Thinking of pursuing harassment claim against ParkingEye, advice?

Half_way

You said its a "parking eye"car park, but whos car park is it??

 This is important

robertcox999

Half_way said:

You said its a "parking eye"car park, but whos car park is it??

 This is important

There’s one of those tacky seaside town gambling shops at the other end of the car park called pleasureland that it belongs to. The owner says he gets 1000 a month from PE. Some of the neighbours just made a habit out of taking their PCNs to him to get the tickets cancelled.


Why does it matter who owns the land? I’m curious. Are they responsible too?


Thanks

Fruitcake

If the landowner employed the PPC, then they are both jointly liable.

Coupon-mad

Yes!  PinkEye are their agents.  It would be stronger to send a LBC to both, as they are jointly and severally liable for this conduct and IMHO you are more likely to get PinkEye offering a settlement if they are still at the car park and don't want to lose the contract. PinkEye will be narked that someone is trying to sue their client and will try to hush it up.

How about publicising it in your local press, once it's over?!

robertcox999

Coupon-mad said:

Yes!  PinkEye are their agents.  It would be stronger to send a LBC to both, as they are jointly and severally liable for this conduct and IMHO you are more likely to get PinkEye offering a settlement if they are still at the car park and don't want to lose the contract. PinkEye will be narked that someone is trying to sue their client and will try to hush it up.

How about publicising it in your local press, once it's over?!

That sounds like a solid plan! I was just about to ask if I should send an LBC to both. Ok, good. I should still send the data breaching complaints out too right, that doesn’t interfere with the case?


Thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes you can make complaints to the ICO or whatever, at the same time.

Here is the wording used by @bargepole in the LBC in Clay v Civil Enforcement - see attached court judgment where Mr Clay was awarded £200.  This was a case filed against a parking firm and their landowner client as joint Defendants, in a case with a fewer aggravating features than your case (you can add more to this about harassment under the PFHA and quoting Ferguson v British Gas and the legal remedy of consumer compensation under the CPUTRs...show us your draft!):


 LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM

Dear Sir or Madam,

First Defendant: Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL)
Second Defendant: Fusion Lifestyle

This letter is sent in accordance with the Practice Directions on Pre-Action Conduct.

The conjoined defendants named above are held to be jointly and severally liable for compensatory payments in respect of breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), as set out in the following paragraphs.

Facts of the Case
1. This matter arises from the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by CEL at Wycombe Rye Lido, Bassetsbury Lane, High Wycombe, HP11 1QX

2.  The PCN reference number is XXXXXXX and the issue date 28th September 2014.

3. The Second Defendant (Fusion Lifestyle) is the leaseholder of this property, and at all material times CEL were acting with the authority of, and under instructions from, Fusion Lifestyle, so that the agent / principal relationship giving rise to joint and several liability is clearly established.

4. Subsequent to the incident, I received a Parking Charge Notice from CEL, who had obtained my registered keeper details from the DVLA. This PCN averred a charge was payable.

5. My name and address information is classified as personal data within the meaning of s1 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. Further processing of this data to pursue additional charges which have no prospect of being valid is misuse of my personal data and is prima facie evidence of an actionable breach of the DPA. CEL, as members of the British Parking Association (BPA) and being a professional parking company, would have been aware that the Registered Keeper could not be held liable for the PCN due to the following:
a. The PCN was not sent in the required timescales to invoke keeper liability, as per PoFA 2012 (Sch 4)
And/or
b. The PCN fails to comply with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice
And/or
c. The claimant has failed to comply with Keeper At Date Of Event (KADOE) contract with DVLA
and
d. The car park is not ‘relevant land’ as defined by PoFA 2012 (Sch 4). 

Legal Issues Arising
5. It follows that, not only were CEL in breach of their Keeper At Date Of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA by obtaining and processing my personal data when they clearly had no reasonable cause to do so, but they were also in breach of the Second Principle of Schedule 1 of the DPA, which states “Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes” as well as the Fifth Principle which states “Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes”

6. Pursuant to s13 of the DPA, “Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements”, the Act states at 13(1) that “An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage”.

7. I rely on two significant authorities in support of my claim, which are Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311, and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333. In Vidal-Hall, it was held by the Court of Appeal that compensation was payable upon the fact of breach, and that it was not necessary to quantify a direct pecuniary loss. In Halliday, the Court of Appeal held that a compensatory sum of up to £750 was deemed ‘appropriate and sufficient’.

8. Both of the above cases arose as a result of material breaches of the DPA by the respective defendants, and can be considered to provide binding precedents for my own situation. 

Actions Required by Defendants
I now require you to remit the sum of £XXX payable to me at the above address, within 14 days of your receipt of this letter, deemed to be two working days after the date of posting. Failure to pay the sum due, or to otherwise furnish a substantive response, will result in the issue of a Money Claim through the County Court Business Centre at Northampton without further reference to yourselves.

In the event that a Claim is issued, you may incur additional costs in the form of court filing fees, hearing fees, and such other costs as are recoverable on the small claims track of the County Court.    A judgment against you may also result in a downgrading of your Company’s credit rating, and further costs for enforcement action, which may include seizure and disposal of your corporate assets by Court appointed bailiffs.

Yours faithfully,

robertcox999

@Coupon-mad
Amazing! I’ll check over all the details with my mum when I can then post a draft here. I’m so appreciative of the help!

Half_way

as above, the landowner is jointly liable.
Much as I dislike the parking company's they just keep doing what they do and landowners need to take responsibility in the same way as farmers can not keep dangerous animals on land accessible by the public

D_P_Dance

If they do offer an out of court settlement would you be prepared to sign a non disclosure agreement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement

Half_way

I've got a serious dislike for non disclosure agreements - especially when they are used to cover up wrong doing with a public interest aspect, such as sexual assault/abuse etc.

 Parking issues and wrongdoings from landowners and parking company's may be on a completely different  scale to that of abuse, but its all on the same sliding scale and aimed solely at hiding things away so that those responsible can carry on.

As for the parking issues: you will need to get in touch with the landowner, to all intents and purposes they are fully responsible.

 I would also look at disabling the parking eye system as of immediate effect, ( ie this afternoon)  in a way that causes no physical damage,  there should be a right to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance - the ANPR system is preventing this, so in the short term i would look at getting a ladder and using a few basic tools adjusting the cameras to point at the sky, or cover them with a plastic bin bag - always ensure the ladder is safe, and that you have someone with you to assist/ hold the ladder - a high vis jacket also helps if the area is publicly accessible as for some reason people dont start asking questions