Car Parking charges and false information from Ipserv Ltd

Cardriver45

Coupon-mad said:

Does this thread give you any useful info?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6307227/council-flats-relevant-land#latest

I found it very interesting as that poster found some new info whereby it seems the DVLA is meant to have stopped giving data out to private firms acting for local authorities under contract law.

I had a look and in that thread @Coupon-mad posted and it says this;

"I’ve found internal documents by London Councils (including Lewisham Council) that all say the DVLA stopped providing keeper details to companies operating on behalf of Local Authorities under contract law in 2016."


The only thing is, Ipserv are owned by the council but they are acting on behalf of the University of Suffolk on private land in my case. Whereas in the other thread it was on council-owned land.

Does this make a difference?

Coupon-mad

Yes I think it does, sadly.

Cardriver45

Here is the revised version for UOS for my FOI

Your response to my request is woefully inadequate and has multiple failings. You have failed to demonstrate that you put the contract out to tender as required.

You have failed to show grace periods allowed, failed to include the requirement to display a permit, how to obtain a permit, loading and unloading allowances, failed to demonstrate who the supplier is, failed to demonstrate who the customer is, failed to demonstrate that the contract complies with Sections 43 and/or Sections 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

The ICO ruled previously in the John Connor Press Associates Limited v The Information Commissioner (EA/2005/0005), ‘the chance of prejudice being suffered should be more than a hypothetical possibility; there must have been a real and significant risk’ that public bodies shouldn't use commercial sensitivity as an excuse to not release information.

The John Connor Press Associates Limited v The Information Commissioner (EA/2005/0005), ‘the chance of prejudice being suffered should be more than a hypothetical possibility; there must have been a real and significant risk’.

Secondly, there is Hogan v ICO (EA/2005/0026, EA/2005/0030), the Commissioner uses a three step test to indicate whether prejudice would or would be likely to occur from the disclosure of the information in question.
1 identify the prejudice in the exemption
2. consider the nature of the prejudice in question
3. consider the likelihood of the prejudice in question occurring

There must be more than just a theoretical risk of harm to a commercial interest to withhold information, there should be evidence of a significant risk of prejudice to a person’s commercial interests. The degree of risk must be such that there ‘may very well’ be prejudice to those interests. Whether prejudice exists or not is decided on a case by case basis.

If you do not supply the required information within 14 days then I shall be reporting this matter to the ICO, including it in my Local Government Ombudsman complaint and including it in the report I am sending to the national press about Ipserv Limited, their agent, and Ipswich Borough Council.

KeithP

These words are repeated in there - 
The John Connor Press Associates Limited v The Information Commissioner (EA/2005/0005), ‘the chance of prejudice being suffered should be more than a hypothetical possibility; there must have been a real and significant risk’.

Fruitcake

Cardriver45 said:

Here is the revised version for UOS for my FOI

Your response to my request is woefully inadequate and has multiple failings. You have failed to demonstrate that you put the contract out to tender as required.

I suggest you include the document/source reference of the requirements as well as quoting the requirements themselves.

Cardriver45

I did email all the newspaper websites I could think of both nationally and locally on Monday last week. I still haven't heard back from any which is a little disappointing. Maybe I'll try phoning a few to see if they received it?

Cardriver45

I've decided the time is right to submit the LBC to Ipserv. Here is what I have written to send.

Re PCN nos:

Letter before commencing legal action

I am writing to you to claim for the sum of £250 for the distress, inconvenience and lost time caused in dealing with this matter under Article 82 UK GDPR that states;

Any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of this Regulation shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered.

Any controller involved in processing shall be liable for the damage caused by processing which infringes this Regulation. A processor shall be liable for the damage caused by processing only where it has not complied with obligations of this Regulation specifically directed to processors or where it has acted outside or contrary to lawful instructions the controller.

This is for the misprocessing of my data under the GDPR Article 5 paragraphs 1 (d) 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).

This is in regards to your letter dated 13th July in reply to my letter appealing the Notice to Keeper letters sent to myself. This letter contained incorrect dates for the parking contravention for both PCNs. I replied to this with my letter dated 16/07/2021 pointing out these errors. You replied with the letter dated 26th July 2021 admitting this misprocessing of my data.

I submitted a SAR request on 1st August 2021. You responded to this request on 06/09/2021 and omitted some of the data you hold on me. I emailed you to notify you of this on 07/09/2021. You replied to this email on 10th September admitting making yet another admin error in omitting some of my data.

