2017 Capital Car Park Control PCN, DCB Legal now following up

blackdog2220

fueboy said:

blackdog2220 said:

where are copies of the DVLA printout  when they asked for your details , all that is shown is a form saying "we got details from dvla" you need to see the dvla copy in order to check if the request was genuine and the company details he used , and the replies from the DVLA 

also I dont see a bunch of follow up / threat letters 

A subject acces request is ALL info relating to you , not selected smippets , the DVLA reply to him (you need to see 5 of those) includes YOUR name and YOUR address , you are the subject , you require ALL the info , even if its 100 pages , and they have 31 days to send it to you 

I am going through the same, as you know. DVLA sent me this FYI op

that form is filled in incorrectly and the DVLA should have refused to supply the info 
the ICO number refers to  

Terry Szmidt 
Other names:

• CAPITAL CARPARK CONTROL
• however the form should have been written 
• company name Terry Szmidt T/A (trading as) 
• other trading names if aplicable : capitol carpark control 

the DVLA have given details to a non existant company , this company have claimed to be members of the BPA , however checks have shown that capitol carpark control , have never been membrrs of the BPA 

• 
  

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas said:

The public do not realise that the BPA is licenced by government as an ATA

Accredited Trade Association status is awarded by the DVLA, the Government is not involved. 

But they will be of course, according to the draft framework put out to public consultation in October. 

It won't be down to the DVLA in future.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

Umkomaas said:

The public do not realise that the BPA is licenced by government as an ATA

Accredited Trade Association status is awarded by the DVLA, the Government is not involved. 

But they will be of course, according to the draft framework put out to public consultation in October. 

It won't be down to the DVLA in future.

Exactly, although it looks like an automatic 'carry on boys' as we transition into the new Code of Practice era.  Just hopefully the ongoing proper supervision and monitoring by the independent body will bring an end to the hitherto protectionism of the PPC network by the two APAs. 

beamerguy

The BPA need to be investigated 
We have seen they have manipulated the information in line from reading this and other threads.
The screenshots taken give 100% proof.
PLUS the BPA stated that this limited company was a member 10 years before the company existed.

Of course the DVLA must investigate but because they work closely together this could be brushed under the carpet.  This needs a good MP to start the ball rolling, it does not mean a local MP, someone like Pete Wishart the Scottish MP who has a loud voice when it comes to parking companies and the DVLA
And, what else have the BPA been up to ??

Seemslegitium

Okay, so just one thing to add - I've been keeping track of the other threads regarding CCPC and DCB Legal on here, one thing I've noticed is that the others have SARs which contain reprints of the original windscreen tickets.

Mine does not.

Just putting my lawyer hat on, but does that not mean that they now cannot submit a reprint to court as evidence (as this was withheld from me despite having a legal right to be given it)?

Le_Kirk

Seemslegitium said:

Okay, so just one thing to add - I've been keeping track of the other threads regarding CCPC and DCB Legal on here, one thing I've noticed is that the others have SARs which contain reprints of the original windscreen tickets.
Mine does not.
Just putting my lawyer hat on, but does that not mean that they now cannot submit a reprint to court as evidence (as this was withheld from me despite having a legal right to be given it)?

No, the only way this could happen is if they failed to submit it with their witness statement and evidence that they sent to you and the court.  You could use it in your WS though as evidence of their unreasonable behaviour when going for costs.

Seemslegitium

Le_Kirk said:

Seemslegitium said:

Okay, so just one thing to add - I've been keeping track of the other threads regarding CCPC and DCB Legal on here, one thing I've noticed is that the others have SARs which contain reprints of the original windscreen tickets.
Mine does not.
Just putting my lawyer hat on, but does that not mean that they now cannot submit a reprint to court as evidence (as this was withheld from me despite having a legal right to be given it)?

No, the only way this could happen is if they failed to submit it with their witness statement and evidence that they sent to you and the court.  You could use it in your WS though as evidence of their unreasonable behaviour when going for costs.

Okay. I imagine this is great evidence for a possible claim against CCPC for violations of the GDPR though, correct?

blackdog2220

in your case (5 tgickets) me thinks Mr terry towel has been using you for beer money , he only has to see your car parked up , and dip into his poleroid pic box and pick out a pic he hass never used before 

I have said this several times , contact dvla , you would like to see copies of the 5 requests he made to them 


at present not enough for dvla to take action , but your "non" requests could tip it , DVLA do noty like being conbed out of there £2.50s 

PS , who says this is going to court ? , its not going anywhere after popla 

Seemslegitium

Hey all,
Just got my SAR back from the DVLA.
The forms our 'friend' Terry filled out are an absolute mess, multiple problems with them.
Redacted copy: https://imgur.com/a/YVH10pC

1. Under company details, both boxes have been filled, when the form explicitly tells you that only one box can be filled. (this is present on all 5 of the forms!!)
2. Company name is incorrect. It is filled out as 'Capital Car Park Control', however this does not match the ICO number. This should have been filled out as 'Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control', with other trading names as 'Capital Car Park Control'
3. Company address not completely filled. Only the 1st line of the address is given, and the postcode, but not the street address.
4. Section 5 says they intend on pursuing the RK to recover the cost of the invoice, however they have not complied with PoFA (even by their own admission!), and so the RK has no liability. Therefore they should not be in possession of my data.
5. Section 6. Notice how the full street address is given. Why didn't they give this for the company address?

Also, as a by-the-by thing, the date company was established in section 2 is given as 10/2007, however the ICO number was registered on 09/2009, so this may be incorrect.

Jenni_D

1. It actually looks like they've filled in the wrong box, scrubbed it out and changed the selection. It also seems like they repeatedly made the same mistake ... maybe the forms were filled by an admin then checked by someone else before sending? Either that or the DVLA changed it for them. (Everything has been entered using a Word Processor but the box selection had been changed by hand as well as a few other notations added).