Aldi, Corporation Street, Preston. Abused Patron Parking. Care Parking.

twhitehousescat

if you look back a post or two , you will see I was in comunication , with aldi - customer services , and by hell did they jump when they were told and shown the preston planning permission , last thing they are care want is local press coverage 

RKHX

Also, for the benefit of similar, future appeals against any parking company at the Corporation Street Car Park in Preston…

You can access the planning documents quoted in this thread buy visiting the website www.preston.gov.uk and search planning applications using the application reference 06/1995/0012

This is relevant to both an ‘Abused Patron Parking’ appeal and an ‘Over-stayed the two hour limit’ appeal as the planning says you can both leave site and stay for up to three hours.

RKHX

twhitehousescat said:

if you look back a post or two , you will see I was in comunication , with aldi - customer services , and by hell did they jump when they were told and shown the preston planning permission , last thing they are care want is local press coverage 

Yes, thank you. I did see your post and noted that it was the ALDI customer service email address you used to great effect. That's why I used that address in the first instance too (awaiting a response). Hopefully I have covered all bases now!

twhitehousescat

those documents should be brought to the attention of S Clarke at the BPA 
having seen them , he must then inform Care parking , that either of those actions by a customer are not a valid reason for issuing a ticket 
I say this , because once the BPA have noted this fact , they must sanction Care parking each and every time they commit this act 

also a complaint should be made to the DVLA , and email recept recieved , for each and evey time Care break BPA code of practice , a complaint should be fowarded to the DVLA , stating that both the BPA and themselves know about this and have failed to act 

Fruitcake

Two complaints should be made to the DVLA; one for a data breach and one for a KADOE breach. The scammers knew, or should have known what the planning and advertising consent requirements were before they started car park mis-management. 

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk for the data breach 

and

KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk for the KADOE breach. 

You would need to read through the KADOE contract to pick out which parts had been breached. Section B2.3 certainly comes to mind straight away.

"Before making each request for Data, the Customer shall gather evidence to demonstrate that it has Reasonable Cause to request that Data."

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

I have been wondering for a while whether para 12 of the PoFA could be used where a breach of advertising consent could be included in complaints and appeals. 

12(1)The fourth condition is that any applicable requirements prescribed under this paragraph were met at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

(2)The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe requirements as to the display of notices on relevant land where parking charges may be incurred in respect of the parking of vehicles on the land.

It could be argued that a Council planning and advertising consent approval, and certainly the Town and Country Planning Act constitute a statutory instrument.

pould

Fruitcake said:

Two complaints should be made to the DVLA; one for a data breach and one for a KADOE breach. The scammers knew, or should have known what the planning and advertising consent requirements were before they started car park mis-management. 

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk for the data breach 

and

KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk for the KADOE breach. 

You would need to read through the KADOE contract to pick out which parts had been breached. Section B2.3 certainly comes to mind straight away.

"Before making each request for Data, the Customer shall gather evidence to demonstrate that it has Reasonable Cause to request that Data."

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

I have been wondering for a while whether para 12 of the PoFA could be used where a breach of advertising consent could be included in complaints and appeals. 

12(1)The fourth condition is that any applicable requirements prescribed under this paragraph were met at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

(2)The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe requirements as to the display of notices on relevant land where parking charges may be incurred in respect of the parking of vehicles on the land.

It could be argued that a Council planning and advertising consent approval, and certainly the Town and Country Planning Act constitute a statutory instrument.

I'm going to test a number of these issues in my case against Smart Parking. My team have advised we should request a Circuit Judge to do the case given the length of the witness statement and the skeleton - might be a whole day thing.

Fruitcake

The DVLA need a good hammering, not just the scammers, because they did not exercise a duty of care to ensure the scammers had a right or reason to access personal data before releasing it, nor did they operate any kind of manual oversight or checks to the electronic request.

pould

Fruitcake said:

The DVLA need a good hammering, not just the scammers, because they did not exercise a duty of care to ensure the scammers had a right or reason to access personal data before releasing it, nor did they operate any kind of manual oversight or checks to the electronic request.

Yup - but the useful thing would be to establish in a court of law that a particular parking company knowingly made a KADOE request when it knew it had no right to do so. At that point the hammer on the DVLA can be bigger and more painful.

twhitehousescat

the DVLA do manual checks for the first 3 mths , then its down to trust , trust as in that the operator is abiding by its AOS code of practice 

however , if the BPA are informed of the irregularities at this site , and allow Care parking to continue , then its a diffeent ball game 
we have recently had another case , one parking solutions , with no contract , hell it even made the national press , the proof of the pudding with the BPA , is if we see this company sactioned in the next few weeks 

RKHX

I'm not having any success with ALDI cancelling the ticket so far.
The Store Manager took the line 'the car park is nothing to do with us, sorry we can't help, take it up with the parking firm.' I politely insisted it was their car park and they have a responsibility to ensure that customers can shop at Aldi without being unfairly fined. I am very unhappy etc... I left the details with him, but I'm not optimistic he'll do anything. Another member of staff who overheard, told me to 'just ignore it'.

Similarly, Aldi customer services replied with the following:
'I’m sorry to hear that you have received a parking charge following your visit to our store. As this charge has not been issued by Parking Eye we would need to ask you to contact the issuer directly to discuss your concerns.'

I find this puzzling. Are they suggesting that if it was a Parking Eye controlled site they would help, but because it's Care Parking they won't/can't?!

I have replied asking why it makes at difference. It is an Aldi supermarket and carpark, on Aldi-owned land and therefore Aldi have influence over the parking firm managing the parking facilities, whether that is Parking Eye or Care Parking etc... It was unfairly issued, damaged customer trust in shopping at the store. Very upset etc.. please contact Care Parking to cancel it etc.

It's looking like I will need to proceed with the POPLA appeal though, will give it a few more days to see if I get any other replies. I will draft a letter to S.Clarke at the BPA and another to DVLA in the meantime.

Thank you for everyone's comments