One Parking Solution - Notice to Keeper / PCN

oscard

Complaint 1. This to be sent to ccrt@dvla.gov.uk and the MP, stephen.hammond.mp@parliament.uk

All suggestions welcome.

Dear Sir/Madam,

 I am writing in relation to parking charge notices (PCNs) I received as the registered keeper from One Parking Solution Limited (OPS) in the borough of Merton, specifically in relation to what OPS call ‘Plough Lane.’

I appealed to POPLA after my initial appeal was declined by OPS.  My appeal to POPLA was successful.  

 

Extract from the POPLA Assessor supporting rational for decision:

He states that no planning permission has been granted by Merton Borough Council. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and evidence provided to demonstrate that the area parked is not Plough Lane.

I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and the PCN stipulates Plough Lane. I have reviewed the site map provided by the operator and must note that Plough Lane is not under the operator’s jurisdiction and as such is not covered by their terms and conditions.

The PCN needs to stipulate the area parked but as this is not covered by the operator, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the Parking Charge Notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.

This is extremely concerning that OPS have been allowed (and continue) to issue PCNs at this location and one can only imagine the number that have been fraudulently issued at this location.  

Given the conclusions of POPLA I would like to make the following complaints:

1)      How my personal details/ data were obtained and processed without a valid reason by OPS.  I believe this to be a breach of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).

2)      The DVLA released my personal details/data without reason or checks that OPS had the right to obtain them.

I presume the DVLA will now investigate and provide a report of their findings.  In particular, the number of PCNs that have been issued at that location and should there be no valid landowner authority, OPS should be required to cancel all charges for that site and repay motorists who have been misled and paid.  And the DVLA should suspend OPS from accessing registered keeper data immediately.

I am happy to provide more information if required.

Regards

X

Attached

PCNs issued by OPS (x2)

POPLA decisions (x2)

oscard

Complaint 2. To KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk 
More help required on this...
 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in relation to parking charge notices (PCNs) I received as the registered keeper from One Parking Solution Limited (OPS) in the borough of Merton, specifically in relation to what OPS call ‘Plough Lane.’

I appealed to POPLA after my initial appeal was declined by OPS.  My appeal to POPLA was successful.  

Extract from the POPLA Assessor supporting rational for decision:

He states that no planning permission has been granted by Merton Borough Council. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and evidence provided to demonstrate that the area parked is not Plough Lane.

I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and the PCN stipulates Plough Lane. I have reviewed the site map provided by the operator and must note that Plough Lane is not under the operator’s jurisdiction and as such is not covered by their terms and conditions.

The PCN needs to stipulate the area parked but as this is not covered by the operator, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the Parking Charge Notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.

This is extremely concerning that OPS have been allowed (and continue) to issue PCNs at this location and one can only imagine the number that have been fraudulently issued at this location.  

Given the conclusions of POPLA, I would like to make a complaint about OPS and the manner in which my details were provided by the DVLA to OPS.  Under D12, Action on Complaint in the KADOE contract I expect an investigation to be launched.

I urge DVLA to review the actions of OPS under following sections:

PART C Use of Data

C6.3.

b) the Reasonable Causes for which the Data is provided;

e) the security arrangements governing the Customer’s safe receipt of the Data and the Customer’s further use of the Data; 

f) the arrangements that the Customer has in place relating to the retention and secure destruction of the Data;

g) any audits that have been carried out that have relevance to the way that the Customer is Processing the Data; 

k) the Customer’s continued Good Standing as set out in clause A7; 

l) the training and experience of the Customer’s Staff in their duties and responsibilities under the DPA;

m) evidence of signage used to show terms and conditions of use of private land or premises by vehicle drivers;

o) copies of landowner agreements relating to the land used by vehicles; and

p) other evidence that the Customer relies on to show its compliance with the requirements of this Contract and of the relevant Accredited Trade Association’s Code of Practice to support requests for Data made by the Customer. 

Separately, I would like to highlight the following breaches by OPS and/ or the DVLA as per the following:

PART B  The provision of data under the contract

B1.1. The DVLA’s Legal Powers to Share the Data

The DVLA has the legal power, under regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, as amended, to: “make any particulars contained in the register available for use by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him.”

B2.1. Purpose For Which Data is Provided

a) seek recovery of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice, and using the procedure in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where the vehicle was parked on private land in England or Wales on a particular date); and 

b) otherwise seek recovery from a driver of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice (where the vehicle was parked on private land in Scotland or Northern Ireland by that driver on a particular date, or where the Customer has chosen not to pursue, or is not in a position to pursue the vehicle keeper by utilising conditions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012). 

B2.2. The Customer shall use each item of the Data only for the Reasonable Cause for which it was provided. The Customer understands that each item of the Data may be used only in relation to the particular date, event and purpose for which it was requested and must not be re-used for any other date, event or purpose. 

B2.3. Before making each request for Data, the Customer shall gather evidence to demonstrate that it has Reasonable Cause to request that Data. This evidence may include scans, images, photographs, correspondence and any other evidence that the Customer may rely on to show its compliance with the requirements of this Contract and of the relevant Accredited Trade Association’s Code of Practice. 

B3.2. The Data shall include the name and address listed on the vehicles register as the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle on the relevant date. 

D1. The Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”)

D1.1. The Parties shall comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 and subordinate legislation made under it, together with any relevant guidance and/or codes of practice issued by the Information Commissioner. All these requirements are referred to in this Contract as the “DPA”.

D1.5. The Customer shall (and shall ensure that each member of its Staff) comply with any

D1.7. The DVLA is satisfied that providing the data to the Customer for the Reasonable Causes is compliant with the first and second principles of the DPA in that it is collected and provided lawfully and fairly for the for the purpose of supporting the lawful use of vehicles. 

