Vehicle Control Services Privacy Notice/PCN

Sheldore123451453

From the top of my head, I believe these privacy notices appeared on:
26/12/2019, 27/12/2019, 02/01/2020, 03/01/2020.
The NTK all came a week after. These were all appealed.
And:

smach123 said:

*edit*
Contravention Date was 20/12/2019.
A NTK was sent by them apparently on 27/12/2019 which we did not receive through the post hence I could not appeal as I did for the other PCN's.

Fruitcake

A privacy notice left on a vehicle to be found by the driver must be a NTD. The PoFA says that where a NTD is issued, a NTK must be issued between days 28 and 56, the date of the alleged event being day zero.
The keeper's first port of call should therefore be to the DVLA who have previously said a note left on a windscreen for the driver to find must be a NTD.
The Keeper should therefore complain to the DVLA that a NTD was left but then a NTK was received too early for keeper liability to apply. Do a separate complaint for each Privacy Notice issued that was followed later by a NTK.

What happened when the keeper complained to the landowner/MA/MC?
What parking space was the vehicle parked on if there is no number 16? If the landowner is the keeper, what does the Land Registry say about ownership of the space where the vehicle was parked? In other words, does the keeper have proof that they own or rent the parking space?
If a Land Registry entry was not provided when the property was purchased, a copy can be bought from the Land Registry for a few quid.

A landowner has rights over the parking space that cannot be overridden by a third party scammer.
If the space is rented then the lease/AST of the space has primacy of contract over anything a third party scammer says.

Has the keeper complained to their MP yet about this unregulated scam?

Coupon-mad

This needs to be banned in the new CoP.  NOTHING should be left on a car windscreen by a parking firm except a NTD that means they cannot then get DVLA data for 29 days, as the POFA says.

D_P_Dance

Have you rread this

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.htmlantsot

What does the  lease/AST say about parking? Does it mention the need to display a permit? then it may take primacy over the self serving TnC of the scammer, and interfere with your lawful right to “quiet enjoyment” of your property, possible an offence under The Landlord and Ten Acts.

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 in some cases, cancellation.

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 enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many 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/of these Private Parking Companies.

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Sheldore123451453

Fruitcake said:

A privacy notice left on a vehicle to be found by the driver must be a NTD. The PoFA says that where a NTD is issued, a NTK must be issued between days 28 and 56, the date of the alleged event being day zero.
The keeper's first port of call should therefore be to the DVLA who have previously said a note left on a windscreen for the driver to find must be a NTD.
The Keeper should therefore complain to the DVLA that a NTD was left but then a NTK was received too early for keeper liability to apply. Do a separate complaint for each Privacy Notice issued that was followed later by a NTK.

What happened when the keeper complained to the landowner/MA/MC?
What parking space was the vehicle parked on if there is no number 16? If the landowner is the keeper, what does the Land Registry say about ownership of the space where the vehicle was parked? In other words, does the keeper have proof that they own or rent the parking space?
If a Land Registry entry was not provided when the property was purchased, a copy can be bought from the Land Registry for a few quid.

A landowner has rights over the parking space that cannot be overridden by a third party scammer.
If the space is rented then the lease/AST of the space has primacy of contract over anything a third party scammer says.

Has the keeper complained to their MP yet about this unregulated scam?

We have spoken to the property manager (Savills) in person on a different occasion in regards to a complaint made by the concierge (fines for noise complaints) which was dropped as they were not allowed to do this. Is it worth complaining to him about the PCN, as I have his contact details including phone number and email.
The land registry proves we own apartment 26 and parking space 16. But as I mentioned there is no parking space 16 in the car park, so we have been parking on space 26 for many years with no problems until recently. 

https://imgur.com/a/RK2TkrC
There is no mention of displaying a permit on the sign, or within the land registry. 

Sheldore123451453

I am also looking to complain to DVLA. I found a few templates, but unsure how to piece it all together.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I understand from reading the privacy notice provided by DVLA here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/driver-and-vehicle-licensing-agency/about/personal-information-charter

That DVLA will release my personal details to private and public-sector organisations providing they can demonstrate reasonable cause to receive it. It is also my understanding that this information is released electronically and automatically without human intervention using the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) system.

This arrangement falls under the scope of Article 22 of the GDPR, which has rules to protect individuals where a solely automated decision-making has legal or similarly significant effects on them.

My concern is that this automated process does not:

Check that reasonable cause exists.

Check that the KADOE System user has met their contractual requirement with DVLA, which includes:

That information from the records are used for the reason that was given.

Evidence exists that an unauthorised parking incident occurred.

There is an Agreement with the landowner to authorise the private parking operator to operate the parking scheme on their land and to take legal action to recover a charge on their behalf.

POFA requires that in order to make use of the provision to pursue the registered keeper (if the driver does not pay the sum demanded) that they must send a Notice to Keeper within 14 days (counting the day you parked - 24 April - as Day 0) - para 9, Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. From that perspective they have failed and should they persist in chasing you for the debt (as the keeper) they may be liable to a claim of harassment.

