PCN for double dipping without stopping

Fruitcake

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

Chilts

Fruitcake said:

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

The only proof I have is a written witness statement that says that I was elsewhere at 21:00 in that vehicle. 

Chilts

Fruitcake said:

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

Worryingly though, if they’ve deliberately lost the two “middle” images then how can I prove that I definitely didn’t stay there and that I’ve been a victim of double-dipping. 

KeithP

Chilts said:

Fruitcake said:

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

Worryingly though, if they’ve deliberately lost the two “middle” images then how can I prove that I definitely didn’t stay there and that I’ve been a victim of double-dipping. 

Just prove the vehicle was elsewhere between the two visits.

Chilts

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

Fruitcake said:

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

Worryingly though, if they’ve deliberately lost the two “middle” images then how can I prove that I definitely didn’t stay there and that I’ve been a victim of double-dipping. 

Just prove the vehicle was elsewhere between the two visits.

To whom?

The only proof I have is a written witness statement that says that I was elsewhere at 21:00 in that vehicle. 

KeithP

Chilts said:

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

Fruitcake said:

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

Worryingly though, if they’ve deliberately lost the two “middle” images then how can I prove that I definitely didn’t stay there and that I’ve been a victim of double-dipping. 

Just prove the vehicle was elsewhere between the two visits.

To whom?

To the court, if this case gets as far as a hearing.

Chilts said:

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

Fruitcake said:

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

Worryingly though, if they’ve deliberately lost the two “middle” images then how can I prove that I definitely didn’t stay there and that I’ve been a victim of double-dipping. 

Just prove the vehicle was elsewhere between the two visits.

The only proof I have is a written witness statement that says that I was elsewhere at 21:00 in that vehicle. 

That is precisely the sort of evidence you need, but the parking company will not be interested at this stage.

Chilts

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

Fruitcake said:

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

Worryingly though, if they’ve deliberately lost the two “middle” images then how can I prove that I definitely didn’t stay there and that I’ve been a victim of double-dipping. 

Just prove the vehicle was elsewhere between the two visits.

To whom?

To the court, if this case gets as far as a hearing.

Chilts said:

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

Fruitcake said:

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

Worryingly though, if they’ve deliberately lost the two “middle” images then how can I prove that I definitely didn’t stay there and that I’ve been a victim of double-dipping. 

Just prove the vehicle was elsewhere between the two visits.

The only proof I have is a written witness statement that says that I was elsewhere at 21:00 in that vehicle. 

That is precisely the sort of evidence you need, but the parking company will not be interested at this stage.

It’s almost unbelievable that these companies can do this sort of thing to innocent people. 

And presumably they’re not interested at this stage because they’re hoping that I’ll pay to make it go away?

KeithP

Chilts said:

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

Fruitcake said:

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

Worryingly though, if they’ve deliberately lost the two “middle” images then how can I prove that I definitely didn’t stay there and that I’ve been a victim of double-dipping. 

Just prove the vehicle was elsewhere between the two visits.

To whom?

To the court, if this case gets as far as a hearing.

Chilts said:

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

Fruitcake said:

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

Worryingly though, if they’ve deliberately lost the two “middle” images then how can I prove that I definitely didn’t stay there and that I’ve been a victim of double-dipping. 

Just prove the vehicle was elsewhere between the two visits.

The only proof I have is a written witness statement that says that I was elsewhere at 21:00 in that vehicle. 

That is precisely the sort of evidence you need, but the parking company will not be interested at this stage.

And presumably they’re not interested at this stage because they’re hoping that I’ll pay to make it go away?

Exactly.

There are enough people out there who are absolutely terrified of 'anything court' that parking companies can make an small large fortune by ignoring any evidence against them at this stage.

Chilts

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

Fruitcake said:

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

Worryingly though, if they’ve deliberately lost the two “middle” images then how can I prove that I definitely didn’t stay there and that I’ve been a victim of double-dipping. 

Just prove the vehicle was elsewhere between the two visits.

To whom?

To the court, if this case gets as far as a hearing.

Chilts said:

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

Fruitcake said:

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

Worryingly though, if they’ve deliberately lost the two “middle” images then how can I prove that I definitely didn’t stay there and that I’ve been a victim of double-dipping. 

Just prove the vehicle was elsewhere between the two visits.

The only proof I have is a written witness statement that says that I was elsewhere at 21:00 in that vehicle. 

That is precisely the sort of evidence you need, but the parking company will not be interested at this stage.

And presumably they’re not interested at this stage because they’re hoping that I’ll pay to make it go away?

Exactly.

There are enough people out there who are absolutely terrified of 'anything court' that they can make a fortune by ignoring any evidence against them at this stage.

I’ll be honest, I’m not particularly enamoured with the prospect but do know that I’m completely innocent. 

KeithP

Chilts said:

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

Fruitcake said:

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

Worryingly though, if they’ve deliberately lost the two “middle” images then how can I prove that I definitely didn’t stay there and that I’ve been a victim of double-dipping. 

Just prove the vehicle was elsewhere between the two visits.

To whom?

To the court, if this case gets as far as a hearing.

Chilts said:

KeithP said:

Chilts said:

Fruitcake said:

They won't have retained the images of the first exit and second entry because they will have deliberately set up their ANPR system to delete them so they can pretend they never existed, and pretend the double dip never occurred. That's why our MPs have referred to these unregulated companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers.
In your repeat SAR you could add "or unwilling" after "unable" to imply they are deliberately withholding your data.

You should still specifically ask for them exactly as you have posted, and follow up with your complaint to the ICO about them when they fail to provide the images, and complain to the ICO about the DVLA for selling your personal data without a valid reason.
If you have proof the vehicle was elsewhere in between the first and second visit, then include that in your ICO complaints.

Worryingly though, if they’ve deliberately lost the two “middle” images then how can I prove that I definitely didn’t stay there and that I’ve been a victim of double-dipping. 

Just prove the vehicle was elsewhere between the two visits.

The only proof I have is a written witness statement that says that I was elsewhere at 21:00 in that vehicle. 

That is precisely the sort of evidence you need, but the parking company will not be interested at this stage.

And presumably they’re not interested at this stage because they’re hoping that I’ll pay to make it go away?

Exactly.

There are enough people out there who are absolutely terrified of 'anything court' that they can make a fortune by ignoring any evidence against them at this stage.

I’ll be honest, I’m not particularly enamoured with the prospect... 

Have you seen this video...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Just three or four people sitting round a table having a discussion.

That video was made a few years ago and most hearings nowadays seem to be via telephone or video link.