PCN issued outside of contract terms

PipKers

Hi, here is the amended complaint;

Dear sirs,

I am writing to you in respect of serious code of practice breaches by Link Parking Ltd, the details of which are as follows.

I am a former resident of Ymca lofts in xxxx and as part of my tenancy agreement I was allocated a parking bay in the property's car park. On 6th February this year my vehicle was issued with a PCN from link parking whilst parked in my allocated bay. I had been a co-tenant at the property for the past 18 months without any prior problem.

I took up the matter with the management company, xxxxxxxx who undertook overall management for the property on 1st February. They informed me that they had been in discussion with Link Parking and had signed a new contract for link parking to commence parking enforcement at the premises on 9th February 2023. This was to be delayed until 20th February in order to allow residents to obtain the necessary permits. I am attaching a copy of the new contract and a copy of the notice posted around the flats informing us of the changes.

Upon further investigation I discovered that Link Parking had a contract in force with the previous management company, xxxx, which expired on 1st February 2023. Therefore at the time Link Parking issued the PCN they had no legal right to patrol these premises as there was no contract in place for them to do so. This is further evidenced by the complete lack of signage at the premises. I am enclosing photographs taken on 6th February which evidently show that previous parking enforcement signs had been removed or had simply fallen off the walls and had not been replaced.  It is therefore clearly evident that Link Parking were acting illegally on 6th February by issuing this PCN.

Furthermore it is clearly evident that Link Parking have obtained data from yourselves in respect of this PCN without reasonable cause. These breaches of the IPC code of practice by Link Parking also breach the KADOE contract to obtain data from yourselves.I must also point out that link parking and yourselves are in breach of GDPR. Under the circumstances link parking has obtained my personal identifiable information fraudulently and also failed to protect that information by sharing it with a third party, namely BW Legal. I will be forwarding my findings to the Information Commissioner's Office in respect of the GDPR breaches by yourselves and link parking.

For the record, my failure to pay this illegally issued PCN has now resulted in the threat of court action by BW Legal who are acting on behalf of Link Parking so you can understand how strongly I feel about this matter. A separate serious complaint is being prepared to the solicitors regulatory authority in respect of this, the details of which I do not wish to disclose here.

I trust that you will treat this complaint seriously as failure to do so will result in me referring the issue to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman along with my MP.

I can also inform you that I have approached the press in respect of this matter and BBC Watchdog have expressed a keen interest in obtaining further information.

I look forward to a satisfactory response in due course,

xxxxxx

And here is the contract and notice to residents;

YankeeBrit

Might it not be worthwhile pointing out to each of the parties (and their agents) who have breached your GDP with the following?

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 82 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.

Umkomaas

The GDPR breaches by yourselves and link parking.

solicitors regulatory authority 

Just spotted these on a skim - please check for any others?

Link Parking

Solicitors Regulation Authority - note: Regulation, not Regulatory

PipKers

Thank you YankeeBrit and Umkomaas for your input, much appreciated

PipKers

Here is the finished complaint which was sent to the DVLA yesterday. A copy was also forwarded to Link Parking and BW Legal.

Dear sirs,

I am writing to you in respect of serious code of practice and GDPR breaches by yourselves and Link Parking Ltd, the details of which are as follows.

I am a former resident of Ymca lofts in xxxxx and as part of my tenancy agreement I was allocated a parking bay in the property's car park. On 6th February this year my vehicle was issued with a PCN from link parking whilst parked in my allocated bay. I had been a co-tenant at the property for the past 18 months without any prior problem.

I took up the matter with the management company, xxx who undertook overall management for the property on 1st February. They informed me that they had been in discussion with Link Parking and had signed a new contract for Link Parking to commence parking enforcement at the premises on 9th February 2023. This was to be delayed until 20th February in order to allow residents to obtain the necessary permits. I am attaching a copy of the new contract and a copy of the notice posted around the flats informing us of the changes.