Your agent acting on your behalf, Trace Debt Recovery UK Limited, has provided in writing false and misleading information in their letter dated 24/09/2021 on the consequences of court action being taken against me. They claim that court action being taken against me would result in a County Court Judgement. This is untrue as a CCJ would only be awarded in the event of the judge ruling against me and then my refusal to pay any outstanding fees within the 30 days allowed. I can only conclude that the providing of this false and misleading information is a deliberate attempt to mislead and intimidate me about the consequences of court action.

Trace Debt Recovery have added on a false £60 admin fee to the alleged debt. Trace openly advertise that they operate on a no fee basis to Private Parking Companies, so this fee is unjustified.

Added extras fees in this manner has already been ruled as unlawful by moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135.  Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper.  At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable.  ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event

Trace threaten in their letters to me to instruct solicitors. They are not the creditors, so have no legal basis for doing this. They also claim they will pass the case onto their legal department when no such department exists.

As your agent, you are responsible for the conduct of Trace Debt Recovery.

I received a response from Ipswich Borough Council dated 3rd August 2021 in response to my complaint against you and this accuses me (the keeper) of parking in the University of Suffolk car park. It also accuses me of the same in the letter you sent to the University of Suffolk dated 22nd July 2021.
At no point have I admitted to being the driver on the date of contravention and you have provided no evidence to identify myself as the driver. So you should not be stating that I parked in the car park on the date in question.

I have calculated the £250 for:

3x letters to you to point out your mistakes and ask for a chance to appeal to an independent appeals service.

!x email to point out the mistake you had made in replying to my SAR request

2x emails to the British Parking Association to inform them of your mistakes.

2x emails to the DVLA for the same reason.

2x emails to my local Member of Parliament.

Writing complaints to Ipswich Borough Council.

Total estimated no of hours; 6.

No of hours estimate for research and asking for advice; 12 hours.

Total no of estimated number of hours spent; 18 hours.

As someone who suffers from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, I am limited to how much time I can spend on activities each day before becoming unwell and heavily fatigued. I had to undertake many hours of research and writing letters not only to yourselves but also writing to my local Member of Parliament, DVLA, BPA and the University of Suffolk to first identify and have these errors rectified. This took a heavy toll on me and risks causing a relapse in my disability. Added to this I was also diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder which makes my ability to understand situations difficult and your administration errors added to my anxiety and stress in dealing with this situation so that I had to consult with many different people to help me to understand your letters and situation as a whole. Symptoms of Asperger’s Syndrome include communication difficulties and affects socialisation skills, so having to communicate with people I do not know well, caused me a great deal of stress and anxiety. I have had to restart taking anti-anxiety medication prescribed by my doctor because of this whole situation.  

I am currently studying a counsellor course, and this seriously affected my studies that I have been undertaking as well as my role as a volunteer with a mental health charity and group due to my frequent bouts of fatigue and anxiety this situation caused. I also felt the need to attend several wellbeing online webinars and sessions on a coaching and therapy organisation/website I am a member of, to help me to cope with the stress.

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 stress and worry by the whole situation has caused me many sleepless nights and has seriously affected my health and wellbeing. You 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 and ensured that you used a debt collection agent who acts in a proper manner.

You have the right to nominate an independent arbitration service of your choice to attempt to resolve this matter.

I am allowing 4 weeks for a response from you and if I do not receive a response within these 4 weeks then I shall be submitting a county court claim.

I await your response.

Kind regards

 

Jenni_D

Maybe it's in the formatting in your letter, but ... make sure anything you're quoting (e.g. from legislation) is in a different font, size or format (e.g. italics) so that it is easily distinguished from your own words.  

And never ever end a formal letter with Kind regards! 🙄

Dear Sir/Madam = Yours faithfully
Dear [Name] = Yours sincerely

B789

I would add that the date formats used in your letter are inconsistent. Try using one form or another...

 "I submitted a SAR request on 1st August 2021. You responded to this request on 06/09/2021 and..."

Use one form or the other but not both.

KeithP

B789 said:

I would add that the date formats used in your letter are inconsistent. Try using one form or another...

 "I submitted a SAR request on 1st August 2021. You responded to this request on 06/09/2021 and..."

Use one form or the other but not both.

...and I would add...

Use the unambiguous version - every time.

1st August 2021 cannot possibly be interpreted as anything other than the first day of August.

But is 06/09/2021 the 6th September or 9th June?
That depends on how the reader interprets it.