PCN for double dipping without stopping

Chilts

Here we go then, I have followed the advice given and I am ready to send this to their "enquiries" email address rather than their "dispute" page.

Thanks again to you all for your help and advice, lets see what happens next then.

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 victim 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.  I have a witness statement that illustrates that the vehicle was elsewhere during the time that Euro Parking Services are claiming it was parked on their managed property. 

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 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”. 

I did appeal initially to Euro Parking Services but this was declined, it was futile and we all know that that would happen.  I have done nothing wrong, I have breached no contracts, I have merely fallen victim to a system that is open to abuse by PPCs. 

I believe that my data has been obtained from the DVLA without good cause, as Euro Parking Services have failed to demonstrate that they have complied with any of the afore mentioned guidelines stated above and as such I am investigating a counter-claim for data abuse under the DPA 2018 along with a breach of GDPR for failing to provide an SAR on multiple requests. 

I have been caused undue stress and many sleepless nights due to this “parking charge”, cancel this meritless charge immediately and provide me with written notice of such within 14 days. 

Yours faithfully, 

Chilts

Bizarrely, not received an automatic acknowledgment reply like I did with the “debt advice” email. 

I wonder if they use filters and have recognised the word “dispute”. 

Chilts

Update - the PPC have replied to
my MP and they still think that they’re in the right with the evidence they have, as in “first in and last out”. 

Well, the Judge can’t say that I haven’t gone out of my way to resolve this issue.  This kind of thing can make people ill, I’m so angry with it all. 

Coupon-mad

Chilts said:

Update - the PPC have replied to
my MP and they still think that they’re in the right with the evidence they have, as in “first in and last out”. 

Well, the Judge can’t say that I haven’t gone out of my way to resolve this issue.  This kind of thing can make people ill, I’m so angry with it all. 

I think if a claim is now filed, you could consider a counterclaim for misuse of DVLA data, as per Simon Clay v CEL and as per this recent success (you might want to pm @Im_tired_of_this to ask for more info including his claim number, court, Judge's name & the date of hearing, etc.):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6358384/bristol-airport-vcs-stopping-to-drop-off-charge-notice-pedestrian-crossing/p13

They received a cheque from VCS for £323.40 (including costs) for a successful counterclaim they saw through to a hearing.

Beware: DO NOT COPY THE PLEADINGS because It wasn't well pleaded (could & should have been stronger) but he was awarded £250 (similar to the Simon Clay case) because VCS should never have obtained his data at all.

You could email the solicitor NOW, concisely telling them you will file a counterclaim for not less than £300 if their client proceeds despite knowing it was a 'double dip' (ANPR error and no human checks) case.  None of them should even be storing the DVLA data, let alone continuing to share and process it.

Tell them this is causing anger, distress and a complete waste of your time for xx months since it all started and a counterclaim for distress caused by serious misuse of data has succeeded several times before, e.g. £250 was awarded in Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd; £1500 was granted by a Judge in a more aggravated case (VCS v Ferguson) and £250 again in a recent counterclaim heard in February 2023 against VCS.

Chilts

Thank you, I’ll get on to this tomorrow. 

Today, I received a reply from the ICO:

“We have considered the issues that you have raised with us and our decision is that there is more work for the organisation to do.”

” In your case, we expect the organisation to fully address your complaint by telling you what they are going to do to put things right, or if they believe they have met their data protection obligations by explaining fully how they have done so.”

Chilts

How does this sound, (thanks again @Coupon-mad and others for your on-going support, I'd be a wreck without you all and plan on helping others when this affair is over):

Dear Sir/Madam, 

PCN ref: ********* 

Following my previous email (14.03.23) to you in regard to a dispute with the above referenced charge. The Information Commissioners Office has now written to ********** (and myself) as “there is more work for the organisation to do” and that “In your case, we expect the organisation to fully address your complaint”, therefore I feel inclined to inform you that if your client proceeds with their spurious claim I am left with no choice but to file a counter-claim for not less than £300. 

Your client has been informed by myself on multiple occasions that this is a ‘double-dip’ case (ANPR error and no human checks apparently been made) and have obtained my DVLA data without due cause and are refusing to give me access to all data currently being held about me, despite this being contrary to GDPR. 

This claim has caused me anger, distress, anxiety and wasted my time for almost 12 months since it all started, a counterclaim for distress caused by serious misuse of data has succeeded several times before, e.g. £250 was awarded in Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd; £1500 in VCS v Ferguson and another against VCS in February 2023 resulted in payment of £250 to the innocent party. 

There is no need for any of this to be happening, yet *********** seem intent on pursuing this further, cancel this meritless charge immediately. 

Yours faithfully, 

Coupon-mad

Very good.

A couple of commas in the end two paragraphs should be full stops, IMHO.  Would read better that way.

Chilts

Coupon-mad said:

Very good.

A couple of commas in the end two paragraphs should be full stops, IMHO.  Would read better that way.

Yes, thanks, I can see that now - its late!

Especially in the final sentence, it makes more of a point of the "cancel".

I feel bolstered knowing the ICO agree with my complaint, yet I still get anxious about sending an email to the solicitors. 

Chilts

Email sent to solicitor, no auto-acknowledgment received, unsure if that’s a good or a bad thing. 

Either way, I’ve stuck to my side of the bargain now. 

Le_Kirk

Your client has been informed by myself on multiple occasions that this is a ‘double-dip’ case (ANPR error and no human checks apparently having been made) and have obtained my DVLA data without due cause and are refusing to give me access to all data currently being held about me, despite this being contrary to GDPR. 

Change as above

ETA Just noticed that you had sent it; I am sure the solicitor will read it and understand it anyway.