Car Parking charges and false information from Ipserv Ltd

D_P_Dance

Of course you should metion it.  

Cardriver45

Here is my draft complaint to the CSA re Trace

I am writing to you to make an official complaint about the conduct of your member Trace Debt Recovery.

I received a letter from trace dated 24th September 2021 for the alleged debt of £160 for their client Ipserv Limited.

This letter claims that if I do not settle the alleged debt then I may be taken to court and should this happen, the action will result in a CCJ.

This is a false and misleading claim about the consequences of court action as a CCJ would only be issued if the appointed judge ruled against me and then I failed to pay within the allowed 30 days. Not for court action being taken against me.

They again emphasise the consequences of a CCJ being registered against me on their letter dated 12th November 2021.

This is clearly an attempt to mislead and intimidate me into paying the alleged debt.

This is in clear breach of the CSA code of practice

Section 11

Paragraph

C; Not mislead customers as to the consequences or inevitability of consequences arising from any legal or bankruptcy action.

In the letter dated 12th November 2021 from Trace it is headed Trace Legal Department and signed by a Litigation manager.

They have no such department as they have no supervising solicitor. As they are not the alleged creditor but an acting agent, Trace have no lawful right to take legal action.

This is in clear breach of the CSA code of practice

Section 2

Paragraph

b. Conduct their business under names, titles and trading styles which are not intended to confuse, mislead or embarrass clients, creditors, customers or members of the public, and which will not imply any association with other organisations, governmental bodies or persons which either do not exist or carry no association with the business.

Section 7

Paragraph;

a. Conduct their practices in a way consistent with treating customers fairly and ensure they are ethical, legal, clear, fair and not misleading

section 8

Paragraphs;

c. Not refer to litigation or insolvency proceedings unless the commencement of proceedings is genuine and intended.

g. Not use wording which could be considered as aggressive, threatening or misleading.

l. Not use trading styles which are likely to mislead or confuse

I have looked on the Trace Enforcement Group website and the CSA code is not available on their website.

This is in clear breach of the CSA code of practice

section 2

Paragraph

c. Make available on their website (if they have one), or following a request, a copy of this Code.

Trace have added on a false £60 admin fee to the alleged debt. They 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

This is in clear breach of the CSA code of practice

Section 11

Paragraph

k; Only impose costs and interest on customers to which they are lawfully entitled.

I wrote a letter of complaint to Trace dated 19th November 2021. Trace replied to this letter rejecting my complaint with a letter dated 17th November 2021. 

This letter fails to give the reasons or justify the reasons for the rejection of my complaint and fails to detail the conclusions of Trace’s decision in rejecting my complaint. This is in clear breach of the CSA code

Section 4

Paragraph

k. Provide a response detailing the members’ conclusion to the dispute, where relevant, depending on whether the member or their client carries out the investigation.

l. Provide sufficient information to justify the stated conclusion.

I tried writing to Trace again with the letter dated 26th December asking Trace to give a breakdown and detailed explanation for rejecting my complaint, but despite acknowledging receipt they have failed to respond.

Please note that on the reply letter from Trace regarding my complaint they have dated it 17th November 2021. The date on my letter of complaint is 19th November 2021 and this is when I sent my complaint in which is confirmed by the copy of the email I have included, which is 2 days after the date on Trace’s reply letter to my complaint.



I await your reply clearly stating your conclusion from your investigation of my complaint.

Cardriver45

I received this letter from the ICO about my complaint of Ipserv's mistakes with dates and also the letter the ICO has sent to Ipserv. I expect that Ipserv will just say the same thing that they have already corrected the mistakes.

Cardriver45

Here's the letter the ICO have sent to Ipserv

Sareck

A very interesting and extremely long saga , but nice to see that the ICO have upheld your complaint and told them in no uncertain terms that they have been found wanting and obstructive , intransigent if you ask me !

Cardriver45

Here's the reply from Ipserv to my ICO complaint. What should I do now please in my response?

Fruitcake

This is really outside the remit of a parking forum. However, it depends whether you want your personal data for the first PCN deleted, or whether you want to bring a court claim against IPSERV. 

I believe they are correct when they say they will need to retain your data if a claim is issued against them. That seems reasonable to me. It would be unreasonable in my opinion for you to require them to erase data that they may then need to rely on in court.

Cardriver45

What about for the second, still live PCN?
The complaint was for why they allowed the mistake of incorrect dates to happen in the first place and why there weren't steps in place to prevent this from happening 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).”

And why they made the mistake when omitting some of the data for the SAR request.

patient_dream

IPSERV seem very worried you will take this further which will cost them time and money and maybe a claim pending

I would offer a "drop hands" ... they cancel their claim and you will not persue.

That would be the logical solution for them

Cardriver45

This is my draft reply if someone would check it please?

Dear Sir/Madam

I am contacting you in reply to your letter dated 21st February 2022 regarding my complaint to the ICO. My complaint was because you provided incorrect dates for the alleged contravention for both PCNs no ******* and *******, and that there was missing information on my SAR request dated 7th September 2021. I requested to the ICO an explanation from yourselves as to why safeguards were not in place to prevent these two mistakes from happening.

It states 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).”

Because of these easily preventable mistakes, I have suffered a large amount of loss in both time researching and to my mental health.

I am prepared to offer a 'drop hands settlement' in that if you withdraw your claim for PCN no ******, I am willing to withdraw my claim against your company.

I await your reply

Yours Sincerely