Smart Parking issued DRPlus letters before NTKs 'by mistake'. BPA & DVLA know. Blind eye turned.

beamerguy

The BPA exists to protect the interests of its members, and the more tickets those members issue, the higher their annual BPA membership fees

Something we know.   After reading the reply to C-m from Clark, the BPA are now matching the IPC scam

Wonder what they will do when a PPC breaks the new code and where would we complain to if such junk letters are sent out ?

Coupon-mad

Proof of what happened.

The ICO should be informed IMHO, because Smart haven't...and the BPA refuse to tell me how many cases are involved in this data sharing breach.

An entire large batch of names and addresses and VRMs (obtained for the limited use under the KADOE, of merely enquiring who was driving, because Smart never use the POFA and can never pursue a keeper for monies by assuming they were driving - not allowed) were sent to DRP when they should never have been.

All the consumers got is this weak apology and a demand for an extortionate £100 instead of £160.  If anyone complains to the ICO make sure you state that Smart never use the POFA so there is (and was) no keeper liability excuse here:

beamerguy

The question must be ....... was this an error by Smart, or was this a calculated assumption that DRP letters will result in payments when Smart are probably suffering due to covid. ?
This is well over the head of Clark from the BPA. Clark may well be using data protection but is he covering up a fraud ?

This must go to the ICO with copies to Sir Greg and Jenrick. PLUS  a copy to Pete Wishart in Scotland, bearing in mind hIs thoughts about Smart and the BPA

I suspect this is fraud and if Clark does not come clean, he can expect an investigation into the BPA  .....  IMO that will be well overdue.

C-m, happy to help to project this to higher levels if you wish

Fruitcake

I am not surprised by the BPA's response. My own experience is that they whitewashed my friend's complaint when ParkingLie reduced the permitted free parking time form three hours to two at a local car park.
The BPA's response was, ParkingLie obtained advertising consent for the signs so there is no problem, even though the council planning order and advertising consent said it was approved but three hours should be permitted.
The word, "should" is defined as a requirement or obligation. 
ParkingLie ignored it. The BPA said it was okay for them to ignore it.

Imagine my surprise.

beamerguy

Fruitcake said:

I am not surprised by the BPA's response. My own experience is that they whitewashed my friend's complaint when ParkingLie reduced the permitted free parking time form three hours to two at a local car park.
The BPA's response was, ParkingLie obtained advertising consent for the signs so there is no problem, even though the council planning order and advertising consent said it was approved but three hours should be permitted.
The word, "should" is defined as a requirement or obligation. 
ParkingLie ignored it. The BPA said it was okay for them to ignore it.

Imagine my surprise.

Not that so called "director of operations" again ....that man is not fit to be a director of anything ?

beamerguy

OK FOLKS ... letter now sent to those in government requesting a full investigation into Smart and the BPA

While it will take a while to sink in, if responses are not received, they will be reminded