Car Parking charges and false information from Ipserv Ltd

Cardriver45

D_P_Dance said:

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?

I will do and the University who are the landowners as well

Coupon-mad

Go for it!

Cardriver45

I'm also going to fill in a complaints form on the Borough Council website as well. Ipserv are on the drop-down menu. This is what I am planning to say on there. Would someone let me know if they think it is OK or needs any changes, please?


Ipserv Ltd replied to appeal letters to 2 Notice to Keeper parking charges, I as the keeper of vehicle *******, sent. The reply letter from Ipserv Ltd dated ******** 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 NTKs.

The information is detailed here
 

·       Claimed date of parking contravention for PCN ref no. *******; ********* (see copy of response letter from Ipserv attached)

·       Actual date, as evidenced by the NTK attached and date stamps on pictures of ANPR; ********

·       Claimed length of time between alleged parking contravention and issue of NTK; 11 days

·       Actual length of time between alleged parking contravention and delivery to keeper; 17 days

·       The letter from Ipserv stating the time between date of alleged contravention and date of issue as 11 days as evidence that NTK meets POFA requirements is misleading and incorrect, as POFA Chapter 4 Paragraph 9 (4) & (5) stipulates that it is the time from the day after the event to expected delivery to the keeper that should be within 14 days.

·       This is 16 days for PCN *******

The material dates provided by Ipserv Ltd on their letter dated 13th July 2021 are incorrect and misleads the keeper that the NTK for PCN ******* meets the POFA requirements when it clearly does not. 

·       Claimed date of alleged parking contravention for PCN ref no. ********: *******

·       Actual date of alleged parking contravention; ********

I have also included the 2nd NTK because although the expected date for the keeper to receive the notice did fall within the 14-day limit, the material dates of the alleged event still do not correspond with the dates on the reply letter from Ipserv Ltd.

The obvious conclusion I draw from the incorrect material dates provided by Ipserv is that this is a deliberate attempt 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.

There are 3 further failures to meet the POFA requirements in NTK for PCN ******* detailed below

·       Failing to give the invitation to keeper as prescribed by Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (e) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

·       Failing to state the period of parking as prescribed by Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

·       Failing warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, Ipserv Limited has the right to claim unpaid parking charges as prescribed by under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

There are 2 failures to meet the POFA requirements in NTK for PCN ******* detailed below

 

 

·       Failing to give the invitation to keeper as prescribed by Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (e) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

·       Failing to state the period of parking as prescribed by Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012


How I would like matter resolved

Considering Ipserv Ltd have provided false information regarding the material dates for the alleged parking contraventions, which misleads the keeper into believing that the PCN ref no. ******* meets the required POFA 2012 stipulations for Notice to Keepers when it clearly does not and the fact that both NTKs fail to meet the required stipulations set out by the POFA 2012 on more than one point, the only satisfactory conclusion to my complaint would be for Ipserv Ltd to cancel both Parking Charge Notices and for you to investigate their conduct.

I require Ipserv Ltd to send correspondence to confirm that - as they cannot hold me liable for this charge - they have removed my data from their systems.

Given they no longer have any "reasonable cause" to process my data, to continue to process would be an additional offence under the Data Protection Act 2018, for which I reserve the right to pursue damages for. Vidal Hall v Google EWCA Civ 311 (2015) is brought to your attention.

 

Coupon-mad

I’d just upload a copy of your email and tell the Council

Here is a copy of the full complaint reasons that I have just emailed to the DVLA, the BPA and my MP who is (name of MP).

In view of IPSERV being a ‘commercial arm’ of the Council the complaint is also for you to answer.  If not answered to my satisfaction, I will take the matter to the LGO  because the allegations are serious and IPSERV simply cannot be allowed to lie to consumers about dates and liability.

Cardriver45

Coupon-mad said:

I’d just upload a copy of your email and tell the Council

Here is a copy of the full complaint reasons that I have just emailed to the DVLA, the BPA and my MP who is (name of MP).

In view of IPSERV being a ‘commercial arm’ of the Council the complaint is also for you to answer.  If not answered to my satisfaction, I will take the matter to the LGO  because the allegations are serious and IPSERV simply cannot be allowed to lie to consumers about dates and liability.

Ok I'll do that, though they have a separate box for the how I would like matter resolved part, so I thought I should put this in there?

Considering Ipserv Ltd have provided false information regarding the material dates for the alleged parking contraventions, which misleads the keeper into believing that the PCN ref no. ******* meets the required POFA 2012 stipulations for Notice to Keepers when it clearly does not and the fact that both NTKs fail to meet the required stipulations set out by the POFA 2012 on more than one point, the only satisfactory conclusion to my complaint would be for Ipserv Ltd to cancel both Parking Charge Notices and for you to investigate their conduct.

I require Ipserv Ltd to send correspondence to confirm that - as they cannot hold me liable for this charge - they have removed my data from their systems.

Given they no longer have any "reasonable cause" to process my data, to continue to process would be an additional offense under the Data Protection Act 2018, for which I reserve the right to pursue damages for. Vidal Hall v Google EWCA Civ 311 (2015) is brought to your attention.

Coupon-mad

Yes put that in the box but also the words I said, and upload an image of your email complaint sent to the DVLA, BPA and your MP, and images of the PCNs and letter that was economical with the truth. 

Cardriver45

Cardriver45 said:

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

What would be the best thing to put in the subject bar in the email so they are sure to open it. I was thinking that the heading FORMAL COMPLAINT RE AOS MEMBER PARKING FIRM ‘IPSERV’ MISLEADING ME ABOUT KEEPER LIABILITY might be a bit long for them to see in their inbox or would it be OK?

Is something like Formal Complaint about Parking Company, OK?

Or Formal Complaint about Ipserv Ltd?

I'll still put the heading in the main body of the email though.

KeithP

Dear head of data complaints,
I am contacting you about false and misleading information about keeper liability provided in writing, by Ipserv Limited.

It is always good to spell out in full any initialisations used.

I suggest you replace that bit by the following...

Dear Head of Data Complaints,          [capitals - mentioned earlier by @Umkomaas]

I am contacting you about false and misleading information about keeper liability provided in writing by Ipserv Limited, who are a member of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme.

Consider similarly... POFA, DVLA, MHCLG, NTK and MSE.

Cardriver45

KeithP said:

Dear head of data complaints,
I am contacting you about false and misleading information about keeper liability provided in writing, by Ipserv Limited.

It is always good to spell out in full any initialisations used.

I suggest you replace that bit by the following...

Dear Head of Data Complaints,          [capitals - mentioned earlier by @Umkomaas]

I am contacting you about false and misleading information about keeper liability provided in writing by Ipserv Limited, who are a member of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme.

Consider similarly... POFA, DVLA, MHCLG, NTK and MSE.

Thanks, I'll include that. Yes, I made the capital changes already, etc and the quote was just the old draft. I shouldn't have included the quote of the whole thing as it didn't make my question clear. My bad. 

What I wanted to ask was what would be the best thing to put in the subject bar in the email?

Is something like Formal Complaint about Parking Company, OK?

Or Formal Complaint about Ipserv Ltd?

Or should I just put the whole heading which may be a bit long?

Coupon-mad

Formal Complaint re IPSERV (BPA AOS parking firm)

I think you need that so your MP and the other recipients know who and what this is about