AS Parking - Parrenporth

dan1w

Hi Guys,
I’ve been searching for a while and can’t find exact answers so please don’t tear me a new one just yet!

A friend of mine (really) has received a final demand from AS Parking for failure to display a ticket on the dashboard as per the notice on the signage. 

The car is a company pool car and as far as she knows this is the first correspondence received and the parking event happened in late 2018. 

The company are insisting on naming the driver before releasing details of any previous correspondence so we can’t find out whether anything is out of time. 

I’m assuming the advice is to just ignore everything until a court summons appears but the problem is that that doesn’t look good for my friend if her company are receiving summons when they’ve forwarded on  the ‘fine’ to her. 

Anyway to try and force release of this documentation out of the parking company without naming the driver?

Also, what is the likelihood of having to attend court near the parking company? 

I love this stuff so am almost tempted to say I’ll pay court costs if all else fails so long as it’s not a five hour drive to get there! Also, what’s the upper limit of those costs likely to be?

Cheers,

Dan

nosferatu1001

The company meaning the ppc? Screw that. SAR them. 

Who are they corresponding with ? The hirer? How did they get the hirers details? 

Fruitcake

If the employer is insisting that they are going to reveal the driver's name, the friend must intervene pointing out that there is no requirement in law for them to do this, and it may be a DPA/GDPR breach to do so.
They should however tell the PPC the name and contact details of the employee who is the hirer/lessee/day to day keeper.

nosferatu1001

Fruitcake - the op hasn't been precise but given they have a notice, the employing or lease companies must have passed details on to the ppc already 

Fruitcake

Yes, this is the problem with a comment about "the company" when we don't know if this is the parking company or the company responsible for the pool car.

nosferatu1001

It's purely based on the friend having received. I I take it o mean that it's in their name

the op wrote a lot, but missed a ton of actual facts 

dan1w

Sorry, by the company I mean the PPC. The lease company have obviously passed on the details of the leasee and they have handed my friend the letter to deal with, they aren’t naming her. 

A SAR has been sent but they (PPC) are saying they require the driver’s details complete with ID to process it. This doesn’t even tally up with their own privacy policy. 

dan1w

nosferatu1001 said:

It's purely based on the friend having received. I I take it o mean that it's in their name

the op wrote a lot, but missed a ton of actual facts 

Ha, you guys are brutal, the final demand is addressed to the company for which my friend works. 

nosferatu1001

Well they cannot hold the lesser liable anyway, so just tell them the HIRER is ... and as such the data they hold is THEIRS. The driver could be any number of people, none of which owns the personal data. 

State that as you are aware they're incapable of holding the hirer liable, as they have not met the requirements of pofa2012 to do so, you realise this is just a fishing expedition. State that as they've failed to meet their obligations under the dpa2018 you will comply to the ico. 

dan1w

Please indulge me but how do we know they haven’t met the requirements of POFA2012 without the previous documentation?

I also don’t understand the DPA violation?

i appreciate your input. 

nosferatu1001

DpA - They cannot require the identity of the driver , as they're not entitled to it. The VRM is not the drivers personal data. 

Because it wasn't served on you in the relevant timescales - which you can look up - and it will not have contained the required documents for para 13 and 14