6 PCNs from UKCPM ANPR Car Park - Paid cash every time

waffle83

** Update - I put in an IAS appeal & PCN CANCELLED **
Even after all the evidence of unfair play at IAS appeals, I  couldn't quite shake the bit about the PPC having to submit their case and thinking, well they don't have a case and if they have to submit ANPR records then surely it would prove me right. Good news is they conceded and cancelled the charge. They didn't even put forward an initial prima facie so I can only assume they finally checked the system and saw they got it wrong. It's a little unsatisfying to not know for sure if it was a faulty parking machine or a faulty backend system. 
I only put one PCN is through initially as they make it hard to fill in those web forms (I suspect this is by design rather than bad design). So I've submitted IAS appeals for the other PCNs now to get them all quashed before submitting complaints.




In other news, I wrote to a couple local papers but no response, I guess there's not enough slow news days right now
I did get a reply from my MP asking for details though, so hopefully that means they'll take some action. 

Umkomaas

Well done. Often where PPCs are clearly painted into a corner at IAS stage, the IAS whispers in their ear that it might be best to withdraw as they don't want to upset their incestuous relation with an out and out rejection of their case. 

You might want to question whether the PPC had 'reasonable cause' to access your personal data from the DVLA. If they didn't you might have a case for a breach of DPA/GDPR laws. There's a lot of work to be done in terms of research, but a few others have done so - and successfully sued. Have a think about it. 

twhitehousescat

I saw  that vid on youtubec and follow up , there was something funny DCBL would not verify if the bailiff worked for them , they went all quiet , clammed up as if him turning up was bot actually legal , hence the 10k , i think 

Umkomaas

twhitehousescat said:

I saw  that vid on youtubec and follow up , there was something funny DCBL would not verify if the bailiff worked for them , they went all quiet , clammed up as if him turning up was bot actually legal , hence the 10k , i think 

Are you on the right page here TWC?

Coupon-mad

Send your video to the DVLA and the IPC and make a formal complaint about the car park operator getting DVLA data without reasonable cause.  List all your PCNs and explain everything and tell the DVLA and IPC you expect a proper investigation and that you have an MSE thread where the regulars are watching and waiting to see what the IPC do about this.

Please say the above... this is a dodgy time for PPCs and they (and both APAs) will 'jump' more often right now, and so they should with your evidence. All PCNs at that car park should be cancelled, as the BPA has just confirmed to me has happened in the Manchester car park (I will update that thread).

waffle83

Thanks for the advice. I was planning to put in a formal complaint once I confirm all tickets are quashed. IPC says I have to put a complaint in with the PPC before they consider it, I would have thought the all the appeals is it's own complaint..
Who's the right contact at DVLA? I've found an email for a SAR request, so guess same person would be in charge of GDPR queries. 
I'm not generally a complaints person, but the unwarranted stress and stolen time dealing with this has made me pretty angry, so I'm going to follow through.

Umkomaas

Who's the right contact at DVLA? 

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk  
KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk 

Send complaint to both. 

D_P_Dance

Read this

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

waffle83

Update on this. I've been operating a little slowly but I did put complaints in at DVLA and IPC, and responses are unsatisfactory but thought I'd share. 

DVLA - Complaint based around these points:

I believe they have breached the Data Protection Act by accessing my vehicle data without reasonable cause and they misused that data by pursuing a parking charge without evidence of a breach of contract. Therefore my data was not:

 - Used fairly and lawfully

 - Used in a way that is adequate, relevant and not excessive

- Handled according to people’s data protection rights
DVLA's Response is a long winded way of saying they're not going to do anything. I've bolded the only part that addresses my case. It's weird how it only happened on "some occasions" but affected my VRN each time...

Thank you for your email of 17th November about the release of information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) vehicle register.
 
The DVLA takes the protection and security of its data very seriously and has procedures in place to ensure data is disclosed only where it is lawful and fair to do so and where the provisions of the Data Protection Law are met. The Agency must strike a balance between ensuring the privacy of motorists is respected while enabling those who may have suffered loss or damage to seek redress.
 
Drivers choosing to park a vehicle on private land do so subject to the terms and conditions set out on signage in the car park. The need to contact individuals who may not have complied with these conditions is, in most circumstances, considered to be a reasonable cause. Data is provided by the DVLA to enable landowners or their agents to pursue their legal rights and to address disputes. I hope you can appreciate that if this were not the case, motorists would be able to park with disregard for the conditions applying with little prospect of being held accountable.
 
I have investigated this matter with UK Car Park Management Ltd who made the request to the DVLA for the registered keeper data for vehicle registration number ######. I have had sight of their evidence to show that at the time they had reasonable cause to make their request. I have further been advised that these cases were cancelled under an additional review from their Appeals Team Leader. The appeals team had some concerns that payments were not being registered correctly for this car park on some occasions, while this was being investigated the decision was taken by their appeals team to cancel these parking charges due to the nature of the appeal.
 
While seeking to ensure that vehicle keeper data is released only in appropriate circumstances, it is not a matter for the Agency to decide on the merits of individual cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between motorists and private car park enforcement companies. The DVLA cannot regulate any aspect of a company’s business. Any representations should be made to the landowner or his agent. DVLA releases information on the basis that reasonable cause is demonstrated.  
 
To help ensure motorists are treated fairly when any private parking charge is pursued the DVLA discloses vehicle keeper information only to companies that are members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association (ATA). The purpose of requiring a company to be a member of an ATA is to ensure that those who request DVLA information are legitimate companies that operate within a code of practice that promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures that there is a clear set of standards for operators.
 
The company in question, UK Car Park Management Ltd, is a member of the International Parking Community Ltd (IPC) which is an Accredited Trade Association for the parking industry. The IPC’s code of practice is published on its website at www.theipc.info under the heading Accredited Operators Scheme. If a member of this AOS does not comply with the code of practice, it may be suspended or expelled, during which time no data will be provided to it by the DVLA.    If you feel that any of the practices used by the company do not comply with the IPC’s code of practice, you may wish to contact the IPC at P O Box 431, Knutsford, WA16 1EP.
 
I trust I have explained matters but, if you remain unhappy with the service you have received, you can write to our Complaints Team and I have provided a link to our complaints procedure for your reference:

The IPC got a similarly worded complaint and they brushed over the part where I mentioned breaching IPC Code of Practice and gave this generic reply:

Thank you for contacting us regarding one of our members.
I note your comments regarding your data, please note, this is outside of our remit and we are therefore unable to comment further in this regard.
Please note that we are unable to comment upon the lawfulness of individual parking charges. Were a recipient of a charge wishes to make such a challenge, they need to follow the appeals procedure which should be detailed on every Parking Charge Notice that is issued by and IPC member.
It should be noted that the Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether such parking charges were lawful in the case of Beavis v Parking Eye (2015) and found that on the facts of that particular matter, they were.
If you have received a parking charge and if you are concerned about the lawfulness of it then you should seek your own independent legal advice from a solicitor or contact the Citizens Advice Bureau.
We regret that we are not able to assist you any further.
Yours sincerely,
The IPC

 I have raised a new complaint with the IPC directing them to Section 14 of their Code of Practice - 14.5 is particularly interesting to me. I'll let you know if I get anything of substance back. 

Coupon-mad

Hmmm, that reply from the IPC is woefully inadequate, isn't it?

Take it to the local paper.