I'm not a PCN virgin any more.

Castle

Fruitcake said:

I used the support@ email address to send the SAR to Parkmaven, and a complaint via the BPA complaint portal about their member's lack of DPO contact details.

I've got a vague memory that certain information must be posted on a company website: perhaps it was The Companies Act. I need to do some digging.

This is what you need, (under section 7), for disclosures and, (section10), for the offence being committed:-
The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008 (legislation.gov.uk)

Fruitcake

KeithP said:

Fruitcake said:

The website states complaints must be made within 56 days of the incident taking place. How convenient.

Yes, that's true, it does say that.
But it doesn't say "within 56 days of the alleged parking incident". It just talks about 'the incident' - whatever that is.

Perhaps you could work on the basis that 'the incident' that you are complaining about is 'the incident' when you discovered they failed to specify their DPO's contact details... i.e. yesterday.     


I've just looked again and there are other differences between the Complaints Policy accessed via their website and the one accessed via the complaints link on the BPA's AOS Members list.
All of the discrepancies concern missing email addresses on ParkMaven's website. 

For completeness, the following email addresses are missing from ParkMaven's version of their Complaints Policy but are clearly shown on the BPA's version...
1) support@parkmaven.com - already mentioned,
2) complaints@parkmaven.com  - might become useful, and
3) the elusive one we were looking for earlier - data@parkmaven.com - which, as described on the BPA's version and reproduced below, is claimed to be that of their Data Protection Officer...

For more information on how we use your information you can contact our data protection officer on data@parkmaven.com.

And just to make it perfectly clear, that very same sentence is replaced on the ParkMaven website with...

For more information on how we use your information you can contact our data protection officer via post at ParkMaven Limited, Kemp House 160, City Road, London, EC1V 2NX. 

KeithP I was going to complain that the "incident" was me discovering I had won a PCN when the DRA fire-starter kit arrived.

I'll resend the SAR using the data@ address.

Many thanks for your help.

Fruitcake

Castle said:

Fruitcake said:

I used the support@ email address to send the SAR to Parkmaven, and a complaint via the BPA complaint portal about their member's lack of DPO contact details.

I've got a vague memory that certain information must be posted on a company website: perhaps it was The Companies Act. I need to do some digging.

This is what you need, (under section 7), for disclosures and, (section10), for the offence being committed:-
The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008 (legislation.gov.uk)

Castle, many thanks for the info. I've had a look and there doesn't appear to be a requirement to display the DPO email address on their website.

Fruitcake

It looks like Plan A s is going to work. I complained to the hotel chain UK CEO and copied in the info@ email address for the hotel. This afternoon I received a very brief email from the hotel saying, "We have forwarded your fine for cancellation."

I also submitted an SAR via Parkmaven's data@ email address kindly provided by @KeithP. How odd that two days later I have received nothing, yet when I used the support@ email address I got an auto response within seconds. It's almost as if it is deliberate.

Fruitcake

It looks like this was a damp squib for Parkmaven Very Limited and DCB Extremely Limited because this is what I get when I go to the pay a PCN page.


"Sorry, we are unable to locate this ticket. Please can you check the details you have entered and try again."

I'll still pursue the SAR and website complaints of course since the PPC has spoiled my fun.

Umkomaas

Well done fruity 👏. That's the difference between someone who knows exactly what they're doing and those who have no clue. The sad reason why PPCs proliferate and enrich. 

Cherry popped, but all part of life's journey. 😏

Trainerman

Umkomaas said:

Well done fruity 👏. That's the difference between someone who knows exactly what they're doing and those who have no clue. The sad reason why PPCs proliferate and enrich. 

Cherry popped, but all part of life's journey. 😏

I wholeheartedly second that. Well done Fruitcake

Coupon-mad

Thirded!  Nicely done by an expert.

Fruitcake

Umkomaas said:

Well done fruity 👏. That's the difference between someone who knows exactly what they're doing and those who have no clue. The sad reason why PPCs proliferate and enrich. 

Cherry popped, but all part of life's journey. 😏

Oooh Matron!

Fruitcake

I am humbled by the experts who have taught me, and give thanks to their patience whilst virtually whacking me about the head until things sunk in. When I was gainfully employed, we called this process percussive training.

Interestingly, I have had a response from IHG UK HQ telling me the CEO has read my email and tasked one of his staff with contacting the hotel owners about my parking issue. I had noticed, and mentioned in my complaints, that the hotel website makes no mention of a PPC infestation, nor £100 PCNs, nor debt crawlers, nor threats of court.
Whilst the hotel bears the IHG (Holiday Inn) marque, it is independently owned. However the message from the CEO's office was that adverse actions of hotels bearing the IHG marque affect the good name of the company.

I replied to the respondent telling them that whilst the original event occurred because the driver entered the VRM of the car they normally drive, not the one they had borrowed, this should have resulted in an NTK, an offer to appeal a non-independent body, and the offer to pay a reduced fee of £20. Instead, I said, I got a demand for £170 from a debt crawler of £170, which I also said I felt was extortionate since the driver had paid the very reasonable correct parking fee of £5, but against the wrong VRM.
I then pointed out that this could and should have been avoided if typo-proof PDT machines had been used since it would have been impossible to pay for a vehicle that was not actually present in the car park.
I stated that if IHG truly wanted to protect its brand, they should instruct the hotel owners to instruct their parking agent to install typo-proof machines to prevent this sort of thing happening again.

I repeatedly used the term, "unregulated." Sadly I also had to say, "it is not a fine." I also mentioned Neil O'Brien's comment that the fake add-ons were an attempt at extortion.

To finish though, I said how I had been an IHG rewards member using their hotels across the globe for the last 20 years, and how the hotels I stayed at were always to a very high standard, and how professional and friendly their staff were across several continents. 

If you go on the CEO email website, there is actually a section about this sort of thing there. It tells you to be polite and courteous, and to praise where praise is due, but to explain politely what the problem is. 

Let's see how IHG top Neddies respond to that, although everything has been encouraging so far.