Parking Ticket - First Point of Contact - Mention permission of the shop ?

Jenni_D

It's still a week away - STOP FRETTING!

Send the reminder once 30 days have passed, with mention of a complaint to ICO, giving them 7 days (calendar days) to furnish the data else a complaint to ICO will follow. If they fail, complain to ICO.

If the SAR is furnished but doesn't contain all the relevant data (e.g. some data that you know should exist) - complain to ICO.

It is as simple as that.

homi

Today on the 30th Day they sent the DSAR with a cover letter

" We are not aware of any other personal data concerning you and can confirm that no personal data has been withheld in accordance with the permitted exemptions. Please note that the enclosed documents are copies of the corresponding originals or screen grabs of our Operating Systems. Redactions have only occurred to protect the personal data of our employees and third parties; all of these redactions are coloured BLACK for your ease of reference.

 If, for any reason, you are dissatisfied with this response you have the right to raise a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) via https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/.

 Prior to making a complaint, you may wish to contact the ICO helpline on 0303 123 1113, which will advise you in relation to your rights and our obligations under Data Protection legislation. Alternatively, the ICO publish advice via the following links: " 


Is there anything I should look for on the documents 

The time stamps on the photos are from when the car pulled up 2:24:39 and pulling away at 2:29.39 so the time on site is less than 5 minutes  - I think the issue is that a letter was provided by the shop saying that the driver was told to pull up behind the shop to load some items  , they relying on that this would be classed as parking rather than the grace period . 

They have not provided any photos of the signage on site even though I asked for them , the ones they provided in the Popla appeal were not the ones on site as they read CCTV while the ones on site said warden patrolled . 

Umkomaas

Just try to find the holes to exploit. Loading is not parking. Persuasive judgment in the Jopson v Homeguard (2016) case. 

Jenni_D

homi said:

They have not provided any photos of the signage on site even though I asked for them , the ones they provided in the Popla appeal were not the ones on site as they read CCTV while the ones on site said warden patrolled . 

As I've said to other people making this same point - the signage is not data relating to you (specifically) so you should never expect it to come with a SAR package. They will be needed at WS + Evidence stage and should be within their WS package. Make sure you get your own photos of the actual signs on site (if you can).

homi

Jenni_D said:

homi said:

They have not provided any photos of the signage on site even though I asked for them , the ones they provided in the Popla appeal were not the ones on site as they read CCTV while the ones on site said warden patrolled . 

As I've said to other people making this same point - the signage is not data relating to you (specifically) so you should never expect it to come with a SAR package. They will be needed at WS + Evidence stage and should be within their WS package. Make sure you get your own photos of the actual signs on site (if you can).

Thanks I have photos of the signs when the ticket which were different to the ones the parking company provided at the popla appeal but this was ignored by Popla  .


The area in question now has been sold off to Birmingham council for the HS2 trainline so not too sure if the signs remain , will this be an issue ?

Summary of the case   - Is the loading vs parking a valid reason to risk going to court  - the driver at the time was told to pull up behind the shop to load a heavy item and was unaware that the area was permit only - loaded on the edge of area as there was no bays -  was  there  loading for 3 minutes  .

Fruitcake

The Jopson vs Homeguard case was heard in the appeal court, so is persuasive on the lower courts. 

The signs no longer being present is irrelevant. What they said at the time of the alleged event is what formed the contract with the motorist.
Do you know the actual sale date of the land, and do you know for certain that the sale occurred after the date of the alleged event as opposed to having occurred before, but business were still operating/working their notice as it were?

Permit only means there was no offer to park, so was a prohibitive sign.

homi

Received this follow up email from Gladstones Solictors from a message sent in June

Thank you for your email, we apologise for the delay in returning to you. 

 

We note your request to put the case on hold for 30 days, this time has now lapsed   *I did not  ask for it to be put on hold. 

 

The charge occurred on the xth 2020 xxxxxxx because vehicle registration xxxxxx  did not have a permit. We attach the correspondence, 

the images of the vehicle at the time of contravention and the signs at the site. The sign clearly states that parking at the site is for permit holders only.  

 

The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy our Client's legitimate interest.

 In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015 it was held that an £85.00 charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable.

 The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of £100 and our Client's charges are within this level.

  

The decision of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the charges are not penal nor do they have to be reflective of the parking operator's loss.   

We refer you to the BPA code of practice Part B 19.5. This confirms the following:

‘We would not expect this amount to be more than £100’

And in Part B 23.1(b) which confirms; 

‘…a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70’ 

Motorists can park on the site in accordance with the terms and conditions on the sign, without incurring a charge 

but to park without incurring a charge they may need to display a permit. 

If a motorist wishes to park ‘as they please’ within reason, they can do so but pay a charge for this ‘privilege’, the charge is set out on the signs and by a motorist parking otherwise 

than in accordance with the signs they accept the charge at the point of parking and a valid contract is formed. The charge is due within 28 days of being incurred, if the charge remains unpaid after this date the contract the motorist entered into is breached and a debt is owed to our Client, they are then entitled to damages that have occurred as a result of the breach. The costs are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses. They relate to the time our Client’s staff have spent and material facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time could have been better spent on other elements of their business. 

Our client maintains the amount of £170.00 is outstanding. Please find our payment details below.

 

Online www.gladstonessolicitors.co.uk 

Phone 0333 0230 049 

Cheque Payable to ‘Gladstones Solicitors Ltd’ 

Bank Transfer  Name – Gladstones Solicitors Ltd 

Sort Code – 20-24-09 

Account Number – 33028712 

Reference - 104315.5963

You must include your reference xxxxxxx when making payment. If you fail to do so, we may be unable to allocate your payment. This may result in further costs being incurred, for which you will be liable.

Should payment not be received by the 17th October 2022 our client may elect to issue further legal proceedings without further notice

They still not have provided the correct photos of the site in question ( they provided false ones on the Popla Appeal ) . The car is photographed on site for less than 5 mins .

 First photo was taken with the car reverse lights on 2.24  , second at 2.27 with the boot open and the last 2.29 while pulling away . 

Is it ok to upload the pictures to show where the car was at the time as it was not even a bay but the edge next to double yellow lines. 

Jenni_D

The location within the car park is irrelevant, if the accusation is that the vehicle did not have a permit (which it seems to be) - as the vehicle shouldn't have been there at all.

However loading/unloading is not parking - I'm sure this has already been discussed in this thread?

Fruitcake

They refer to the Beavis case but have conveniently omitted the part in the judgment that states the charge includes recovery costs and profit.
The Supreme Court decision trumps the BPA's made up old boys' club ramblings.

Photos of the site and signage should be provided to you at the witness statement/exhibits stage. They are not obliged to send/have sent them to you as a response to a SAR as already explained.
Keep that discrepancy in your back pocket for your WS/exhibits.

You can show us photos with your VRM redacted if you wish, but their image of the boot being open backs up your defence point that loading/unloading is not parking as defined by the judge in the appeal case of Jopson vs Homeguard.

1505grandad

From above letter  -  "We refer you to the BPA code of practice Part B 19.5. This confirms the following:......."

For future info Park Watch are now showing as IPC AoS members (no idea when they passed to the even darker side):-

"Defence Systems Limited (Trading As Park Watch)

www.parkwatch.co.uk"

An aside  -  the IPC logo is stated on their website but presumably the IPC do not give "consumer advice":-

"Before making an appeal you may wish to read the consumer advice provided by the British Parking Association at www.britishparking.co.uk/Public-advice......"

https://www.parkwatch.co.uk/terms.html