Thinking of pursuing harassment claim against ParkingEye, advice?

robertcox999

Hi guys, looking into this for my mum. I know it'd be better for her to comment herself but I don't see that happening.

Here's a quick run down of the situation, could anyone advise if there is something here or any angle I may have missed?

My mum owns a terrace property that has a rear access road. At the beginning of this access road there is an entrance to a ParkingEye car park with ANPR. For about 8 months, PE ANPR cameras were aimed so that they picked up my mum's (and all other residents using the access road) car, as well as her visitors. This resulted in countless PCNs, one for each time she visited this property. Each one had to be manually disputed through PEs online forums (as per their guidance on the PCN). Eventually, as very frustrated and distressed by this, she sent a cease and desist to PE. They continued on their merry way to keep issuing PCNs. Some time later, they acknowledged their fault but it took them months to actually change the camera position. During this time between accepting fault and changing the ANPR cameras, their robo service issued many PCNs, which my mum dismissed as they had admitted fault. Two of these went to court, and one ended in a CCJ. Years later, they set aside the CCJ and dropped other charges. There is a huge email chain documenting their fault for most of these events.

As a result during this time, my mum (a small time landlord / property developer) almost lost a deposit for a house as she couldn't get a mortgage due to the CCJ. No apology was given at any point (I never expected one from PE but quite rightly my mum did). The whole situation made my mum feel very vulnerable, distressed, powerless and afraid that she would lose a property. Many neighbours went through similar things (potential witnesses / a barrage of claims), one of which is a solicitors' business.

Aside from the obvious harassment stuff, is there anything else? The deeds for my mum's property include access to the rear lane with some wording to the theme of 'with no hindrance, permission, or even acknowledgement'. Would this include ANPR 'acknowledgement'? Is there something with PE applying to DVLA and processing her details without any acceptance of contract as she never crossed into their car park? Also they put up signs in the rear access alley but it may not be their shared property, as well as tarmac-ing over part of the road to make the land division line less noticeable.


I'm trying to think of other angles... any ideas? Is this worth pursuing? What could she be looking at winning / losing if she wins / loses this case? I understand if you folks focus more on sorting parking fines rather than making claims, that makes sense. If so, could you suggest where to begin? I was thinking getting my mum to send an SAR for starters.

Thanks a lot everyone. 

Fruitcake

Whilst you may have a case for harassment, especially after they admitted their camera was in the wrong place, I think a better approach would be for claims for data misuse in breach of the GDPR Act. You do not need to prove distress or harassment, just the fact that there was a breach.

Complaints should also be made to the BPA and DVLA for multiple data breaches as well as the unjustified court clams and CCJ.
List all the PCNs or as many as possible, plus the court claim(s)/CCJ with dates if possible.
The scammers had no right to access anyone's keeper details who used the access lane, so get neighbours involved as well is possible. This was not only a DVLA data breach but also a KADOE contract breach. That's multiple breaches so all or as many as possible should be complained about.

Include your Mum's MP in the complaints as well.

Complaint address for the DEVLA data breach and the KADOE breach.

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk 

and

KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

Both complaints should be a two pronged approach. Complain about Parking Lie for requesting keeper data without justification, and complain about DVLA for releasing the data without conducting due care and diligence. 

Send an SAR to the DPO of the scammers asking for all data they hold on the keeper. That should flush out all the NTKs, reminders, threatening letters, photos of the vehicle, court claims, and judgements.

Use a date from before the first NTK or when your Mum moved in until now.

Redx

Harassment cases have an extremely high burden of proof , such as medical records etc

Data breach is easier as fruitcake says

Coupon-mad

I'd send ParkingEye a letter before claim and set out her case to claim £900 for distress, citing various laws.

Is there something with PE applying to DVLA and processing her details without any acceptance of contract as she never crossed into their car park?

Yes.  Breach of the KADOE agreement, but more than that, a data breach under the DPA 2018 (or its predecessor, how long ago was all this?).  They had no reasonable cause to get her data and they caused immense distress (Vidal Hall v Google established that a claim for pure distress can be made).  There is also a case called Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd where someone got £250 for basic data abuse from a parking firm but your mum's case seems far worse and affected her life and got her a CCJ, which is appalling harassment of a person not bound by the t&cs at all.

There is also the argument about breach of Reg 3 and/or Reg 5 of the CPUTRs.  Read it!  A consumer has a right to redress arising from that Act (in her case, due to being effetively tricked into being bound by an unfair contract).

I'd suggest a £900 claim (LBC first) which costs just £60 in court fees using MCOL.  The reason I say £900 is because it's an achievable sum and sits at the lower end of the Vento Guidelines (relating to distress arising from discrimination).   £900 avoids the £1000 'shock value' that might put a Judge off and because it sits exactly on the bottom rung for harassment (see below).

If your County Court Judge doesn't like breach of the DPA and thinks that's merely a matter for the ICO (for example), they might like:

 

(a) the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (4A CONSUMERS’ RIGHTS TO REDRESS) - 'misleading action' under Reg 5 of the 2008 Regs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/870/made  

 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2008/9780110811574/regulation/5  

(read those misleading actions - we've often cited these on MSE - I think she should use her right to redress!).

 https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04678#fullreport 

''As of 1st October 2014, amendments have been made to the Unfair Trading Regulations which give consumers new rights of redress if they have been the victim of misleading actions or aggressive selling.''

  ...the definition of “product” means - (b)           a service,  (e) rights or obligations

 

When does a consumer have a right to redress?

27A.—(1) A consumer has a right to redress under this Part if—

(a)the conditions in this regulation are met, and

(b)the conditions (if any) in the following provisions of this Part for the availability of that right are met.

