I'm not a PCN virgin any more.

pustit

I like your reference to being paid 24/7.  Sadly that only comes out at about £1 per hour for the state pension!
Keep pressing them for answers to any points they fail to address.

Fruitcake

Oh I have other sources of income that keep a roof over my head and put food on the table, plus the time to indulge myself.

Meanwhile, I think it is time to send an SAR to DCBL. They obviously don't have enough to keep them occupied, otherwise they wouldn't be pursuing me for a PCN that was cancelled within a few hours of my complaint to the landowner.

Fruitcake

There's more.

I received this after I complained to the BPA that Parkmaven only accepts complaints by post.

"Dear Fruity

 Thank you for your email.

 Please see below ParkMaven’s complaint policy and the different ways to make a complaint –

 

“A complaint must be made in writing via email or post:

Email: support@parkmaven.com

Postal Address: ParkMaven Limited, Kemp House 160, City Road, London, EC1V 2NX.

The complaint must be made within 56 days of the incident taking place.”

 

I hope this information is helpful.

 Kind regards,

HL"

I responded with this.

H,

      Your statement that Parkmaven accept complaints by email is not supported by the complaints policy shown on their website, as linked from the BPA list of AoS members, hence my complaint that this puts people with disabilities and/or people who live in rural areas at a disadvantage.

See the link to Parkmaven's website, and a screenshot of the complaints process detailed therein.

Complaints Policy : (freshdesk.com)

If the information displayed on one of your member's websites is inaccurate, then your member should be advised to correct or update it. 

Regards

Fruity

Meanwhile, Parkmaven have responded to my complaint that they haven't supplied all my personal data they hold about me, and in the process they admitted they hadn't sent it all to me.   

"Hi Fruity,
 
Thanks for your email,
 
All the information we've passed on to DCBL is the details of the contravention which haven been provided to you in the Subject Access Request."

In other words, they have sent DCBL my data, but haven't shown me copies of what they sent. I know I am being pedantic, but I believe they should have included copies of the communication/correspondence they sent to DCBL because it contains my personal data.

In any case, they didn't send me copies of the correspondence they received from the landowner that also carries my personal data.

I need to let the original 30 days from when I sent the SAR to time out then I shall complain to the BPA and ICO about failing to supply all my data. This really is the PCN that keeps on giving. 

Fruitcake

Another response from the BPA.

Dear Fruity, 

Thank you for your email. 

Please see ParkMavens most up to date complaints policy which linked (sic) on our website. 

https://parkmaven-assets.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/727c4ebd81d091e9457adbac8dbc1d37.pdf

Kind regards,

HL

Compliance Investigations Officer

British Parking Association

The problem is, the most up to date version of Parkmaven's complaints policy that states complaints can be submitted by email can ONLY be accessed from the BPA website on their list of AoS members. Using a search engine, or the Parkmaven link on the same BPA webpage only allows you to go to the old version of the policy that states complaints must be sent by post.

My response to this nonsense.

H,

      If that is the most up to date version of Parkmaven's complaints policy, why are the links to the old versions of the policy still accessible, and more obvious than the one hidden away on the BPA's website where most motorists would not think or even know to look? 

      Using an internet search engine, or by clicking on the weblink from the BPA's own web page listing its AoS members to the Parkmaven website http://www.parkmaven.com/ then clicking on the Complaints Policy link at the bottom of Parkmaven's website still returns a version that states complaints must be made in writing by post. 

       

      It seems rather strange that the method most motorists would use to access Parkmaven's website, an internet search, states complaints must be made by post. 

      It appears that access to a version of the complaints policy that allows complaints by email can ONLY be accessed via the BPA's website, and then only by clicking on the Complaints Policy link on the BPA web-page, yet is impossible to access by visiting Parkmaven's web-page.     

      Is this because both the BPA and Parkmaven want to make things as difficult as possible for motorists to appeal by hiding information on the BPA's website that most motorists would never think to visit, and in many cases would never even have heard of in the hope they will give up, or is it laziness and incompetence by your AoS member?

           That would be like looking up the complaints policy of say, Barclays Bank to find an out of date policy, not knowing that the only way to access the most up to date version would be by visiting The Financial Conduct Authority's website. (I use the word, "authority" as an example, because of course the BPA are no such thing).

      No wonder the government wants this rogue industry (UK MPs words) to be regulated.

Regards
Fruity

Coupon-mad

Nice one! 

Fruitcake

*Fruity sniggers* "Tee-Hee."

What fun! Do I need a bigger spoon?

Fruitcake

More fun.

