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

Nellymoser

Guess which PPC manages Wales' worst-rated car parks according to Google reviews
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-worst-rated-car-parks-24799475

Umkomaas

Nellymoser said:

Guess which PPC manages Wales' worst-rated car parks according to Google reviews
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-worst-rated-car-parks-24799475

Surprised that there is no mention of Llangrannog and One Parking Solution!  Must be one of, if not the worst rated car park in Wales.

Nellymoser

Yes it was a surprise but I suppose most would use the Facebook page which the Llangrannog Welfare Committee set up as a result of all the complaints. 

Thorndorise

Thanks @Nellymoser

I'll plod on thank you...

My also attempt with IPC was to move away from the 'sign's' complaint and concentrate on one of their members sharing data incorrectly, thinking 'surely this has to be something they take seriously'?


My attempt.

Hi IPC

Please disregard any previous communication from myself - start from scratch in bitesize chunks

So, the above AOS broke the law when they shared my details outside of their own privacy policy, I have flagged this with them, and their response was

"We are members of the ICO. We are allowed to share information with DBCL as the (sic) represent us as our debt recovery company"

Firstly that's not true, as you will know you are not a 'member' of the ICO. Secondly a privacy policy (in this country) - must include the recipients or categories of recipients that the data controller/processor intends to share personal data with, if shared with any other third party out side of that list, is breaking the law.

Can you please tell me how you will address this material breach of the Code.

Yours faithfully


Clearly trying to state that the PPC are materially breaching their Code...

Their reply...

Dear X

Thank you for your further correspondence.

Please be advised that complaints regarding data protection does not fall within the scope 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

Lazy so and so's, I guess I am not surprised, even if I went back to them quoting about "IPC Guidance On Sanction Points For Non-Compliance" & "Misuse of Keeper Data"

Thorndorise

Circling back to NPC

I've been gently prodding them that they haven't actually acknowledged my data protection complaint, exceeding the standard 14 days and woefully missing their own 5 day deadline. Interestingly, I have had a response from the DPO Officer (a misnomer again as the O means Officer but hey), rather than the awkward response from the (what I believe to be a junior or not even a) DPO previously.

The DPO Officer was included on the original email using their NPC address with their name (from the ICO website) and the DPO address (which this response has come from) - they are to investigate all points in my complaint and should hear by Friday a final response...exciting

Nellymoser

Just noticed it's NPC...I stupidly misread it as NCP!

Thorndorise

Nellymoser said:

Just noticed it's NPC...I stupidly misread it as NCP!

I didn't want to say anything, the more the merrier when it comes to sticking it to 'em!

Thorndorise

Grrr, not letting it lie with IPC - just out of pure stubbornness, and motivated by another post about their BS. That post showed that they claimed there is no mandate to have entrance signs, rather that Operators 'should' have them (implying there is a choice)....but I noted that there are few mentions of changes to the IPC V9 (for all of those captured in that timeframe from Jan 1st this year) - and those pertain to their inclusion of the Gov's dropped Code Annex A. Possibly moot for some as the awful Single CoP has come out, and the changes we hope to see next Year from the Gov too.

Dear IPC

I'm responding to your response to the above complaint, which I think requires you to look at this again.

You wrote:

"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, 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."

I put it to you that you are almost correct if you were drawing this from the Version 8 CoP, as you will know, Version 9 has additional text that comes into play for Entrance Signs from January 1st 2024. This is iterated at the beginning of the Code P.3, 2nd column, 2nd para 'The amendments take effect from the 1st January 2024. It is important to note that where an OBLIGATION impacts signage or other aspects at a location then the requirements are not retrospective. They relate to NEW car parks and locations.' Just prior to this, you state that 'This edition of the Code incorporates changes to the following key areas; ... '6. Amendments to Schedule 1 incorporating Annex A of the Governments withdrawn single Code of Practice. (changes relate to new signage installed after 1st January 2024).'

