Privacy Notice and NTK from VCS (Derby)

c4r_p4rk3r

Hello and firstly thank you - from reading this forum I can see that there are a number of regular posters on this forum dedicating their own time and resources, which is much appreciated.

I am writing this post as the registered keeper of a vehicle for which I have received a postal PCN from VCS.

I have read the newbies thread and so far I have attempted "Plan A" - complaint to (presumed) land owner. However, I suspect I will not get anywhere with this, since the PCN in question relates to a 'permit holders' sign for a private business, with which the driver has no relationship (and it's not a retailer, restaurant or other open to the general public). I also have no way of knowing whether the business named on the signs is actually the land owner, and I suspect they may not be, since the car park and buildings are shared by many businesses within the complex.

Background facts of the case (I think the following is a bit unusual but I'm sure everyone says that!):

1. On the 'Contravention Date', the driver was visiting a restaurant and parked in a small car park adjacent to the premises.
2. The driver had received information from the restaurant indicating that, at weekends, there would be no issues parking in bays allocated to its neighbouring businesses.
3. This was the driver's first visit to the area and it was very busy with pedestrians.
4. The car park is very small - no more than 50 spaces, and much of it is currently inaccessible due to building works.
5. A small section of the currently usable part of the car park has white paint on the ground, in front of roughly 5 parking bays, saying "CUSTOMERS". Since the actual bays are hidden behind a building/wall, this is the first thing seen on approaching the car park.
6. All except one of the aforementioned parking bays have small signs placed at the rear, with one sign per bay. These signs show the name/logo of a private business (not the PPC) and "Staff Parking Only".
7. The driver parked the vehicle in the only bay within the "CUSTOMERS" section of the car park which does not have a "Staff Parking Only" sign.
8. In addition to the aforementioned signs, there are larger signs headed as "PRIVATE LAND" "Parking for '[Private Business Name]' Permit Holders Only" and also including a large body of small print which I will omit here (unless requested).
9. On returning to the vehicle, the driver found a small blue card wrapped in a plastic envelope, headed "PRIVACY NOTICE", dated, and containing text directing them to visit a web address.
10. On Friday 8/9, as the vehicle's keeper, I received a postal NTK. This states an issue date of 31/8 and a contravention date of 27/8.
11. The NTK only includes close up images of the number plate, but does also include a website link where it is possible to view additional photographs of signage, etc.

In summary of the above, regardless of the conduct of the PPC and any technicalities, I believe there is a strong argument that the driver could not reasonably have expected a parking charge, given that the vehicle was not parked in a bay marked as belonging to the private business, and was parked in a "CUSTOMERS" bay directly adjacent to the restaurant the driver was visiting - this was an honest attempt to park reasonably and fairly.

Questions:

1. I understand from reading other threads that the PPC are not supposed to issue anything on the car windscreen unless it is a proper NTD, which the "Privacy Notice" is not. Should I make a complaint about this, and to whom?
2. Given fact number 10 above - the PPC have clearly backdated the NTK - the postal service does not take eight days. Although still delivered within the requisite 14 days, this results in a relatively short deadline for making a "Plan B" appeal - presumably I should not wait past this deadline for a "Plan A" result? Should I make a complaint about the backdated NTK, and to whom?
3. Given that images of the vehicle and signage are available on the web link, and these obviously refer to a permit parking scheme, should the "Plan B" appeal still include the last 3 paragraphs regarding photographs, PDT machine and overstay of minutes, as these seem irrelevant?
4. Would you consider any of the points above as a "slam-dunk" case winner and therefore recommend including them in the appeal to the PPC and/or could it be worth an IAS appeal in these circumstances?
5. I believe the case could be so strong that the PPC could have no reasonable grounds to acquire my personal details from the DVLA. Even if the driver had parked in a marked bay, the signage forbids parking for non-permit holders so there could be no contract. Would you recommend a complaint to the DVLA, the PPC and/or the ICO in these circumstances?

I understand I have written quite a lot above, I do tend to overthink things so I really appreciate if you have taken the time to read this post and answer my questions. Thank you!

Coupon-mad

You are right with all if the above but there is no-one to complain to about the fake notice.

Would you recommend a complaint to the DVLA, the PPC and/or the ICO in these circumstances?

You will get knocked back. Won't get it cancelled this year, but yes this is all about a lack of contract and your case is strong, so you'd likely win in court.

You could have a laugh & try IAS.  No harm.

c4r_p4rk3r

Thank you for replying, Coupon-mad.

I have drafted the below for the (first) appeal. I appreciate they will probably ignore most of it but I would like to be seen to be engaging with the 'process' in the event this goes to court. Also I could probably recycle much of it for the court defence, which sounds likely to happen when VCS are involved.
Is there anything in the below that you'd particularly recommend taking out or amending?

