Car Parking charges and false information from Ipserv Ltd

Land_Registry

Cardriver45 said:

I went on the land registry site from the link but there's no mention of the car park when I typed in the car park's post code. Just this that's in this picture 

You’d be better using the Map Enquiry function to identify the car park site. Try a new enquiry and look for Map Enquiry alongside Detailed Enquiry and Quick Enquiry (the one used) 

Cardriver45

Land_Registry said: 

You’d be better using the Map Enquiry function to identify the car park site. Try a new enquiry and look for Map Enquiry alongside Detailed Enquiry and Quick Enquiry (the one used) 

This is what came up when I did the map search. Just the Uni and Suffolk college

Coupon-mad

Cardriver45 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, go for it.

Is it worth me making the same request to the University on there as well as they are on that site too?

Send to both and see what you get back, or not!

Cardriver45

This is the reply I received from the DVLA

Thank you for your email on 18th July about the release of information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) vehicle register.

 

Regulation 27 provides a legal gateway for the release of information from the DVLA vehicle register and this does not require the consent of the data subject. Disclosure in these circumstances does not breach the Data Protection Act and the Information Commissioner’s Office is fully aware that data held on the DVLA’s records is released in this way.

 

To help ensure motorists are treated fairly when any private parking charge is pursued the DVLA discloses vehicle keeper information only to companies that are members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association (ATA). The purpose of requiring a company to be a member of an ATA is to ensure that those who request DVLA information are legitimate companies that operate within a code of practice that promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures that there is a clear set of standards for operators.  

 

You took the correct action by writing to the British Parking Association (BPA) which is the Accredited Trade Association for the parking company.

They have informed us that they have investigated your complaint directly with IPSERV Limited and a full response has been sent to you on 27/07/2021.

In the correspondence they go into detail regarding the notices referring to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) or where it is and is not mentioned, your communication with IPSERV Limited, the use of ANPR cameras and the term Parking Charge Notice.

 

If you remain unhappy with the service you have received, you can write to our Complaints Team and I have provided a link to our complaints procedure for your reference:https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/driver-and-vehicle-licensing-agency/about/complaints-procedure

 

Yours sincerely

MothballsWallet

Timeouts said:

fisherjim said:

A "private company" that has a pension scheme run by Suffolk County Council and is shown in its accounts to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Ipswich Borough Council I smell fish!

Is this not just another case of the BPA ... KNOWING NOTHING ?

Driving up standards they keep saying ?   anyone know WHERE ?

Up the river without paddles? And the boat's got a massive hole below the waterline.

BarkingDog

If I have read things correctly, it reads as if you were issued with 2 PCNs, 1 of which ( REDACTED BY FORUM TEAM ) was cancelled because of administrative errors but the other is live. The charge is £100 discounted to £60 if you pay within 14 days. 

This is what I would do in your position. Pay the £60 and get that PCN out of the way and no longer a source of worry, frustration and anxiety. I would also send them a Subject Access Request (SAR) right away. You have every right to check they have used your information correctly. Importantly however I would also send them a claim for damages - distress, inconvenience, worry and anxiety for £250 in respect of the erroneous PCN  ( REDACTED BY FORUM TEAM ). 

My claim would be made under Article 82 UK GDPR. I would claim for breaches of Article 5 UK GDPR, in particular paragraphs 1 (d) Article 5 -Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (‘accuracy’); and (f) Personal data shall be processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures (‘integrity and confidentiality’).

I think I could make a case to say, PCNs are very emotive matters and cause significant upset and in addition to the inconvenience of having to correspond and complain, I suffered worry and distress about having to pay money I could ill-afford to lose. The parking company should have had processes in place to prevent and detect the administrative errors made and that would have prevented the distress, inconvenience etc inflicted on me. There is no doubt they processed inaccurate information about you and caused you damage. You may get the £250 or they may call your bluff. Be prepared to go to the Small Claims Court but you can reduce your claim at any time if you think it will achieve satisfactory settlement. You might be pleasantly surprised how things work out.

Cardriver45

BarkingDog said:

If I have read things correctly, it reads as if you were issued with 2 PCNs, 1 of which was cancelled because of administrative errors but the other is live. The charge is £100 discounted to £60 if you pay within 14 days. 

This is what I would do in your position. Pay the £60 and get that PCN out of the way and no longer a source of worry, frustration and anxiety. I would also send them a Subject Access Request (SAR) right away. You have every right to check they have used your information correctly. Importantly however I would also send them a claim for damages - distress, inconvenience, worry and anxiety for £250 in respect of the erroneous PCN. 

My claim would be made under Article 82 UK GDPR. I would claim for breaches of Article 5 UK GDPR, in particular paragraphs 1 (d) Article 5 -Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (‘accuracy’); and (f) Personal data shall be processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures (‘integrity and confidentiality’).

I think I could make a case to say, PCNs are very emotive matters and cause significant upset and in addition to the inconvenience of having to correspond and complain, I suffered worry and distress about having to pay money I could ill-afford to lose. The parking company should have had processes in place to prevent and detect the administrative errors made and that would have prevented the distress, inconvenience etc inflicted on me. There is no doubt they processed inaccurate information about you and caused you damage. You may get the £250 or they may call your bluff. Be prepared to go to the Small Claims Court but you can reduce your claim at any time if you think it will achieve satisfactory settlement. You might be pleasantly surprised how things work out.

Yes that's correct though they also put the wrong date on their reply to the other one plus that also doesn't meet POFA although Ipserv says they are confident it does, because according to them they were audited by the BPA, without addressing the reasons I put that it doesn't.

Plus Ipserv tried to make it look as if the 14 day limit is from date of alleged contravention to date of NTK issue when it fact it is clearly stated on POFA that it is for expected date for the NTK to arrive to keeper. So there's more than just the one error on it.

At the moment my MP's secretary has replied and said after seeing my email exchange with the BPA they are going to contact them to ask them to consider looking at my case again and she also asked for the email address of Ipserv.

Jenni_D

BarkingDog said:

This is what I would do in your position. Pay the £60 and get that PCN out of the way and no longer a source of worry, frustration and anxiety.

I think you'll find yourself in the minority here with that type of advice.

A separate GDPR claim though is certainly worth bearing in mind.

ihatetrump

Ipswich Borough Council has an online search facility as part of their democracy online ( ) 

A search of the key word Ipserv gives several references:

https://democracy.ipswich.gov.uk/ieSearchResults2.aspx?SS=Ipserv&DT=3&ADV=0&CA=false&SB=true&CX=505907282&PG=1

Interesting that many of the documents are closed to public viewing as commercially sensitive - so much for democracy! - in other words a stitch up - they definitely won't like an LGO complaint

Coupon-mad

Whilst these charges are so extortionate and unfair, with PCNs issued like confetti, no-one should pay any PCN just because it may be issued under the POFA but good advice otherwise from @BarkingDog.

Now, this is for everyone reading this:

The final Government Consultation into the level of parking charges, discounts, false ‘debt recovery add-ons’ (that no PPC actually pays)...

...and the Appeals Charter - that should IMHO result in full cancellations not enrich the PPCs by £20 or more because it would just encourage spurious PCNs that should never be issued...

... is now open!

See separate thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6286801/government-consultation-re-level-of-private-parking-charges-now-open

This forum’s regulars are encouraging email submissions with evidence and photos, letters attached to illustrate what happened to you and why you are answering the way you are.

Please tell your family and friends to encourage colleagues who have had these spurious PCNs and claims to email their evidence to the MHCLG as shown in the Consultation and not just do the tick boxes. 

The Government want evidence - victims must give it to them.  DON’T MISS IT.