PCN for double dipping without stopping

Coupon-mad

Yes, that's what a LBC is.

Don't use their silly dispute page...
 Just search the forum for robust reply LBC.

Chilts

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, that's what a LBC is.

Don't use their silly dispute page...
 Just search the forum for robust reply LBC.

Thank you, I have until Wednesday if I stick to their original date. 

I’ve just found your reply here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79838635#Comment_79838635

If I write my dispute tomorrow evening would you mind having a read of it for me please?

Chilts

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, that's what a LBC is.

Don't use their silly dispute page...
 Just search the forum for robust reply LBC.

How does this sound?

Dear Sir/Madam, 

Re: PCN ref XXXXXX 

The above parking charge is disputed.  The car was never parked at this site, it entered and left almost immediately afterwards, however, this happened twice in 24 hours and as such has fallen foul of “double-dipping” (whereby the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera captures the first entry and second exit of the vehicle), due to the use of ANPR. 

The Government’s, Private Parking Code of Practice (07.02.22) stipulates that “images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the time-stamp and the risk of keying errors”.  It then goes on further to add, “The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant.” 

The British Parking Association also recognises issues with the use of ANPR and states; “Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’.  Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.” 

The International Parking Community states that; “Where CCTV and/or ANPR technology is used appropriate checks must be carried out to ensure Parking Charges are only issued where there is Reasonable Cause to believe a Parking Charge is due before issuing a Postal Notification.  Operators must keep a record identifying the individual who completed the quality check”. 

The signage within the car park states that “by parking or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all the terms and conditions”, I neither parked or remained, something that would be obvious if the CCTV was checked, as I requested in an email to the company (signage also states that CCTV in operation) yet I was informed in reply that “This is not CCTV site”, despite the aforementioned signage to the contrary.  

I have made multiple requests for a Subject Access Request for all the information and images that PARKING COMPANY are holding about me which I am entitled to ask for under Article 15 of the UK GDPR.  To these requests, I have either received; no reply, an out-of-office reply and multiple “address not found”, even though I was using the DPO email address that is clearly stated on the company’s Privacy page.  This has already been reported to the Information Commissioners Office. 

I did appeal initially to PARKING COMPANY but this was declined, it was futile and we all know that. 

I have done nothing wrong, I have breached no contracts, I have merely fallen foul to a system that is open to abuse by PPCs.   I have a witness statement that illustrates that my vehicle was elsewhere during the time that PARKING COMPANY are claiming I was parked on their managed property. 

I have been caused undue stress and many sleepless nights due to this “parking charge”, please cancel this meritless charge immediately. 

Yours faithfully, 

KeithP

Just a small point, change 'I' for 'it' in this phrase - "are claiming I was parked on their managed property" so that it becomes "are claiming it was parked on their managed property".

Coupon-mad

I think the end should be stronger.  Not 'please'.

Instead:

Cite Arkell v Pressdram (search the forum) and also add at the end, a clear threat & intention to counterclaim for abuse of your DVLA data.

And I'd remove this (there is no CCTV so it's irrelevant) and the SAR issue distracts from the fact that this was a double dip:

The signage within the car park states that “by parking or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all the terms and conditions”, I neither parked or remained, something that would be obvious if the CCTV was checked, as I requested in an email to the company (signage also states that CCTV in operation) yet I was informed in reply that “This is not CCTV site”, despite the aforementioned signage to the contrary.  

I have made multiple requests for a Subject Access Request for all the information and images that PARKING COMPANY are holding about me which I am entitled to ask for under Article 15 of the UK GDPR.  To these requests, I have either received; no reply, an out-of-office reply and multiple “address not found”, even though I was using the DPO email address that is clearly stated on the company’s Privacy page.  This has already been reported to the Information Commissioners Office. 

Chilts

Coupon-mad said:

I think the end should be stronger.  Not 'please'.

Instead:

Cite Arkell v Pressdram (search the forum) and also add at the end, a clear threat & intention to counterclaim for abuse of your DVLA data.

And I'd remove this (there is no CCTV so it's irrelevant) and the SAR issue distracts from the fact that this was a double dip:

The signage within the car park states that “by parking or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all the terms and conditions”, I neither parked or remained, something that would be obvious if the CCTV was checked, as I requested in an email to the company (signage also states that CCTV in operation) yet I was informed in reply that “This is not CCTV site”, despite the aforementioned signage to the contrary.  

I have made multiple requests for a Subject Access Request for all the information and images that PARKING COMPANY are holding about me which I am entitled to ask for under Article 15 of the UK GDPR.  To these requests, I have either received; no reply, an out-of-office reply and multiple “address not found”, even though I was using the DPO email address that is clearly stated on the company’s Privacy page.  This has already been reported to the Information Commissioners Office. 

Thanks, I’ll look for the Arkell case tomorrow. 

I’m not too confident about issuing a threat to counterclaim, how would I phrase it? 

I’m being too nice aren’t I?

As for the paragraphs you’ve suggested that I remove, I added them primarily to demonstrate what a mess they’ve made of the whole situation in the hope that the solicitors will suggest that it’s not worth pursuing. 

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for what you need, as always.

This forum has everything you want, including counterclaims for DPA 2018 data abuse.

Chilts

Coupon-mad said:

Search the forum for what you need, as always.

This forum has everything you want, including counterclaims for DPA 2018 data abuse.

Can I ask why I shouldn’t use their “dispute page” of their website?

Should I just use their standard “enquiry@….”  

Coupon-mad

Because you are better just emailing them, not using a portal they've set up, which in our experience is likely to be just a gateway for junior staff to routinely pick up anything that lands there and refuse disputes with the usual template guff.

Also what is the rush?

You are not bound by their original date and don't have to respond for a month, if you already told them to put it in a '30 day hold' while you seek debt advice.

Chilts

Coupon-mad said:

Because you are better just emailing them, not using a portal they've set up, which in our experience is likely to be just a gateway for junior staff to routinely pick up anything that lands there and refuse disputes with the usual template guff.

Also what is the rush?

You are not bound by their original date and don't have to respond for a month, if you already told them to put it in a '30 day hold' while you seek debt advice.

Thank you, I sent the “debt advice” email on the 14th, I received an automated acknowledgment from them but still not received an actual reply.