DCBL/ I Park court papers

Alanthebear

Coupon-mad said:

You are missing the point, I didn't say there was anything new in the SAR.  I am saying you know some facts about the car park and what the allegation is, so talk about it and why you didn't appeal it or whatever your facts are (briefly).

Ah sorry, I'm getting a bit mixed up in all this. The only reason I think I can say for not appealing is that I didn't see the documents until, according to them, it was too late to appeal. In my SAR I did ask for information from the pay and display machine to prove or disprove that a ticket had/ hadn't been purchased but I Park said they didn't have access to that information. The only thing they show on the NTK is ANPR footage in and out of the car park. One other thing they write about on the NTK is that the outstanding balance is £60 but payment due is £100, reduced to £60 if paid in 14 days. It makes no mention of how much has been paid so far (which is mentioned in the reminder). Grasping at straws but is there anything to be said about the period of parking being 12 minutes which is only 2 more than the grace period? 

Redx

Depends on what the relevant CoP said at the time of the incident

Have you downloaded the relevant CoP and read the grace period section ?

As for any PCN , the figure is ALWAYS £100 , or less , and gives an early payment discount , so typically £100 with a 40% discount if paid promptly.

If not paid promptly , the discount lapses and the full figure becomes the charge on any invoice , typically £100

Alanthebear

beamerguy said:

Alanthebear said:

Coupon-mad said:

The template already covers signage.  If you have a SAR reply there then you can certainly add facts to the point #3 because you can see their hand.  You must answer to their evidence and allegations.

They did send the SAR to my Scottish address. There was nothing new in the SAR, I even complained to the ICO for them demanding signed forms and photo ID and not supplying some other info about me but the ICO said they had complied as much as they could

So the ICO who are supposed to protect our personal data say that Photo ID is OK to send to an unknown entity ???  There is no purpose for photo ID, it will not confirm who you are as they never had a picture of you in the first place

Your MP must take this up with the ICO because once scammers in general get to hear of this such information .... drivers licence 's and passports will be cloned all over the place.
DON'T THE ICO FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS

From the ICO reply
"Our view

I have considered the information available in relation to this complaint and I am of the view that the I Park has complied with their Data Protection obligations. This is because you have received an appropriate response to your subject access request.

I Park have explained that your request for information under SAR asked for information which they could not provide as they do not have the information requested. ANPR images are not a ‘footage’ and they only receive images for a vehicle if a breach of terms and conditions is made. Only data pulled from the pay and display machine would be the data relating to a breach in the terms and conditions of that vehicle.

In relation to your comment about I Park asking for unnecessary ID requirements, they only request additional ID verification where appropriate. We agree it was appropriate in this case.

I Park confirm that you have been provided with all the information that they hold about the parking charge including images and letters. Your request for all data in relation to you parking and paying correctly cannot be supplied they don’t hold data of vehicles parking and not breaching the terms and conditions of the car park so cannot supply any data in relation to your subsequent visits.

As you have been provided with copies of your personal data held, there is no further action that will be taken in relation to this matter.

We keep a record of all the complaints raised with us about the way organisations process personal information.  The information we gather from complaints may form the basis for action we may take in the future to ensure organisations meet their information rights obligations"

Will definitely bring this up with my MP, thanks

Redx

They are correct in stating that under GDPR only your data , letters , anpr photos , NTK PCN and anything else they issued to you in your name under the vehicle VRM can and is supplied

So if there is no video surveillance footage , no PDT machine data etc relating to you , then they cannot and will not supply it. Nor will they include anyone elses data

Reasonable I D is utility bills , bank statements , Court claim papers , V5C log book , HMRC or DWP letters , phone bills , rent letters , council tax bills , water bills , energy bills etc

Alanthebear

Redx said:

They are correct in stating that under GDPR only your data , letters , anpr photos , NTK PCN and anything else they issued to you in your name under the vehicle VRM can and is supplied

So if there is no video surveillance footage , no PDT machine data etc relating to you , then they cannot and will not supply it. Nor will they include anyone elses data

Reasonable I D is utility bills , bank statements , Court claim papers , V5C log book , HMRC or DWP letters , phone bills , rent letters , council tax bills , water bills , energy bills etc

I requested payment machine data matching my car registration as this car park will probably have been used by at least one of us on other occasions and they should have proof of this. As their case relies on anpr footage matching or not matching payment machine data I thought this was appropriate.
I originally completed the sar using an online template and submitted ID from that list but was told I had to complete and sign a form and provide more ID. When I sent them a link to the ICO website stating I didn't need to do this they processed my SAR without, surely this proves they are trying to mislead people and stop them accessing their data?

KeithP

Alanthebear said:

I requested payment machine data matching my car registration as this car park will probably have been used by at least one of us on other occasions and they should have proof of this.

But once they have decided that there is nothing wrong about one particular parking event, they have no need to keep the data relating to that event and it should be promptly deleted.
The point I am making is that you should only expect to see data about parking events that they dispute.

Redx

it may be appropriate, it may be that you put them to strict proof of the PDT records in a court defence too, as you point out above, or the court can take a view on that aspect, because a claimant has to prove that they have a valid claim, the defendant doesnt have to prove anything at all , PDT machine records may be part of that evidential proof, eventuallly

the ICO would be the correct people to rule on the latter, which you tried, but that is an issue between you , the ICO, and your MP, NOTHING TO DO WITH PARKING per se

plus it may not have any bearing on your case, but if you wish to fight city hall and get the ICO to recognise their apparent error then the way forward is your MP or some other method of complaint or publicity , surely ?

Alanthebear

Hi
I've redone my defence points based on what everyone has said, hopefully this makes a bit more sense now. If anyone has any feedback I'd be grateful. Thanks

2.    It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3.  The Defendant first heard about this charge by post, months later. The Defendant was living and working in Scotland at the time and unable to return to their home address due to Covid and supplied this address to the Claimant. Despite this, correspondence was still sent to the Defendant’s address in England. This caused an unnecessary delay in the Defendant receiving correspondence and meant that the Defendant missed the opportunity to appeal using the Claimants procedures in the ’Notice to Keeper’. Both the Defendant and household members who had to assist with passing on correspondence felt harassed by the bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters.

4. The allegation appears to relate to a period of parking totalling 12 minutes and 7 seconds, as detailed in the Notice to Keeper. The only evidence supplied to prove this is ANPR footage of the Defendant’s car entering and leaving the car park in question. This footage doesn’t allow for time taken to drive through the car park on entering and leaving and to find a parking space. Further, the Claimant alleges that no pay and display ticket or prepay arrangement was purchased yet has not provided any evidence of this.

5. The Claimant alleges that the parking charge during this time period was £100 and that the car park had clear signage to bring this to the attention of the Defendant yet signage on entry to the car park clearly states that parking up to 1 hour cost £1.50. This is a gross inflation of costs involved.

Fruitcake

A few suggestions.

"The only evidence supplied to prove support this is are ANPR footage images of the Defendant’s car entering and leaving the car park in question. This footage doesn’t These images do not allow for time taken to drive through the car park on entering and leaving and to find a parking space."
The ANPR system only records time on site, not time parked. The claimant has provided no proof that the car was parked.

I don't think point 5 has legs at all thanks to the infamous Beavis case.

Redx

If it was about 12 minutes , download and read the relevant CoP because grace periods are involved , yet nothing is mentioned above

Get rid of 5 , Beavis case killed that argument 6 years ago