Also, I expect to be moving house in the near future. The only contact email I can find for VCS is their Data Protection Officer - is that the right contact to notify them of a change of address or is there another one hidden away somewhere?



Re PCN number: [redacted]

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. 

The facts of the matter are as follows:

1. On the 'Contravention Date', the driver was visiting a restaurant and parked in a small car park adjacent to the premises.

2. This was the driver's first visit to the area and it was very busy with pedestrians and dogs. The necessary levels of concentration in this scenario did not allow for the driver to additionally look for signage.

3. The car park is very small - no more than 50 spaces, and much of it is currently inaccessible due to building works.

4. A small section of the currently usable part of the car park has white paint on the ground, in front of roughly 5 parking bays, stating "CUSTOMERS". Since the actual bays are hidden behind a building/wall, this is the first thing seen on approaching the car park. This reasonably led the driver to believe, on first impression, that these bays were allocated for customers of the restaurant.
5. Due to the size of the car park and lack of turning space, the driver elected to turn the vehicle around outside of the car park, and then carefully reverse the short distance through the car park and into the parking bay. This meant that the driver was facing away from the signs at all times during the act of parking the vehicle and would have exited the vehicle on the right hand side, i.e. the vehicle itself would have blocked the driver's view of the signs.

6. All except one of the aforementioned customer parking bays have small signs placed at the rear, with one sign per bay. These signs show the name/logo of [Company Permitted to Park] and stating "Staff Parking Only".

7. The driver parked the vehicle in the only remaining bay within the "CUSTOMERS" section of the car park, which does not have one of the "Staff Parking Only" signs.

8. In addition to the aforementioned signs, there are larger signs headed as "PRIVATE LAND" and "Parking for '[Company Permitted to Park]' Permit Holders Only", which also include a large body of barely legible small print.

9. Since the large and small signs both refer to [Company Permitted to Park], and since the car park is not exclusively for the use of [Company Permitted to Park], any reasonable person would conclude that any terms and conditions listed on the large signs would only be applicable to parking bays that were marked with one of the small signs.

10. The large signs expressly forbid non-permit holders from parking. Therefore, no contractual offer could possibly have been made to the driver, since they are not a [Company Permitted to Park] permit holder, and therefore the performance of the (hypothetical) contract is impossible. Since there can be no contractual offer, there can be no acceptance of contract, nor breach of contract.

On the basis of the above facts, neither myself (the registered keeper), nor the driver (not identified), have entered into any contractual agreement with VCS or any other party in respect of this parking event. No payment will be made and any further correspondence received, either from VCS or any third party such as debt recovery firms, other than to confirm the cancellation of this charge, will be considered as harassment.

In addition, since VCS could have had no possible legitimate reason to pursue charges against me, whether alleging keeper liability or otherwise, I will be making a complaint to the ICO and seeking guidance regarding a suspected breach of GDPR regulations.

Coupon-mad

Remove this as it admits fault:

"The necessary levels of concentration in this scenario did not allow for the driver to additionally look for signage."

c4r_p4rk3r

Thanks, will remove that.

It has come to my attention that the courts have capped the "loss of earnings" costs at £95 per day. Is there any way to reclaim higher costs than that? If not, it would be significantly cheaper in my circumstances to just pay the PPC.

Coupon-mad

Yes, when you do a costs assessment waaaay down the line, with your WS & evidence bundle prior to a hearing. But you don't even have a court claim and might be able to win at IAS if your evidence is good and the Assessor got out of bed on the right side.

One step at a time.

B789

The only way you would get more is if you can show unreasonable behaviour by the claimant or you counterclaim.

Funding the bottom-dwelling ex-clampers is not recommended. However, if your conscience is comfortable with being conned, it is what it is.

c4r_p4rk3r

Thanks folks. I suppose it is not guaranteed that this would go to court, but from what I've read it does seem the most likely outcome when dealing with this specific PPC (correct me if I'm wrong!).

I take your point about my conscience - I am torn between:
a) fight it on principle, very likely win in court, probably at a net cost to myself, but at least the PPC would lose money too
b) pay them, most likely save myself some money, but feel guilty about having funded them

Coupon-mad

As I said, you get to do a costs assessment.  

c4r_p4rk3r

Yes I know, but if the maximum loss of earnings costs claimable are £95 per day and my actual loss of earnings would be several £100s per day, then even if I won in court I'd still be losing (several £100s minus £95).

B789

You're assuming that it will even reach court. Even if it did reach court, you could request a remote hearing and it would only take up a few hours, if that, of your time on the day.