UKPC photographic evidence

Mrframed

KeithP said:

Mrframed said:

Half_way said:

who is the car park owner?

Shopping mall

Any particular shopping mall?

Mr Framed, people will lose interest if you can't answer questions properly.

It's a shopping Mall in Stretford, Manchester, the situation like this can occur and probably does at any other mall in the country.

Replying from work hence so short.

Mrframed

Half_way said:

this is known as a double dip, and you should be going full bore at the shopping centre as a gdpr breach.
they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents.
ANPR used on is own without adequate checks is not fit for purpose.
Gdpr says that data must be accurate, if there are no manual checks on anpr ovestays, such as a car park foot patrol to check to see I.
f a vehicle has overstayed, ie anpr flags up vehicle reg xxxxx has overstayed and someone goes to the car park to search for it would be a reasonable check, likewise if anpr is linked to a barrier/pay on exit system.

put simply the shopping centre had failed to ensure reasonable checks are in place, and as such you could have a claim against them.
 who / where is this shopping "mall"

That makes perfect sense, as such financial claims for overstay should be verified by person.
It will be reasonable to send the email to land owner as well as what is UKPC claiming is on their behalf. right?

D_P_Dance

Replying from work hence so short.

Why not wait until you have time to give this your full attention.  These companies have destroyed lives. 

Coupon-mad

Mrframed said:

Half_way said:

this is known as a double dip, and you should be going full bore at the shopping centre as a gdpr breach.
they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents.
ANPR used on is own without adequate checks is not fit for purpose.
Gdpr says that data must be accurate, if there are no manual checks on anpr ovestays, such as a car park foot patrol to check to see I.
f a vehicle has overstayed, ie anpr flags up vehicle reg xxxxx has overstayed and someone goes to the car park to search for it would be a reasonable check, likewise if anpr is linked to a barrier/pay on exit system.

put simply the shopping centre had failed to ensure reasonable checks are in place, and as such you could have a claim against them.
 who / where is this shopping "mall"

That makes perfect sense, as such financial claims for overstay should be verified by person.
It will be reasonable to send the email to land owner as well as what is UKPC claiming is on their behalf. right?

Yes, as the NEWBIES thread tells you. Landowner complaint is PLAN A.

Double dip is an inherent flaw of ANPR and is one of the reasons Local Authorities can't use these unfair systems:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5550336/double-dip-parking-list-of-cases/p1

Half_way

Parking companies give motorists absolutely no lee way, so why should they get better when they foul up??

AS before ANPR used in the way that it is commonly deployed is prone to faults , one of the reasons why the common First in, last out error, where any exit's/entry's in between have not been recorded  - even if they were days apart has picked up the name of "Double Dip" if the issue wasn't that common then no nickname would have been assigned to it, on here and on other similar forums/sites.

 

In the past there have been cases where parking companies have been found faking data, in one case a parking company/ parking company employee was found to be faking the time stamps on photos taken with a manual camera, this was only picked up when someone noticed the shadow hadn't changed, as with a sun clock shadows move with time, also a car parked near had the boot open in both photos.

 The end result was that the parking company ran into a few issues, had GDPR been pursued these could have been magnified.

Land owners are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents, the antics of these PPCS arent exactly a secret, neither are some of their methods of operation likewise  the flaws inherent in ANPR systems are well known.

 If this is a major landowner such as a supermarket - ie an entity that would have  a professional legal department then they should know better than to allow a PPC to operate, but yet they do.

 My insticnt would be to tell the PPC their data is incorrect and they must rectify it, if they dont i would let it get so far, as well as telling any so called debt collectors the data is wrong and they have no business processing or holding it.

Then after a bit i would go for the landowner/ car park owner as principal - demanding they remove the defective parking company, and starting a report with the ICO .

 the only exception I would make with the go for the landowner approach would be if the landowner is a small independent trader ( ie independent pub/shop/ community hall run by a volunteer committee etc)

Mrframed

Good morning everyone,
Thank you kindly for your responses and information.

As so far the UKPC upholding their claim and the DCBL quote: " are instructed by UK Parking Control Limited to recover the outstanding balance in relation to the unpaid Parking Charge Notice (PCN)" .

Now ... like Half_way mentioned I will reply to UKPC (data controller) that their data is inaccurate (which I already have in a first email, quote: "In the photographic evidence you have provided the vehicle entered the car park on the 18/09/2016 and exited on the 19/09/2016 which is not true. Both those days are the two separate visits which your ANPR system clearly failed to register. I am requesting you to provide me with complete footage on both above days entering and exiting the car park")
and in accordance to second principle of GDPR they need to rectify data to be accurate?
Inform the bailiffs about the request.
Maybe wait 2 weeks to play on time?

After that if unresolved, contact the Mall administration and present them with time evidence of me checking in and out of the venue? Let them get involve to instruct the PPC to drop the case I guess?.

Many thanks

Fruitcake

If you requested all photos, or all four photos of the vehicle, remind the scammers of this and give them a week to respond else you will complain to the ICO.
Follow through with the complaint if the do not provide the images.

Complain to the BPA, the DVLA, and their KADOE team about the data breach. 

Bailiffs are not involved. Do you mean solicitors or debt collectors?

KeithP

Are you able to show, on the balance of probabilities, the your vehicle was actually somewhere else overnight?

Fruitcake

KeithP said:

Are you able to show, on the balance of probabilities, the your vehicle was actually somewhere else overnight?

Do you have a smart 'phone with location tracking enabled, or a SatNav (portable or better yet, built in), receipts or card statements from purchases made elsewhere, witness statements of people who saw you or the car in another location, work emails, sign-in sheets etcetera? All of these will help to swing the balance of probabilities in your favour.

D_P_Dance

Surely a statement on oath will suffice.