As members of the British Parking Association Approved Operators Scheme they have also failed to comply with the Code of Practice and to top things off have made, arguably, improper use of DVLA data which is implicitly supplied to enable VCS to follow the law.

As such I would like the DVLA records containing my personal details as registered keeper of vehicles:

ABC

To be marked as frozen so that all future decision-making involves human intervention and that -where the request is not from the Police or a Local Authority - I am always contacted by the DVLA in advance, so that as the data subject with rights as set out in the GDPR, I can express my point of view, obtain an explanation of the decision to share data and, if applicable, challenge it.

This would be sent to crt@dvla.gsi.gov.uk if I am correct?

twhitehousescat

smach123 said:

Fruitcake said:

A privacy notice left on a vehicle to be found by the driver must be a NTD. The PoFA says that where a NTD is issued, a NTK must be issued between days 28 and 56, the date of the alleged event being day zero.
The keeper's first port of call should therefore be to the DVLA who have previously said a note left on a windscreen for the driver to find must be a NTD.
The Keeper should therefore complain to the DVLA that a NTD was left but then a NTK was received too early for keeper liability to apply. Do a separate complaint for each Privacy Notice issued that was followed later by a NTK.

What happened when the keeper complained to the landowner/MA/MC?
What parking space was the vehicle parked on if there is no number 16? If the landowner is the keeper, what does the Land Registry say about ownership of the space where the vehicle was parked? In other words, does the keeper have proof that they own or rent the parking space?
If a Land Registry entry was not provided when the property was purchased, a copy can be bought from the Land Registry for a few quid.

A landowner has rights over the parking space that cannot be overridden by a third party scammer.
If the space is rented then the lease/AST of the space has primacy of contract over anything a third party scammer says.

Has the keeper complained to their MP yet about this unregulated scam?

We have spoken to the property manager (Savills) in person on a different occasion in regards to a complaint made by the concierge (fines for noise complaints) which was dropped as they were not allowed to do this. Is it worth complaining to him about the PCN, as I have his contact details including phone number and email.
The land registry proves we own apartment 26 and parking space 16. But as I mentioned there is no parking space 16 in the car park, so we have been parking on space 26 for many years with no problems until recently. 

https://imgur.com/a/RK2TkrC
There is no mention of displaying a permit on the sign, or within the land registry. 

are you able to check land registry to see if there is an actual owner for space 26 ?
as you say "Some details you should know, on the mortgage letter it says they own no.26 but have the allocated spot no.16, but there is no no.16 spot in the car park (I think the land owners may have made a typo?).

I feel that a tin of paint and a carefull hand to "alter" the number 26 to read 16 should be considered ASAP 

twhitehousescat

smach123 said:

I am also looking to complain to DVLA. I found a few templates, but unsure how to piece it all together.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I understand from reading the privacy notice provided by DVLA here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/driver-and-vehicle-licensing-agency/about/personal-information-charter

That DVLA will release my personal details to private and public-sector organisations providing they can demonstrate reasonable cause to receive it. It is also my understanding that this information is released electronically and automatically without human intervention using the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) system.

This arrangement falls under the scope of Article 22 of the GDPR, which has rules to protect individuals where a solely automated decision-making has legal or similarly significant effects on them.

My concern is that this automated process does not:

Check that reasonable cause exists.

Check that the KADOE System user has met their contractual requirement with DVLA, which includes:

That information from the records are used for the reason that was given.

Evidence exists that an unauthorised parking incident occurred.

There is an Agreement with the landowner to authorise the private parking operator to operate the parking scheme on their land and to take legal action to recover a charge on their behalf.

POFA requires that in order to make use of the provision to pursue the registered keeper (if the driver does not pay the sum demanded) that they must send a Notice to Keeper within 14 days (counting the day you parked - 24 April - as Day 0) - para 9, Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. From that perspective they have failed and should they persist in chasing you for the debt (as the keeper) they may be liable to a claim of harassment.

As members of the British Parking Association Approved Operators Scheme they have also failed to comply with the Code of Practice and to top things off have made, arguably, improper use of DVLA data which is implicitly supplied to enable VCS to follow the law.

As such I would like the DVLA records containing my personal details as registered keeper of vehicles:

ABC

To be marked as frozen so that all future decision-making involves human intervention and that -where the request is not from the Police or a Local Authority - I am always contacted by the DVLA in advance, so that as the data subject with rights as set out in the GDPR, I can express my point of view, obtain an explanation of the decision to share data and, if applicable, challenge it.

This would be sent to crt@dvla.gsi.gov.uk if I am correct?

As members of the British Parking Association Approved Operators Scheme they have also failed to comply with the Code of Practice 

VCS are not members of the BPA , rhey bailed out many yrs ago and joined the IPC when things got tought regarding POFa2012 

Coupon-mad

Of course it's worth complaining to the Managing Agents.  And escalate it when knocked back first.  Here is a worked example of exactly that:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6137576/link-parking-pcn-cancelled

beamerguy

What on earth is a privacy notice ???   Sounds like a feeble attempt by Renshaw-smith of VCS to his other nonsense ticket in red ... "this is not a parking ticket"

You are right to bring this to the attention of the DVLA as it clearly is another VCS con