I sent an SAR to Parkmaven and got a reply within 30 dyas, but it omitted the data they hold about me that they sent to DCB Limited, and failed to include the information they hold about me they received from the landowner.
I complained and gave them time to remedy their error.
They responded by saying the only thing they sent to DCBL was the information about the alleged event, but they didn't actually include copies of what they sent to DCBL. They did not include copies of anything from the landowner.

They are now past the original 30 days to respond to an SAR, despite me reminding them that they hadn't sent me everything. 

My email to them,

"A,

      Thank you for your response, and thank you for confirming that you have not provided me with all the data you hold about me.  

      You say that you have passed my information to DCBL, yet have not provided me with copies of that information, nor have you provided me with copies of my data you hold about me that was provided to you by the landowner.

      Of course, it is perfectly reasonable to redact contractually sensitive information about your business, but it is unreasonable to withhold any information you hold that contains my personal details. Saying you sent data you hold about me to a third party in no way absolves you of from providing me with copies of that data.

      I will now complain to the BPA and ICO about this failing in your duty to respond fully to my Subject Access Request within the ICO mandated timeline.

Regards
Fruity"

Time for a brew and then construct a brace of complaints.

Fruitcake

Finally, the penny dropped with the BPA. They now understand that the Parkmaven's latest complaints policy can only be accessed via the BPA website, but not through the operator's website. 

However, being merely a trade body they cannot instruct their members to do anything, only to ask nicely, and she needed my permission to ask them to do that, which of course I graciously granted. 

*Fruity mutters, "At least you can eat a chocolate teapot."*
 
I'll check PM's website at regular intervals to see of they actually bother to update the links.

Here is her response.

Dear Fruity,

 

Thank you for your email.

I have forwarded your correspondence to our contact at ParkMaven and requested that the most up to date (sic) is available on all platforms to avoid confusion.

Have a lovely day!

Kind regards,

HL

1505grandad

"However, being merely a trade body they cannot instruct their members to do anything, only to ask nicely, and she needed my permission to ask them to do that, ...."

But in order for DVLA to squander motorists data they clearly state:-

"Safeguards

At DVLA we have tough safeguards in place to protect the privacy of information held on our records. One of those safeguards is that all unregulated organisations, such as private car parking management companies, requesting information from us must be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (ATA).

All ATAs must have an enforceable code of practice governing the conduct and operations of their members."

Fruitcake

I've been checking Parkmaven's website but it still says complaints can only be submitted by post which is at variance with the complaints policy on the BPA's ATA list website.

I did get an email from Parkmaven asking me for a copy of my original complaint. I pointed out that I sent it by post, this being the only method available according to their public facing website, but since I obtained a free proof of posting, it is presumed according to The Interpretation Act to have been delivered to them (Parkmaven) two working days later, so they had better go and look for it.

Meanwhile, I have continued with my game of DCB Limited baiting, having now received my fourth free firelighter from them by post.


Dear *name of collections manager*

I refer to your letter of the 18th of January, 2024, titled "Notice of intended legal action unpaid parking charge £100," writ in bold "scary" type.

      In it you state that, "You have failed to pay or respond to our previous letter," but neither of these statements is true. In previous communication with DCB Limited, your colleague Emilia Kasprzk stated that,

"Please note, DCBL are unable to enter any further written correspondence regarding your case."

      So which is it? I am confused. On the one hand your colleague emphatically stated DCB Limited  are unable to enter any further correspondence, yet here you are yet again corresponding with me. If DCB Limited are unable, as opposed to being unwilling or just being petulant, how come you were/are able to correspond. Do you have some secret power of which your Emelia is unaware that allows you to correspond when your colleagues cannot? Someone is not telling the truth here and I am left wondering what to do. 

      Do I accept Emelia's statement as gospel truth (remembering there were there were four of them (not counting the gnostic gospels) and they were all different, that DCB Limited are unable to correspond, meaning that it is pointless for me to correspond, or do you actually want me to correspond? Without guidance I made a unilateral decision to ignore Emilia and correspond with you. Please do not feel privileged by my actions though. I just want to know why your Emelia is saying one thing yet you are doing the exact opposite. It appears that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. In other words, it looks like incompetence to me.

      Your letter then rambles on about having referred the matter to your Client to review commencing legal action, but I know this is not true otherwise you wouldn't persist in sending me more free firelighters by post for my multi-fuel stove. I am grateful though. I am a pensioner so all the help I can get with heating my home is much appreciated.

      For the absence of doubt. I do not owe you nor your client, Parkmaven Limited, a single groat, let alone your fake made up amount of £170. You offer your clients a no win no fee service, so if motorists do not pay you, you soak up the cost of failing to collect and get nothing in return from the unregulated private parking companies. Your clients then have no legal right to claim the fake add on £70 invented by Gary Osner of ZZPS and published for the world to see, ironically by Parkmaven Limited themselves.

      

Regards

Fruity