'PCN NOW CANCELLED' data privacy & complaints NPC Group, DCB Legal, DVLA, IPC, ICO & MP

Thorndorise

@Coupon-mad
@Umkomaas

Totally agree - was very underwhelmed - I also realise they have missed my request to see the request made to them, don't expect them to share the redacted contract (although I've requested via FOI anyway)....very poor effort - so made sure that they keep my complaint open...I replied..


Dear X

Many thanks to your response to my email regarding an alleged breach of a contract between yourselves and the private parking company, National Parking Control Group Ltd. (NPC)

Please see my attached response, my personal data complaint remains open with you, as your answer sadly doesn't justify the approach taken by either NPC or DVLA.

Again, I am more than prepared to go through the details of this complaint should it be required.

Many thanks to your response to my email regarding an alleged breach of a contract between yourselves and the private parking company, National Parking Control Group Ltd. (NPC). The crux of my complaint is that by NPC not adhering to their own code of practice, and you becoming aware of this - means that you should both rescind the data provision rights (as they have no reasonable cause through failure to adhere to industry standards), and also report NPC to the ICO (and yourselves if necessary). Your letter very much appears to repeat the same 'line' that the Private firms use, which is that by parking "...a vehicle on private land they do so subject to the terms and conditions set out on signage in the car park." However, regardless of liability - you don't seem to justify the supply of personal data where there is no 'evidence' of said breach of T&Cs.

1. How do you, the DVLA, confirm that each and every case has or hasn't met the reasonable cause threshold?
2. If there has been a breach of the contract by non-adherence to the ATA Code of practice by a Private Parking Company - how are you informed of this? and what action do you then take?

In this instance a member of the public is informing you that one of your customers has not adhered to their ATA CoP, as a result they have broken the terms and conditions of your contract with them, and as such do not have reasonable cause to receive personal data from the DVLA. As such the DVLA must act to stamp out this mendacious behaviour. This should, as a minimum, start with an audit of NPC (specifically to this case if required) to show that they are acting within their ATA CoP, as if they are not, you should immediately ban them from further requests.

Are you seriously suggesting that any private parking firm can have a few audits or examples of requests assessed and then can act without impunity afterwards, and as such you wash your hands of any responsibility to maintain an adequate level of GDPR compliance. Instead relying on the Courts to manage your poor due diligence? (and I'm sure the Courts would have something to say about this)!

The piece about CCTV & ANPR is irrelevant to this case, whilst photos were taken, a Notice to Driver should have been issued on site by the warden patrolling at the time, NPC did not do this, instead relying on your lack of diligence to send a Notice to Keeper at a later date.

"Parking operators with an electronic link are regularly audited by DVLA to check that they can prove reasonable cause for the requests made and that they have adequate security over the information in their possession."

This statement indicates to me that DVLA regularly (the question is how regularly?) audit PPCs to check they 'can' prove reasonable cause. However it doesn't state that the DVLA actually ask for the evidence to show this, the DVLA just checks they can prove it.

What does "Parking operators with an electronic link are regularly audited by DVLA to check that they can prove reasonable cause for the requests made.." mean?

• How often are Parking operators audited?
• What reasons, if any, can be triggers for an audit?

"If the data is misused or a company did not adhere to their contract with DVLA it could be suspended independently of any ATA investigation."

This statement tells me that you will act where it can be shown Parking Operators did not adhere to their contract with the DVLA, and as such you could investigate and suspend NPC in this proven instance of non-adherence independently of any ATA investigation.

"There is no indication that your data has been used by National Parking Control Group Ltd and the debt recovery agent for any purpose other than that for which it was originally requested, i.e. to pursue the landowner’s legal interests with regard to the use of his land."

This statement tells me that you have not read the complaint properly- The landowner has no legal interest when they have not fulfilled the basic requirements of an unregulated and civil related industry code of practice, the use of the word legal here is a misnomer. There is a breach of contract, evidenced by the attached photographs, you will see a clear contravention of the ATA CoP by the absence of entrance signs, and the absence of additional entrance signs as the parking enforcement had only started 3 weeks prior to the alleged parking event.