D6. Retention of Data and Evidence

D6.1. In accordance with the DPA, the Customer shall retain each item of Data only for as long as is necessary with reference to the reasonable cause for which it was shared. 

D6.2. The Customer shall arrange for the secure destruction or deletion of each item of Data, in accordance with the requirements of the 7th Principle of the DPA, as soon as it is no longer necessary to retain it. 

D8. The Customer’s Internal Compliance Checks

D8.1. The Customer shall ensure that its business processes, records of customer interactions and transactions, audit procedures on business activities and financial reporting are appropriate and effective to ensure proper use of the Data in compliance with this Contract and the requirements of the DPA. The minimum requirements for such internal compliance are set out in SCHEDULE 2 

D10. Incidents

D10.1. The Customer shall notify the DVLA immediately of any losses or misuse of the Data and keep the DVLA informed of any communications about that breach with: the individuals whose Personal Data is affected; the Information Commissioner’s Office; or the media 

I look forward to the conclusion of the investigation and whether criminal proceedings will be bought against OPS.  I am happy to provide more information if required.

Regards

X

Attached

PCNs issued by OPS (x2)

POPLA decisions (x2)

Umkomaas

I have reviewed the site map provided by the operator and must note that Plough Lane is not under the operator’s jurisdiction and as such is not covered by their terms and conditions.

I would underline that key finding from POPLA in both of your letters. That's the important bit. 

Fruitcake

You need to put quote marks around everything the PoPLA assessor said.

To underline text, select it and then press control U (or ctrl U)

I would add a comment at the end of this line in your KADOE team complaint,

"I urge DVLA to review the actions of OPS under following sections of the KADOE contract between OPS and the DVLA"


In all complaints, add a comment that OPS have been threatened with a Civil Restraint Order. Say that issuing parking charges on land where they have no contract or standing to operate is tantamount to attempting to obtain money by deception.
Have a read and briefly quote the judge's comments in the case below.
It shows that the court found that OPS did not have sufficient evidence of landowner authority or adequate signage at EASTGATE WHARF, LEWES. Your case is no different. OPS are still at it.
The judge in the case below should be informed.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6136572/one-parking-solution-warned-by-a-judge-that-they-may-face-an-application-for-a-civil-restraint-order

A complaint to the BPA is essential, referring them to the above case as further evidence that the Eastgate Wharf case was not an isolated incident/location.
Quote the first page of the judgement from that case and remind them of the judge's request at paragraph (d), ask what has been done so far, and require them to investigate yet another case where OPS did not have authority to operate.

Redx

Ensure you tell the MP that you are one of his constituents , otherwise they will ask you first !!

twhitehousescat

Fruitcake said:

I wouldn't ask questions.

I suggest this part might be better worded, 
"And I would also like to complain about how my details/data were obtained without a valid reason by OPS.  Why did the DVLA provide the owner details without a system of robust checks in place to what is quite clearly a fraudulent operation."

"I would also like to complain about how my personal details/data were obtained and processed without a valid reason by OPS.  I believe this to be a breach of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
In addition, I believe the DVLA released my personal details/data without reason or checks that OPS had the right to do so.

I also believe a breach of the KADOE contract between the DVLA and OPS has occurred."
 (Look up the relevant sections that may have been breached.)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455973/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf

the DVLA will reply that its the job of there trada assoc to check over and amongst other things confirm that a contract is in place for the land in question 

failure by the bpa 

Umkomaas

failure by the bpa 

Which is why the new Code of Practice should include sanctions against the APAs for their own as well as their members' failures.

Fruitcake

... and sanctions against the DVLA for releasing personal data without checking a parking scammer has a right to obtain it.

*Pigs lined up, ready for take off."

Le_Kirk

oscard said:

Given the conclusions of POPLA I would like to make am making the following complaints:

1)      How were my personal details/data were obtained and processed without a valid reason by OPS.  I believe This to be is a breach of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).

2)      The DVLA released my personal details/data without reason or checks that OPS had the right to obtain them.

I presume want the DVLA to now investigate and provide a report of their findings, in particular, the number of PCNs that have been issued at that location and, should there be no valid landowner authority, OPS should be required to cancel all charges for that site and repay motorists who have been misled and paid.  And the The DVLA should suspend OPS from accessing registered keeper data immediately.

I would be a bit more forthright and outline what you want as an outcome of your complaint.  I think your #2 is a repeat of #1.

twhitehousescat

Le_Kirk said:

oscard said:

Given the conclusions of POPLA I would like to make am making the following complaints:

1)      How were my personal details/data were obtained and processed without a valid reason by OPS.  I believe This to be is a breach of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).

2)      The DVLA released my personal details/data without reason or checks that OPS had the right to obtain them.

I presume want the DVLA to now investigate and provide a report of their findings, in particular, the number of PCNs that have been issued at that location and, should there be no valid landowner authority, OPS should be required to cancel all charges for that site and repay motorists who have been misled and paid.  And the The DVLA should suspend OPS from accessing registered keeper data immediately.

I would be a bit more forthright and outline what you want as an outcome of your complaint.  I think your #2 is a repeat of #1.

the DVLA have clearly stated it is the responsability of the ATAs to police and check contracts , only people who abide by ATA rules are allowed membership and ability to obtain info from the DVLA 
the DVLA have no say and cannot do anything if the operator is a ATA member 

this was the will of ther goverment when pofa was set up in 2012 , the DVLA had NOT to get involved or police the PPCs , instead this was the job of the "indipendent" ATA 

any private individual has to show due reasn for applying , a parking co must submit paper applications for a probationary period , , once that period is up , it shows that ata are happy with parking co conduct 

oh what a shambles after 8 yrs , the bpa who have no control , and if they do start sanctioning , the ppc simply moves to the ipc , nuff said