Southampton Town Quay, Parking Eye

Umkomaas

pinheadplanet said:

I could imagine they could get some leeway in terms of the recent covid situation, could reasonably be given more time to process? Could it be a bit of a grey area at the moment? I know 'the law is the law' though.

Nope, there is no Covid leeway.  The law definitely is the law ...... 14 days. Don't go looking for problems that might undermine your confidence. 

pinheadplanet

4). Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no
information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach

BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) states that:

“It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:

• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks

The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of
Practice (21.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at:

https://ico.org.uk/media/for- organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:

“This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment including:

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);”

“the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations
under the DPA. Any organization using cameras to process personal data should
follow the recommendations of this code.”

“If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate
whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.”

“You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to
address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective
solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on
individuals”

“You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the
scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a
privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact
assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper
assessment.”

“If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you
undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its
introduction is proportionate and necessary.”

“Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce
parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies
how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to
minimize these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when
a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park.”

“Note:

... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality
and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon
fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations
should therefore also consider these issues.”

“A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the
surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a
lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate.”


The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that
if ParkingEye wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a privacy
impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is
proportionate and necessary. It also states that ParkingEye must regularly
evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.

It therefore follows that I require ParkingEye to provide proof of regular privacy
impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and
BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact
assessments to show that its use has “a lawful basis and is justified, necessary
and proportionate”.

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state:

“5.3 Staying in Control

Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance
system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the
code’s requirements in practice. You should:

• tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it
should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their
request;”

“7.6 Privacy Notices

It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in
relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a
requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to
ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance
system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground
level or more prevalent then it may first appear.

One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s
right of subject access.”


ParkingEye has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the
keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, ParkingEye has not
stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the keepers right to a SAR on
any paperwork, Notice to Keeper, reminder letter or rejection letter despite there being a Data
Protection heading on the back of the NtK. This is a mandatory requirement of the
ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the
BPA’s Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR,
such that it makes the use of this registered keeper’s data unlawful.

As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and
in turn the BPA’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law,
POPLA will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given.

pinheadplanet

5). No Planning Permission from Southampton City Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

A search in Southampton City Council’s planning database does not show any planning
permission for the pole-mounted ANPR cameras for Town Quay, Southampton,
nor does it show any Advertising Consent for signage exceeding 0.3m2

UK government guidance on advertisement requires:

“If a proposed advertisement does not fall into one of the Classes in Schedule 1
or Schedule 3 to the Regulations, consent must be applied for and obtained from
the local planning authority (referred to as express consent in the Regulations).
Express consent is also required to display an advertisement that does not
comply with the specific conditions and limitations on the class that the
advertisement would otherwise have consent under.

It is criminal offence to display an advertisement without consent.”


This clearly proves ParkingEye is/has been seeking to enforce Terms &
Conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, using equipment (pole-mounted
ANPR cameras) for which no planning application had been made.

I request ParkingEye provides evidence that the correct Planning Applications
were submitted (and approved) in relation to the pole-mounted ANPR cameras and
that Advertising Consent was gained for signage exceeding 0.3 m2, prior to the date to
which this appeal relates, the xx May 2020.

pinheadplanet

Leave these last 2 off?

D_P_Dance

Was this not the same car park that Ivor PEcheque roughed up the parking parasite?   

Redx

It was the Fistral beach car park that Ivor was involved with , near Newquay

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

Was this not the same car park that Ivor PEcheque roughed up the parking parasite?   

Redx said:

It was the Fistral beach car park that Ivor was involved with , near Newquay

As Roy Walker would say, "Close, but not close enough". 😆

Redx

pinheadplanet said:

I thought 5 was a big deal seeing as it amounts to issuing tickets 'illegally', I thought was my main defence

There is no defence , the driver erred and was caught

Your appeal is based on parking eye failing to comply with POFA so as keeper you have no liability , the golden ticket reply , so a technical knockout based on a technicality , non compliance with the law named POFA

There may be poor signage and no landowner authority , as well , but POFA is the main issue

Umkomaas

@pinheadplanet - appeal points 2 and 3 to my eyes look okay. See if anyone else wishes to comment, but don't leave it too late to submit to POPLA. Remember - a pdf attachment, don't try cramming the appeal into the 2,000 word maximum POPLA appeal portal box!

pinheadplanet

Dare I say points 2 and 3 are right after point 1). ? They're on page 4 of this thread