Parking charge for passing through car park

B789

Did you remind the sports centre that they are jointly liable for the actions of their agents?

Boudouche1

@B789, Thank you for your comment. I did remind the Sports Centre about their joint liability. I received a reply from their junior clerk, not sure they took it seriously

Half_way

go in with a simple un authorised access of personal data approach.
your systems are defective and you have addressed my personal data without ensuring the accuracy of your camera systems.
the vehicle was not in the car park during the times your system say it was, you have failed to carry out reasonable checks to ensure the accuracy of your systems, which is a breach of GDPR
You must now rectify your data to show the vehicle was not on site  cease processing my personal data with regards to pursuing this parking charge notice, and remove the defective equipment

or something like that, will post more later this evening

Boudouche1

@Half_way , Thank you. It does not loook like the Sport Centre cares, but happy to write to them again.

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Boudouche1 said:

@fisherjim , I do not know if this is an authorised route (described nicely by @KeithP above). It was in fact my wife who was driving, 

In which case you certainly don't appeal as you said you were planning to, where you were planning to appeal as driver even though you weren't!

Appeal as keeper stating you were not driving and asking if TCP reckon their NTK is POFA compliant? Then add Keith's explanation of the route your wife took and state they need another camera and must treat this as both an appeal and a formal complaint, because you wish to escalate the complaint to the BPA.  Catching people who drive right through as a shortcut is not professional parking management and the BPA need to audit this site in person.

I did already state exactly how to appeal, above.  State you were not driving but obviously you don't name her.  See above for what to put.

Just add the wording by @Halfway.

Half_way

The sports centre has gone with the contact the Parking company approach, so to be reasonable i would go with the this is not an appeal GDPR breach must cancel approach to the parking company roughly as outlined previously.

Odds on the parking company will reject with some templated nonsense along the lines of "after careful consideration of your appeal , we have decided that the parking charge notice was correctly issued, and remains payable"

Then you can go back to the sports centre if they dont cancel , telling the ports centre that they are liable for the actions of their agents etc.

And on a side note, you could also investigate if the ANPR cameras have planning permission, and the signs have advertising consent with the local council

GraceCourt

Article 12 of the UK GDPR legally requires data controllers to store and process personal data accurately: clearly, any data controller issuing an invoice to you because it has wrongly recorded that you parked in breach of the alleged contract between you and the landowner (or, as in this case, an agent of the landowner) is processing your personal data unlawfully.

The precedents for claiming damages and compensation for such unlawful processing are the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Zeta Jones & Douglas v Hello! Magazine [2003] EWHC 786 and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd (CCF) [2013] EWCA Civ 333, both being binding on all County Courts in England and Wales.  In the latter claim, Mr Halliday was awarded compensation of £750 at what the Court regarded was the lowest level of award, and although this was a claim under Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, similar provisions - amended to take account of a decision by the EU Grand Chamber that the 1998 Act did not properly implement EU law into UK domestic legislation - replaced the old Section 13 provisions with Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

In short, you ought to give 21 days notice (the pre-action protocol only really requires 14 days but hey, you can be charitable!) to the data controller of your intention to seek (say) £100 nominal damages and compensation under Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for their unlawful processing of your personal data: you could say that you will not file your claim with the County Court if they confirm in writing that all references to this alleged debt have been deleted within (say) 14 days. Clearly mark your letter as a "Letter before County Court proceedings".

Anyone who is fairly confident can claim as a litigant-in-person in Part 27 proceedings in the County Court (commonly but wrongly described as "the Small Claims Court").  Each party is responsible for their own legal costs whether they win or lose and the claim for £100 can be issued online for a fee of £35 at moneyclaimonline.gov.uk which also gives useful advice if you want to have a look at what is involved.  Your claim will automatically be listed as being for a total of £135, i.e. the successful party gets their Court fees back.

Half_way

I onw within GDPR there is the possibility that the responsible person/dat controller can be held personally liable, and that the principal is jointly and severaly liable for the actions of their agents.

 Whilst it may be a lg shot, if people such as the manager of the sports centre, supermarket etc were to carry some persnal liability for the inacuracys of ANPR systems and/or the behaviour of PPCs in general the whole PPC model would soon fall apart.

As it is its a huge long shot, however the mere fact that the principal is liable for the actions of its agents, and with a GDPR issue at play that shoould be enough to focus minds beyond the usual "its nothing to do with us, our car park is managed for us by a third party, you need to contact them as we dont deal with parking fines or appeals" ( note word fine is used on purpose as customer service can often be clueless and/ or oblivious)

But as it is another key element is to be reasonable, even though its a faff, the sports centre has asked you to contact the parking compnay , and this should be done - informing the pakring company that they ave accessed and processed personal data wthout just causeas they have fialed to carry out any reasonable checks on the defective automated systems they have put in place.

GDPR should, i my opinion be used in all cases of double dip, or ANPR errors, as well as most residential cases where a PPC hasnt carried out checks on the land to see if they can actulaly operate on the land

Boudouche1

Good morning @GraceCourt , @Half_way and @Coupon-mad . Thank you for all your advice. Apologies for the delay with replying to you. My family member had to go through a series of difficult hospital tests, which required my full attention. I have not yet received a reply from the Parking company, but I will update you about their reply. I am not sure if I have the strength to go into the County Court at this stage.

Coupon-mad

You won't have to "go" to court. This one would be discontinued before a hearing.