Upon further investigation I discovered that Link Parking had a contract in force with the previous management company, xxx, which expired on 31st January 2023. Therefore at the time Link Parking issued the PCN they had no legal right to patrol these premises as there was no contract in place for them to do so. I am attaching an email dated 22nd February 2023 from xxx confirming Link Parking was out of contract at YMCA lofts on the date they issued my PCN.

This is further evidenced by the complete lack of signage at the premises. I have video evidence filmed on 6th February which clearly shows that previous parking enforcement signs had been removed or had simply fallen off the walls and had not been replaced. 

Therefore it is clearly evident that Link Parking have obtained data from yourselves in respect of this PCN without reasonable cause. These breaches of the IPC code of practice by Link Parking also breach the KADOE contract to obtain data from yourselves.

I must also point out that link parking and yourselves are in breach of GDPR. Article 12 of the UK GDPR legally requires data controllers to store and process personal data accurately, I am therefore considering a claim for damages and compensation under Article 82 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for the unlawful processing of my personal data. Link Parking has obtained my personal identifiable information fraudulently and also failed to protect that information by sharing it with a third party, namely BW Legal. I will be forwarding my findings to the Information Commissioner's Office in respect of the GDPR breaches by yourselves and link parking.

For the record, my failure to pay this illegally issued PCN has now resulted in the threat of court action by BW Legal, who are acting on behalf of Link Parking. A separate complaint has been prepared in respect of this which will be sent to the solicitors regulation authority.

I trust that you will treat this complaint seriously as failure to do so will result in me referring the issue to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman along with my MP.

I can also inform you that I have approached the press in respect of this matter and BBC Watchdog have expressed a keen interest in obtaining further information.

I look forward to a satisfactory response in due course

The above 2 attachments were sent along with this;

The following response was received from the DVLA this morning;

Dear xxxx,

 

Thank you for your email of 21st August about the release of information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) vehicle register.

 

The DVLA takes the protection and security of its data very seriously and has procedures in place to ensure data is disclosed only where it is lawful and fair to do so and where the provisions of the Data Protection Law are met. The Agency must strike a balance between ensuring the privacy of motorists is respected while enabling those who may have suffered loss or damage to seek redress.

 

I have carried out a check of DVLA systems and can confirm that to date Link Parking Limited have not made a request for the registered keeper details for vehicle registration number xxxxxxxx.

 

To help ensure motorists are treated fairly when any private parking charge is pursued the DVLA discloses vehicle keeper information only to companies that are members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association (ATA). The purpose of requiring a company to be a member of an ATA is to ensure that those who request DVLA information are legitimate companies that operate within a code of practice that promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures that there is a clear set of standards for operators.

 

The company in question, Link Parking Limited, is a member of the International Parking Community Ltd (IPC) which is an Accredited Trade Association for the parking industry. The IPC’s code of practice is published on its website at www.theipc.info under the heading Accredited Operators Scheme. If a member of this AOS does not comply with the code of practice, it may be suspended or expelled, during which time no data will be provided to it by the DVLA. If you feel that any of the practices used by the company do not comply with the IPC’s code of practice, you may wish to contact the IPC via their website or by writing to IPC, at PO Box 662 SK10 9NR.

 

I trust I have explained matters but, if you remain unhappy with the service you have received, you can write to our Complaints Team and I have provided a link to our complaints procedure for your reference:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/driver-and-vehicle-licensing-agency/about/complaints-procedure

 

Yours sincerely

 

xxxxx

Upon further investigation it appears that my neice had appealed the ticket with link parking (which I was naturally unaware of) so she had in fact provided them with her personal information. This I assume therefore nullifies the GDPR argument as she provided the information? It still stands that the pcn was unlawfully issued but I would imagine the case in weakened slightly by me not being able to pursue the GDP side of things.

I will keep you posted on any further developments and once again a huge thank you to all for your valuable input so far, it is very much appreciated

Coupon-mad

Nice fightback though!  Very very good.

BW Legal will have to tell Link to cancel it.