us that there are safeguards in place in relation to the automated route. The data sharing agreements within the KADOE contracts detail the specific security requirements an organisation must have in place to have access to keeper data.

“The DVLA has a number of measures that it employs before and after organisations are approved to receive personal data via the KADOE route. The measures employed by the DVLA in relation to the KADOE access route were considered by the ICO in the data protection audit of 2016.”

Edward Williams told Parking Review: “This could be the next PPI [payment protection insurance] scandal. The DVLA has given private parking firms (that can pay) the same data access privileges as local government authorities that carry out civil traffic enforcement.” ''

He believes the practice does not comply with GDPR, which was introduced in May 2018 to protect the personal information of individuals. “The DVLA faces the possibility of literally millions of small claims in the county court for money damages running into billions of pounds.