(2) The first condition is that—

(a)the consumer enters into a contract with a trader for the sale or supply of a product by the trader (a “business to consumer contract”),

 

(4) The second condition is that—

(a)the trader engages in a prohibited practice in relation to the product, or

(b)in a case where a consumer enters into a business to consumer contract for goods or digital content—

(i)a producer engages in a prohibited practice in relation to the goods or digital content, and

(ii)when the contract is entered into, the trader is aware of the commercial practice that constitutes the prohibited practice or could reasonably be expected to be aware of it.

 

(6) The third condition is that the prohibited practice is a significant factor in the consumer’s decision to enter into the contract or make the payment.

What does “prohibited practice” mean in this Part?

27B.—(1) In this Part “prohibited practice” means a commercial practice that—

(a)is a misleading action under regulation 5, or

(b)is aggressive under regulation 7.

(2) Regulations 5 and 7 apply for the purposes of this Part as if for the definition of “transactional decision” in regulation 2(1) there were substituted—““transactional decision” means any decision taken by a consumer to enter into a contract with a trader for the sale or supply of a product by the trader, or for the sale of goods to the trader, or to make a payment to a trader for the supply of a product.”.

 (b) breach of the PFHA   

https://choptheknot.wordpress.com/harassment-damages/ 

'' The conventional approach is that damages for harassment should be approached in the same way as those awarded for injury to feelings in discrimination cases; an approach endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Martins v Choudhary.

However, the point was made (in S&D Property Investments v Nisbet) that it would be wrong to apply precisely the same awards as discrimination necessarily involves an award for the humiliation of being treated differently on the grounds of a protected characteristic such as sex or race.

In discrimination cases, the starting point is the 3 bands of award which were identified by the Court of Appeal in Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2002] EWCA Civ 1871...

At the invitation of the Court of Appeal in De Souza, the Presidents of the Tribunals in England & Wales and in Scotland later issued Presidential Guidance on 5 September 2017 which applied...[...]...the award bands have been increased and the present position is that for claims presented on or after 6 April 2019 the bands of awards are:

£900 to £8,800 for less serious cases, such as where an act of discrimination is an isolated or one off occurrence.''

''In practice, as indeed these cases demonstrate, much will turn both on the nature of the harassment (e.g. whether it involved actual or threatened violence, direct personal confrontation such as visits and calls or was limited to letters), the duration of the course of conduct and, of course, the evidence of the target about the impact of the harassment.''

https://choptheknot.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/harassment-damages-18111.pdf  

 The examples in that last link are not great, use Ferguson v British Gas:

https://swarb.co.uk/ferguson-v-british-gas-trading-ltd-ca-10-feb-2009/  

HTH

Fruitcake

Oh yes, complain to the ICO as well about each and every breach of the DPA/GDPR. List them all.

Umkomaas

Maybe your Mum's case as a tracer, then, if successful, each of your neighbours piles in with their own individual claims. Alternatively, given that a firm of solicitors have been affected by this, whether they should lodge a group claim on your Mum's and your neighbours' behalf against PE?

robertcox999

Thanks everyone! What a great response. Lots to get me going. I’m going to confirm dates with my mum because I know it was a few years ago. I know harassment cases have a 6 year time limit is that right? Same with DPA / KADOE breach stuff?


So here’s the plan so far. I’ll get a SAR sent out to gather all NTKs and everything first. Then I’ll send complaints to ICO, DVLA (and KADOE service), BPA, including her MP. Then, I’ll draft an LBC for PinkEye on the grounds of data and also distress...I’ll read up on what you said first @Coupon-mad Should I be offering mediation or not? I’ll also ask some neighbours if they’re willing to get involved.


How does that all sound?

You guys are great, thanks a lot!

Coupon-mad

I know harassment cases have a 6 year time limit is that right? Same with DPA / KADOE breach stuff?

Yes.

Should I be offering mediation or not?

As the Claimant - YES - it looks like you are playing nicely.

PinkEye - can we copy that?!  Made me laugh!

beamerguy

My advice is to follow coupon-mad's advice, it's very sound and the problems it will cause parking lie are untold.   It will be much cheaper to pay you £900

Fruitcake

beamerguy said:

My advice is to follow coupon-mad's advice, it's very sound and the problems it will cause parking lie are untold.   It will be much cheaper to pay you £900

A win in court against Parking Lie would do more damage and help more victims
than an out of court settlement, but of course it is entirely up to the OP.

The ICO and DVLA complaints for misuse of data could also be very useful to other victims.

OP, please watch out on this forum in about 3 - 4 weeks time as we will be asking people to comment on the new parking CoP that will be published around then for public consultation. Your personal experience of multiple data breaches, harassment, and unreasonable behaviour will add weight to any comments you make during this consultation.

robertcox999

Fruitcake said:

beamerguy said:

My advice is to follow coupon-mad's advice, it's very sound and the problems it will cause parking lie are untold.   It will be much cheaper to pay you £900

A win in court against Parking Lie would do more damage and help more victims
than an out of court settlement, but of course it is entirely up to the OP.

The ICO and DVLA complaints for misuse of data could also be very useful to other victims.

OP, please watch out on this forum in about 3 - 4 weeks time as we will be asking people to comment on the new parking CoP that will be published around then for public consultation. Your personal experience of multiple data breaches, harassment, and unreasonable behaviour will add weight to any comments you make during this consultation.

Yes, I’m bearing in mind all approaches but also considering what I want to drag my mum through. Obviously cold hard cash is appealing but I do have an inspirational type hatred for PPCs so wouldn’t be opposed to throwing as many obstacles their way as possible.

Yes, i’ll remember to chime in on the CoP, I didn’t realise it was so soon.

Cheers