Thus, you have evidence of;

1. Breach of Industry Code of Practice (IPC CoP V9 in force at the time of the alleged event), therefore
2. Breach/nonadherence to NPC's contact with DVLA, therefore
3. Proven lack of reasonable cause to retrieve personal data from the DVLA and thus,
4. An actionable reason to.
a) Suspend NPC until an investigation is carried out

b) Audit requests from this site, and others for breach of ATA CoP & Contract with DVLA

Even your own guidance on this topic shows that NPC don't have reasonable cause - these being...

• follow up charges not paid when the ticket is left on the vehicle
• issue the charge to the motorist when captured on ANPR or CCTV

Neither a ticket was left on the vehicle, nor was any image captured on ANPR or CCTV - again breach of your own guidance.

Guidance from Giving people information from our vehicle record March 2024 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/661cƯ2808c3be25cfbd3db1/mis546-giving-people-information-from-our-vehicle-record.pdf

DVLA's own contract section C 1 specifically calls out the correct use of signage on site

C1.1. The Customer shall ensure that signage, terms and conditions of service for parking customers and correspondence with data subjects comply with the Law and with the requirements of the ATA Code of Practice or conduct. If you are not fully aware of the CoP terms regarding signage they can be found here in the IPC’s code of practice is published on its website at www.theipc.info under the heading Accredited Operators Scheme.

To summarise, It is being evidenced herein, that NPC are in breach of their own ATA CoP, that in turn makes them in breach of the Contract with the DVLA, and as such you have 'reasonable cause', moreover a legal duty (contract law that can be evidenced) to enact bullet 4. above. I look forward to your list of actions that you will now do as a result of this genuine complaint about breach of data protection.

Pic attached of the non-compliance with signage.

Love Me


Interestingly - I also noted that essentially the DVLA are saying they won't take action unless brought to their attention by an ATA, but in IPC's ATA it states the opposite in their sanctions section. "The IPC will investigate, at the DVLA’s request, any complaint against its members regarding alleged breaches of The Code"

Can't help but think the DVLA are facilitating this awful behaviour

Thorndorise

Obviously I put in a complaint to the IPC too, very comprehensive, citing their own CoP and the things that showed that the breaches were material and therefore fully under their remit, and sanctionable, lots of appropriate detail and the fact that the PPC had breached GDPR (you know, law n'stuff) and also broken their responsibility - potentially on this and other sites, I'd also asked for a copy of the Audit that the PPC were using as their argumentation for being 'compliant'

This was their amazing response

Dear X

Thank you for providing this evidence, which we have reviewed.

We do not feel any immediate action is required. We can see that the operator has followed the correct process. However, we do continually review the complaints we get and collate data from these for use going forward. This enables us to make improvements with our members in the future.

We can confirm that the use of an entrance sign is not mandatory and therefore there has been no breach of our Code of Practice. If you believe the signage on the site is insufficient, this falls within the grounds for an appeal. Furthermore, the IPC are under no obligation to share audit information.

Additionally, any complaints relating to data protection need to be raised with the ICO as this is outside of the remit of the IPC to investigate.

Thank you again for flagging your concerns, which is very helpful for us as a trade association and helps us raise standards across the private parking industry.

Kind regards,
The IPC

I'm not surprised but absolutely livid at how ridiculous these people are...no words

Thorndorise

Thinking of writing back to them (not sure how, other than raising a new complaint)

Couple of things that stand out in their own code that contradicts their statement.

Conditions of the Code
2.1 It is a condition of AOS membership that members agree to abide by the Code and comply with the Independent Appeals Service. Operators must be fully appraised of the Code.

No compromise, it is a condition -if you don't abide, you're out. Right....right?

Requirements for the Conduct of Private Parking Management 
08 Signs
8.1 The Operator must have clear signage located on the Private Land to confirm the Terms and Conditions in place.
8.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in Schedule 1.

Schedule 1
Signage
This schedule prescribes the signage characteristics Operators should adhere to. It is accepted there will be instances where the nature of the Private Land does not make strict compliance feasible. In such cases Operators are required to keep to the spirit of the guidance. 

Signs must (sic) fixed in place and must be immediately apparent to the Motorist that they convey important information regarding the Private Land upon which they are placed. 

Must is not should, or can, or may, it's mandatory!

Signs at the entrance to a parking area must clearly show the type of parking available and if, when and how any payment is required to be made. If public parking is not welcomed, that must be made clear

I mean, really guys, c'mon, drink your own cool aid

The sign must state that terms and conditions apply and state where drivers can find more details (usually on other notices within the land).

