Drove partner's car to work car park, numberplate didn't update in system, NTKs to wrong address

shgtsk

Thanks everyone for your advice. The keeper is prepared to be involved up to the point where the liability cannot easily be transferred to me, anything related to debt collectors etc.

Before the keeper emails TPS to transfer the liability to me (thanks for the really clear instructions Coupon-mad), I was going past yesterday and took photos of the signage in the car park:

Car park entrance

Car park entrance closeup

View across car park

Underneath sign

Closeup on sign

Sign partially concealed

Close up on bottom of sign

Your comments on the signage appreciated before the keeper emails TPS to transfer liability.

Thanks again!

pould

Awesome - I see £70 reduced to £40. Nowhere does it state £90. In asking for that they have gone beyond what's allowed in the FOPA (2012) Sch 4 and therefore any claim is now an abuse of process. 
Keeper should write to parking company and state clearly that a claim for £90 is abusive and not what is claimed contractually, that the demand for £90 will be kept and introduced as evidence in any court hearing as abuse of process, and that having clearly stated the facts to the parking company any further demands will be treated as harassment. 

Then ignore all future correspondence barring a notice before action (but keep all paperwork and images). 

What do others here with experience think? 

Fruitcake

In addition to the above, the signs are forbidding in that they do not offer anything (there is no consideration) for anyone who is not a permit holder, therefore a contract cannot be formed by that signage by a non permit holder.

pould

Also, the most obvious sign says "permit holders only". Nowhere on the signs does it say that the permit must fit the VRM (or if it does I missed it). You are a permit holder (the contract is made with you, not the car) so you can park using any vehicle. 

Fruitcake

pould said:

Also, the most obvious sign says "permit holders only". Nowhere on the signs does it say that the permit must fit the VRM (or if it does I missed it). You are a permit holder (the contract is made with you, not the car) so you can park using any vehicle. 

Good point, and neither does the sign say that the permit has to be displayed unlike disabled persons who are required to display a BB or medical permit. Since there is no requirement for a permit holder to display a permit, then not displaying one cannot breach the Ts and Cs, so no breach of contract has occurred.

Not relevant to this case, but making a disabled person display a blue badge is a breach of the EA 2010, since the BB scheme does not apply on private land.

pould

Fruitcake said:

pould said:

Also, the most obvious sign says "permit holders only". Nowhere on the signs does it say that the permit must fit the VRM (or if it does I missed it). You are a permit holder (the contract is made with you, not the car) so you can park using any vehicle. 

Good point, and neither does the sign say that the permit has to be displayed unlike disabled persons who are required to display a BB or medical permit. Since there is no requirement for a permit holder to display a permit, then not displaying one cannot breach the Ts and Cs, so no breach of contract has occurred.

Not relevant to this case, but making a disabled person display a blue badge is a breach of the EA 2010, since the BB scheme does not apply on private land.

Another case of poor signage! 

Coupon-mad

If the rk is not happy to receive debt demands then a court claim then a transfer to you as driver is a no brainer IMHO and a great opportunity to make sure no more letters go to an old address, too.  You will have to respond to whatever letter arrives in your name to ensure TPS know you live where the keeper says you do, and hasn't made it up.  Stops them having any excuse to send a court claim to that old address in the end.

Which company provides the app?  Ringgo? Complain to them about their app failing and see what email you get back.

shgtsk

Update

Hi folks, thanks again for your advice. The registered keeper emailed the dpo at TPS giving them the driver's (my) name and address and requiring deletion of all information corresponding to the keeper. To summarise their response: TPS will transfer liability on this occasion but refuse to delete any information to comply with their legal obligations and for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims. Full text below. So I await their letter, what are your thoughts on their refusal to delete information?

Dear Sir or Madam
Unfortunately we are unable to delete your information at this stage as the charge remains active and valid. Within our parking charge notifications dated 27-03-2020 and 14-04-2020 we requested that the registered keeper name the driver if he was not. We requested this information within 28 days under schedule 4 of the protection of freedom act 2012. We also requested to pass the notices on to the driver. As so far we have received no transfer of liability within the specified period.

Whilst we will transfer liability on this occasion, we will retain your information in order to comply with our legal obligations and for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.

Please note that should the named driver deny being the driver at the time, we will revert the liability back to you. Should the address provided for the named driver be not a valid serviceable address, we will revert liability back to you. 

Information regarding our processing operations such as the categories of personal data involved, the purposes and lawful basis of processing, the source of your data, third-parties involved with whom we may share the data with, retention period and more can all be found in our Privacy Notice at privacy.totalparking.co.uk or can be heard by calling 01536 428 546.

If you feel unsatisfied with our decision not to delete your information at this stage, you have the right to make a complaint to the ICO or another supervisory authority. Or seek to enforce this right through a judicial remedy.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us
Yours sincerely
Data Compliance Team

It appears as though Total Parking Solutions have provided the web portal to my place of work so there's no third-party app provider. However the actual web page doesn't mention total parking solutions and the help sections refer the user to contact the transport department at my work, rather than Total Parking Solutions. My place of work have as good as disregarded the issue with the system I discussed in my first post.

Coupon-mad

They can't revert liability back tot he keeper but like I said, it is important that the driver then responds when they get their own letter which will be soon.  THEN the keeper can ask that their data be erased (use that word, not deleted).

pould

Coupon-mad said:

They can't revert liability back tot he keeper but like I said, it is important that the driver then responds when they get their own letter which will be soon.  THEN the keeper can ask that their data be erased (use that word, not deleted).

Could you unpack for us the difference between "erased" and "deleted"?