Parking Code evidence - pictures of signs with £50, £60 or £70 PCN and no £ DRA fee on the sign

Coupon-mad

See above, regulars, if you want to see it.

Thanks to @1505grandad (and the RAC Foundation) for this latest FOI info about KADOE annual figures:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/parking-tickets-from-private-firms-up-29-in-a-year/ar-AA1ho07E?ocid=U148DHP&pc=U148&cvid=e94f2f6e8c554808987c859eef7441b6&ei=29

Important because it exposes an ERROR in the draft IA which wrongly says DVLA look-ups will reach 12million IN A DECADE'S time!

2033 was also wrongly repeated in the House of Lords.

Nope, we are already over 13 million PCNs when you factor in the windscreen ones paid or appealed with no DVLA involvement.

Please point out that error in your responses to the Call for Evidence.

You can send more than one email, the DLUHC confirmed to me.  They want evidence.

patient_dream

I watched the Webinar yesterday which said very little apart from two major points

1: THE MoJ are aware of what is happening in the courts
2: The Independent Appeals Service. If this is run like the TPT, court claims will reduce because they will be culled, unlike the current jokers at POPLA and the IAS

Fruitcake

Remember folks, respond with copies of the DRP web page where they state they offer a no win no fee service to parking companies.
DRP and Trace Debt Recovery made similar statements at the 2021 IPC conference.

Don't forget the statement from Gary Osner, head of ZZPS, who stated that he made up the fake add on debt collector fees.

All of the above have already been posted on this thread, but they need to be repeated by as many posters as possible to ensure the message gets across.

Parking companies do not pay debt collectors unless they are successful. This means PPCs cannot (should not) add the debt recovery charges to a PCN nor a court claim because they have not been incurred. If a PPC does claim them when they have not been incurred, then they are making false statements.

If a debt collector is successful, then there will be no court claim.

Fruitcake

At the 2021 IPC conference, DRP stated that,

 

Debt Recovery Plus Ltd
2021 IPC Annual Conference Main Sponsor

Debt Recovery Plus are the No1 company who specialise in the recovery of unpaid Parking Charge Notices. We are the chosen debt recovery service to 96% of the private parking operators in the UK, helping our clients achieve the highest recovery rates whilst at the same time protecting our client’s brand and monitoring strict compliance procedures.
Debt Recovery Plus offer a ‘No collection - No fee’ service for all of clients. In most instances we can add our fees to the Parking Charge Notice, which means that we will remit the full outstanding parking charge value to you.

 

In addition, Trace Debt Recovery UK Ltd stated,

 

TRACE Debt Recovery UK Limited
2021 IPC Annual Conference Main Sponsor

Our team at TRACE Debt Recovery UK Limited bring unparalleled service levels and quality to the parking enforcement market. At no cost to the client our service provides excellent recovery rates, accurate and clear reporting and zero complaints, making our offer second-to-none in our industry.  

 

We promote sustainable parking enforcement from the management of car parks through to the collection of unpaid parking charges. With access to key UK address databases we are able to cleanse address data and obtain up-to-date addresses maximizing debtor response rates. We provide this service free of charge to our debt recovery clients as part of our standard recovery model.

In an interview between Gary Osner, head of ZZPS, and Parkmaven, an unregulated private parking company, mister Osner said, "I created the model of ‘admin fees’ for debt recovery because ticket value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is about money, after all."

Gary Osner Q&A - Powered by ParkMaven (linkedin.com)

[Deleted User]

Crown quay lane Sittingbourne car park. Run by Swale Council £70 maximum penalty charge. 
Car park always has plenty of spaces. 

GrannyKate

I saw this FOIA response (ICO case reference – IC-251424-Q7T2) from ICO regarding data protection complaints concerning various parking companies earlier this month.  This may have been from a forum member but I don't know.

They responded with (extracts from summary only - full response can be found under case reference above)
In total our searches showed that since April 2020 we have received 157 complaints about the companies in your list. Out of 157 complaints received by the ICO, 150 have been completed and seven are still active. 

I can confirm that there are thirty nine cases where the ICO has contacted the data controllers with various issues about the handling of personal data and provided advice to them. 

-- no enforcement action has been taken in relation to the organisations in your list. 

I wondered about referencing this case and asking ICO whether any of these complaints related to automated processing leading to CCJs and if so what guidance was given in relation to compliance with Article 22 (1) of UK GDPR as set out in ICO Guidance below;

What type of processing is restricted?

Article 22(1) of the UK GDPR limits the circumstances in which you can make solely automated decisions, including those based on profiling, that have a legal or similarly significant effect on individuals. 

“The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly affects him or her”

Article 22(1)

What does ‘solely’ automated mean?

Solely means a decision-making process that is totally automated and excludes any human influence on the outcome. A process might still be considered solely automated if a human inputs the data to be processed, and then the decision-making is carried out by an automated system.

A process won’t be considered solely automated if someone weighs up and interprets the result of an automated decision before applying it to the individual.

Not likely to get a reply in time for this consultation but I would be interested in an answer to this question.  

May also be worth asking ICO what evidence his office gave to the MOJ's consultation on Default CCJs which ended in February 2018 and which was due for publication in May 2018.  Still unpublished I understand and in 2021 a FOIA request for the evidence was refused using the exemption 'intended for future publication'. I think 5 + years is a bit long to rely on that exemption and some organisations, including BPA, published their evidence anyway. 

[Deleted User]

Free car park 5 minute walk to Sittingbourne high street.  Never had any issues parking there. 

ParkingMad

GrannyKate said:

I saw this FOIA response (ICO case reference – IC-251424-Q7T2) from ICO regarding data protection complaints concerning various parking companies earlier this month.  

They responded with

In total our searches showed that since April 2020 we have received 157 complaints about the companies in your list. Out of 157 complaints received by the ICO, 150 have been completed and seven are still active. 

I can confirm that there are thirty nine cases where the ICO has contacted the data controllers with various issues about the handling of personal data and provided advice to them. 

No enforcement action has been taken in relation to the organisations in your list. 

Here is a link to the ICO’s FOIA response:

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/our-information/disclosure-log/ic-252544-q7t2/

GrannyKate

Thanks @ParkingMad - I have now checked back and it is interesting to note that the number which appears on the published document is different to the actual case number it links back to!.  I have corrected my request to ICO.  I have sent 2 FOIA requests related to this issue.

Nellymoser

Good to hear all your thoughts on the DLUHC webinar as I was unable to listen in. 
PPC's clearly didn't read Annex B : Personal Data No 9 and Annex C : Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the consultation document or maybe they were just hoping DLUHC would provide a different answer to the one in the document :

 "Information provided in response to this call for evidence, including personal data, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA), the UK General Data Protection Regulation, and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, as a public authority, the Department is bound by the Freedom of Information Act and may therefore be obliged to disclose all or some of the information you provide." 

Have also noted recent information which I can add as I'm still wading through my Q4 response

@Coupon-mad ERROR in the draft IA which wrongly says DVLA look-ups will reach 12million IN A DECADE'S time!

@Fruitcake debt agency and gary osner statements, have mentioned these in Q2.4 but will repeat in Q4.1b. I didn't find the no win no fee statement on DRP website thought they'd maybe removed it? 
Was hoping my DVLA FOIR - IR x 2 would be through for my response but they're not playing ball. Both are late but I can "expect a reply shortly" !!!!