Ah c'mon already, stop

Entrance Signs should:
1.make it clear that the Motorist is entering onto private land;
2.refer the Motorist to the signs within the Car Park which display the full terms and conditions.

Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a Car Park. Otherwise the signage within the Car Park must be such as to be obvious to the Motorist. 

Pretty sure that if entrance signs are not 'Mandatory' then the Must about the other placement of signs applies, what numpties.

Signs Displaying Terms and Conditions The Operator must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the Creditor and the Motorist.

Again this doesn't strike me as ambiguous surely..


I don't know, but there is a stack more 'musts' in there than 'shoulds', I'm no linguist, by I think I know what that means...

Thorndorise

Well - I jusr raised another complaint, that they hadn't actually answered my complaint - well they did but just lied.

I flagged all of the above and more in thorough detail, and this was frankly the crappest response I think I've got to date:

Dear Screwed over motorist,

Thank you for your further correspondence.

We can confirm that Version 9 of the IPC Code of Practice states 'Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a carpark. Otherwise signage within the car park must be such as to be obvious to the motorist'.

As seen this does not imply that all pieces of private land must use an entrance sign, it states where they should be, this is not mandatory. As per our previous response, should you feel that the signage was insufficient at the time, you must follow the appeals process.

We are sorry you do not agree with our decision relating to your previous complaint, however we regret that there is little more that we can do for you in the circumstances.

Whilst we appreciate that you might want us to do more for you and that you may wish for us to reconsider our position, we are unable to do so.

Apologies that we cannot assist you any further in this regard.

Kind regards,
The IPC

I'm starting to think I should just pay up (only kidding), flipping gaslighters!

Coupon-mad

I gave up complaining to that self-serving moneymaking lot years ago. You can see why.

Grizebeck

Why are you spending so much time on this 

Thorndorise

Grizebeck said:

Why are you spending so much time on this 

You ask a good question, genuinely I believe in the fairness of things, if an 'organisation' says it will stamp out poor behaviour from it's members, and write that down, I believe them. 

I'm perhaps coming to realise that perhaps I have too much faith in the process - and possibly a bit more of a newbie to this also. But, nonetheless - feel they should be doing their job. But clearly they are not, and that's okay cos I feel like I've tried at least - and know they are a bunch of self-serving eegits (to @Coupon-mad's point).

I've actually not seen any examples of complaints to them on here (maybe I've not read enough) - but felt like it was a small crusade worth pursuing, think I'm over it.

Umkomaas

Spend some time badgering you MP about this, especially if they are a newly elected one. They may well be very naive about the private parking industry and easily swallow the guff from 'authorities' like the IPC and BPA. Get them up to speed, we will be needing them the nearer we get to the imposition of the real Code of Practice.

Thorndorise

Umkomaas said:

Spend some time badgering you MP about this, especially if they are a newly elected one. They may well be very naive about the private parking industry and easily swallow the guff from 'authorities' like the IPC and BPA. Get them up to speed, we will be needing them the nearer we get to the imposition of the real Code of Practice.

Thanks @Umkomaas
Totally agree, already broached this back with my local MP (co-chair of the green party), although I've not heard back from him directly,  his research assistant (after a rocky start,  I.e. she'd swallowed the industry line about a new single code of practice) had started to make noise,  and I'm keeping her in the loop of my comms with DVLA, but this is defo worth sharing as it shows just how utterly disingenuous they are as an industry. 

Nellymoser

Thorndorise said:

Grizebeck said:

Why are you spending so much time on this 

You ask a good question, genuinely I believe in the fairness of things, if an 'organisation' says it will stamp out poor behaviour from it's members, and write that down, I believe them. 

I'm perhaps coming to realise that perhaps I have too much faith in the process - and possibly a bit more of a newbie to this also. But, nonetheless - feel they should be doing their job. But clearly they are not, and that's okay cos I feel like I've tried at least - and know they are a bunch of self-serving eegits (to @Coupon-mad's point).

I've actually not seen any examples of complaints to them on here (maybe I've not read enough) - but felt like it was a small crusade worth pursuing, think I'm over it.

Don't allow others to put you off your crusade. IMO it was and is worth pursuing. As LDast said keep grinding on at them. Until YOU feel you've spent enough time on it.

Been catching up with your complaints and those appalling responses. 

Search forum for DVLA complaints negligent if your hearts still in it.