Car Parking charges and false information from Ipserv Ltd

Cardriver45

Coupon-mad said:

That's not something for the BPA. 

But the fact that IPSERV are the commercial arm of a Local Authority should lead to a secondary question to the DVLA - why are IPSERV citing the POFA (private land enforcement only) and why are they using ANPR at some sites, given they are a public body and the Deregulation Act 2015 banned such authorities for using ANPR?  And why are the using the word 'penalty charge' in places?

It is on private land as it is the University of Suffolk's car park. The ANPR was on the private road leading up to it so does the ANPR ban still apply to Local Authorities?

Umkomaas

Cardriver45 said:

Coupon-mad said:

That's not something for the BPA. 

But the fact that IPSERV are the commercial arm of a Local Authority should lead to a secondary question to the DVLA - why are IPSERV citing the POFA (private land enforcement only) and why are they using ANPR at some sites, given they are a public body and the Deregulation Act 2015 banned such authorities for using ANPR?  And why are the using the word 'penalty charge' in places?

It is on private land as it is the University of Suffolk's car park. The ANPR was on the private road leading up to it so does the ANPR ban still apply to Local Authorities?

I'd let the DVLA sweat on that and ask the questions of Ipswich Borough Council/Ipserv. 

There is also the Local Government Ombudsman to whom you could address the same questions too; that would give IBC plenty to deal with. 

You can make much greater waves for them than they can do for you. 

Coupon-mad

Yep this is all free for you to ask and complain about.  The issues are the DVLAs problem to address.  But the main thing is the misleading letter about keeper liability and untrue dates. 

Cardriver45

I've rewritten the draft email to the DVLA as it was too long before and included the other points. Would someone be able to let me know if they feel I should make any changes or if I have left anything out, please?

To whom it may concern

I am contacting you about false and misleading information about keeper liability provided in writing, by the parking company Ipserv Limited. (All evidence attached)

Ipserv Ltd's letter dated 13th July 2021 contains false and misleading information concerning the material dates of the alleged parking contraventions and the length of time between the alleged event and when they issued the NTK. (see attachments 1 & 2)

The obvious conclusion I draw is that this is a deliberate attempt by Ipserv to deceive me, the keeper, or a case of gross incompetence by Ipserv Limited. Either way, it still misleads the keeper into believing that the NTK meets the criteria stipulated by POFA 2012, when it does not.

I have attached the original NTK with the dates and the rear of the NTK with the ANPR photo, which shows the date stamp, (see attachments 3 & 4).

Ipserv also provided false information regarding the material dates for the 2nd NTK, and although this was within the 14 day delivery limit, I have included the NTK as evidence of the false information provided by Ipserv. (attachment 5 & 6).

There are also 4 failures to meet the POFA requirements in NTK 1 and 2 in NTK 2

The DVLA would previously ban firms outright for misleading keepers about POFA applying when it didn’t.

Secondly, I also question why Ipserv are using ANPR at some sites. They are the commercial arm of Ipswich Borough Council and the Deregulation Act 2015 banned such authorities from using ANPR to issue parking charges within car parks. So why are you providing keeper's details to a local authority company using ANPR evidence to issue parking charges? 

As can be seen on the attachments of the financial accounts of Ipserv Ltd under section 2 Revenue recognition Parking Income, it states "Penalty Charge Notice". Ipserv are registered as a private company and are therefore not allowed to issue Penalty charges. (see attachment 7 & 8).

Do not respond with a template paragraph about how you think you ‘safeguard’ keeper data because that regurgitated DVLA response is insulting to consumers.

I expect you to investigate this properly. or I shall be contacting my local Member of Parliament and refer the issue to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. 

I await your response

Coupon-mad

Some of that is in bold and some isn’t, so remove the bold. 

Head it up -

FORMAL COMPLAINT RE AOS MEMBER PARKING FIRM ‘IPSERV’ MISLEADING ME ABOUT KEEPER LIABILITY

Don’t start it ‘To whom it may concern’.  Start: 

Dear Head of Data Complaints


...and end it by giving them a timeline to respond (14 days?) and what you want them to do about it.

...and add that you have copied in the Head of AOS at the BPA because their AOS member has clearly been economical with the truth at a time when parking firms are under intense scrutiny.  And they may wish to review the MSE thread*  where this complaint was suggested and is being followed with interest because this sort of disregard for the rights of consumers is exactly the sort of case study that may be relevant to use in responses to the final MHCLG public consultation about reining in rogue practice and lowering capped parking charge levels. 

