Parking stories in the News/media

Half_way

There could be issues with this statement, if it is from POPLA:

We're an independant service FREE to All

Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82073098#Comment_82073098

….. motorists wishing to appeal against a Parking Charge Notice.

Coupon-mad

I think POPLA have a huge problem and somebody might even report them to the CMA if that somebody is inclined!

The huge problem for POPLA is that they've been saying that consumer law compliance is outside their remit.

They have even said (openly in decisions) that they reckon they can ignore the Equality Act 2010, which I'd suggest must put POPLA in breach of the consumer fairness and good faith duty in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.

While not singling out any practice, the CMA emphasised a business' failure to meet its professional diligence obligations will still amount to an unfair practice under the DMCC Act. Although less commonly seen than the prohibition on misleading actions or aggressive practices, it serves as a catch-all for conduct or policies that are unfair or done in bad faith.

With that in mind, I think POPLA are also operating in breach of the DUA Act 2026, for processing known 'special category' (disability / health identifying) data unfairly.

POPLA tells appellants to appeal in their own words and with as much evidence as possible. This means that blue badges and medical letters are commonly uploaded by people in evidence, to prove that they were delayed for reasons outside their control, or that they had a legal right to extended free parking time (or more parking hours for their money) and/or the right to use an accessible bay.

But as per their appalling policy to dismiss Equality Act disputes as merely 'mitigation', POPLA not only looks at and stores special category data without the required high level of justification but it also fails to take it into account because the BPA has primed them that the Code of Practice is King!

But sorry to tell you this, POPLA:

Processing special category data is far more sensitive and requires a two-step double justification.

AI summary:

Under the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rules, businesses cannot justify processing special category data (e.g., health, biometrics, race) simply because it fits their business model.

To lawfully process this sensitive data, you must pair a standard lawful basis with one of ten strict legal exceptions, such as explicit consent or substantial public interest, while documenting everything in an Appropriate Policy Document (APD). [1, 2, 3]

The ICO mandates specific conditions and actions to successfully justify using this information:

• Establish a Lawful Basis: You must first meet one of the six standard bases under the UK GDPR (e.g., fulfilling a contract, legal obligation, or legitimate interest). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Meet a Special Category Condition: You must satisfy an Article 9 exemption. Common conditions for businesses include obtaining explicit consent, complying with employment/social security laws, or demonstrating a substantial public interest. [1, 2]
• Prove Necessity and Proportionality: It is not enough to argue the data is merely "useful." You must prove the processing is strictly necessary to achieve your specific purpose, and that no less intrusive method exists. [1]
• Draft an Appropriate Policy Document: If you rely on employment, social security, or most public interest conditions, the Data Protection Act 2018 requires you to maintain a written APD detailing your compliance and retention measures. [1]
• Conduct a DPIA: For high-risk processing, you must complete a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) before you begin processing. [1]
• Comply with Data Minimisation: You must only collect what is strictly necessary and delete the data as soon as you no longer require it for that specific purpose. [1, 2]

I doubt POPLA complies with the above.

Finally, I reckon POPLA's stance in refusing to let registered keepers in NI and Scotland appeal (despite the fact those people are the ones getting the threatograms) and effectively force them to make a choice:

• name the driver or
• miss out on appeal altogether

is certainly unfair and a further breach of the DMCC Act, which requires businesses to provide a reasonable standard of service and to treat consumers fairly, including thinking about their legitimate interests or expectations and taking steps to protect their rights and freedoms.

There is no lawful obligation on keepers anywhere in the UK to have to name the driver for an event on private land, therefore to put people in two specific countries (but not people with a non-POFA NTK who live in England & Wales) in a position whereby they have no choice but to forfeit their right to appeal if they won't cough up the driver's name, MUST be a DMCC Act breach.

And a misleading omission, too (CPUTRs).

Coupon-mad

Questions raised after another driver fined at car park

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/26290007.questions-raised-another-driver-fined-car-park/

A man was handed a hefty penalty notice after a short stay in a Poole car park, where he spent nearly the entire time trying to pay, and was unsuccessful.

Adam Parker, an IT manager, was recently left with a fine of up to £100 after visiting the car park behind the former Poole Quay Hotel. Adam, who's also a district councillor, said that he'd parked up on June 19 intending to pop to the nearby Tesco Express on his lunch break.

When he went over to pay, he found the machines to be 'non-functioning' and subsequently downloaded the payment app Evology.

"I downloaded the app and it just kept failing to take payment, the app just kept crashing. I was here for 13 minutes just desperately trying to pay."

He added that there was 'perfectly good' signal, he tried with multiple cards and that he spent time troubleshooting. He said: "I think people get stung like this all the time."

He added that it's not just the money, it's the principle, and he fears people with less knowledge on technology will struggle."

The Echo previously reported that a woman from Mudeford was also hit with a fine after an eight-minute stay earlier this year. READ MORE: Woman issued £100 fine after eight-minute stay in car park

A spokesperson for Parkingeye said:

{SNIP - A load of practised twaddle - SNIP}

ANPR & dodgy apps and machines, ruining confidence in the high street yet again.

The BPA must be so proud.

Coupon-mad

————————————

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/26281900.southampton-woman-livid-fines-parking-outside-home/

She actually PAID Countrywide Parking c£500 and seems to have let it get to a CCJ first, despite the fact she is a resident and her permit was displayed.
She did nothing wrong,
The IPC must be so proud.

Car1980

Yes, but I don't understand why it hasn't twigged that no permit on the dashboard results in a PCN.

If you're struggling with that fact you're going to get sucked into every myth about these parasites as well. Hence paying £500 and "believing the man". The same man who gets probably gets paid commission!

That's how scammers work. Despite "no one being immune", most people get scammed because of their ignorance.

Coupon-mad

Napier Parking in this one:

A taxi driver is calling for longer time periods to pay parking charges after being hit with a fine for not paying via app quickly enough.

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/26251736.norwich-taxi-driver-calls-parking-fee-reform-fine/?ref=cprfa

Nice work Napier.

Obtained DVLA data despite knowing he had already paid for his parking session. Human checks would have found payment had been made before his DVLA data was harvested. No reasonable cause.

But the duped guy actually thought he had to pay, which is always a shame. Just google it next time, mate. It wasn't a fine and you almost certainly wouldn't have lost in court.

kryten3000

I'm not sure if this has been posted already and I can't be bothered to look. Which? video on ANPR.
Incorrect use of the F word but otherwise pretty good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylg4dxujoyc

They are calling for:

1. Standardised signage across all car parks
2. Ban on predatory debt recovery fees
3. A single independent appeals service
4. No driver should be penalised for technical delays

Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82078147#Comment_82078147

Good vid, worth watching. Thanks @kryten3000 for posting. One for MHCLG to watch, methinks. 👍

Coupon-mad

Yes that's very useful. Thanks!

Hadn't seen that video before but (alongside the thread by @Nellymoser about double dips and other ANPR errors) I'll send it to the MHCLG, the CMA and ICO.