*(your draft missed out the URL to page one of this thread that I told you was vital to include!). 

Cardriver45

Coupon-mad said:

Some of that is in bold and some isn’t, so remove the bold. 

Head it up -

FORMAL COMPLAINT RE AOS MEMBER PARKING FIRM ‘IPSERV’ MISLEADING ME ABOUT KEEPER LIABILITY

Don’t start it ‘To whom it may concern’.  Start: 

Dear Head of Data Complaints


...and end it by giving them a timeline to respond (14 days?) and what you want them to do about it.

...and add that you have copied in the Head of AOS at the BPA because their AOS member has clearly been economical with the truth at a time when parking firms are under intense scrutiny.  And they may wish to review the MSE thread*  where this complaint was suggested and is being followed with interest because this sort of disregard for the rights of consumers is exactly the sort of case study that may be relevant to use in responses to the final MHCLG public consultation about reining in rogue practice and lowering capped parking charge levels. 

*(your draft missed out the URL to page one of this thread that I told you was vital to include!). 

Thanks. I was going to email the BPA separately and include the URL in that email. But I'll just copy them in if you think it is better to do it that way?

I'll cc my local MP as well as she is pretty good from my previous experiences with her.

Cardriver45

Here's my new rewritten draft

FORMAL COMPLAINT RE AOS MEMBER PARKING FIRM ‘IPSERV’ MISLEADING ME ABOUT KEEPER LIABILITY

Dear head of data complaints,

I am contacting you about false and misleading information about keeper liability provided in writing, by Ipserv Limited. (All evidence attached)

I have copied in the Head of AOS at the BPA  because their AOS member has clearly been economical with the truth at a time when parking firms are under intense scrutiny and my local Member of Parliament. They may wish to review the MSE thread* where this complaint was suggested and is being followed with interest because this sort of disregard for the rights of consumers is exactly the sort of case study that may be relevant to use in responses to the final MHCLG public consultation about reining in rogue practice and lowering capped parking charge levels. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6283452/car-parking-charges-and-lying-ppc/p1

Ipserv Ltd's letter dated 13th July 2021 contains false and misleading information concerning the material dates of the alleged parking contraventions and the length of time between the alleged event and when they issued the NTK. (see attachments 1 & 2)

The obvious conclusion I draw is that this is a deliberate attempt by Ipserv to deceive me, the keeper, or a case of gross incompetence by Ipserv Limited. Either way, it still misleads the keeper into believing that the NTK meets the criteria stipulated by POFA, when it does not.

I have attached the original NTK with the dates and the rear of the NTK with the ANPR photo, which shows the date stamp, (see attachments 3 & 4).

Ipserv also provided false information regarding the material dates for the 2nd NTK, and although this was within the 14 day delivery limit, I have included the NTK as evidence of the false information provided by Ipserv. (attachment 5 & 6).

There are also 4 failures to meet the POFA requirements in NTK 1 and 2 in NTK 2

The DVLA would previously ban firms outright for misleading keepers about POFA applying when it didn’t.

Secondly, I also question why Ipserv are using ANPR at some sites. They are the commercial arm of Ipswich Borough Council and the Deregulation Act 2015 banned such authorities from using ANPR to issue parking charges within car parks. So why are you providing keeper's details to a local authority company using ANPR? 

As can be seen on the attachments of the financial accounts of Ipserv Ltd under section 2 Revenue recognition Parking Income it states Penalty Charge Notice. Ipserv are registered as a private company and are therefore not allowed to issue Penalty charges. (see attachment 7 & 8).

Do not respond with a template paragraph about how you think you ‘safeguard’ keeper data because that regurgitated DVLA response is insulting to consumers.

I expect a response from you within 14 days and for you to investigate this properly or I shall be complaining to my local Member of Parliament and refer the issue to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Umkomaas

Dear head of data complaints,

Dear Head of Data Complaints. Job title, so use capital letters - as aside.

Coupon-mad

Yep, and email the BPA the same time and add the words I suggested and the URL. Don’t email them separately because they will liaise on it.

D_P_Dance

I expect you to investigate this properly. or I shall be contacting my local Member of Parliament  ...

Why not copy the letter to your MP?