This is the case for this instance, managed by NPC from February 17th 2024 onwards.

So referring to Version 9 of the Code (p.27 bottom colour blocked section entitled 'Entrance Signs') clearly states;

'Entrance Signs (important note - These REQUIREMENTS relate to new locations where entrance signs are installed after 1st January 2024. For entrance signs OBLIGATIONS pre-2024 see version 8 of the IPC Code).'

This site, as you know had it's signs installed after Jan 1st 2024, therefore the below text applies - as referenced to at the beginning of your Code where you state that you have incorporated the Gov's single CoP Annex A.

'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. IF public parking is welcomed, but subject to a tariff, the the existence of the tariff MUST be made clear.

If one of the standard wordings in Table A.1 applies, then the standard wording should be used.'

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

The obligations you have pulled from the Gov's single Code of Practice and placed within your Code V9 is very clear.

As seen this DOES imply that entrance signs are mandated, and this is further supported by the first line of Schedule 1 (V8 or V9) that states 'This schedule PRESCRIBES the signage characteristics Operators should ADHERE to.' As I stated previously, there is no reason why entrance signs could not have been placed at either the entrance to the whole site managed by NPC, or indeed at the entrance to the car park. - trying to pull that one instance of 'should' just won't cut it.

The above is not open to interpretation, you have poorly tried to muddle together V8 and updates including the mandates included in the Govs Code, the 'should' bit comes after the statements shown above, you are trying to wriggle out of a badly written tight corner.

So having clearly evidenced that you are selectively reading your own Code of Practice, please can you now follow up on my complaint as previously written about NPC breaching your CoP. As you are not prepared to share your site Audit, and I have previously provided proof on previous attachments that NPC have breached the above elements of your CoP, you are put to proof of adherence on behalf of NPC, and if you cannot, you must sanction appropriately.

Yours faithfully

An annoying pain in your bum

Thorndorise

Reply from IPC (The day after the above email - so really well thought out answer) - no go - but will pursue with other avenues, helpfully they've exposed themselves in these stupid responses as utterly toothless, not independent and frankly a total joke (and not a surprise to the more experienced on here) - it was a journey for me at least.! - UPDATE in next post - replied to this awful answer further!!

Dear annoying pain in our bum

Thank you for contacting us again.

V9 of the IPC Code of practice states: '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.' As explained in our previous response, this is not a mandatory requirement that all car parks must have an entrance sign.

V8 of The IPC Code pf practice states: 'Where a Car Park has a defined entrance, Operators should display entrance signs an example is below. ' Again this is not a mandatory requirement.

Under V9 of the Code, is there is an entrance sign installed then it must inform the motorist the type of parking available amongst other requirements, this does not make the use of an entrance sign mandatory.

As previously stated, if you believe the terms signs were not sufficient, then you will need to follow the appeals process.

Sorry we are unable to assist you further with this matter.

Regards

The IPC (Idiotic Pathetic well....you know)

So - what next, awaiting a reply after reading a different thread from DVLA, I have complained to the DVLA about their practice rather than the lamentable response's to date to their DPO about not giving out data.  @TAC842 posts interest me greatly in what will happen there with both KADOE and NPC...

Complaint still in with the ICO on the privacy policy piece from NPC, that's not due until Nov.

NPC's complaint not properly responded to yet, was due Monday 14th Oct officially (28 days) - and I'd heard from their DPO and he promised me an email by COB Friday 11th Oct.

But - DCB Legal have come back to me after I complained in some detail about the data protection element and about their incorrect position on VAT on debt collection fees.... Watch this space

Thorndorise

IPC complaint 5 - 'persistent avoidance of material breaches - last attempt' 13th Oct

Dear IPC

I'm writing again to draw to your attention the language you have probably carefully chosen within your CoP. And just to please ask that you don't write back with 'we are unable to do more for you' - as you can and you're not - hence this further complaint.

On the 11th of October you replied to me, again dodging my complaint about one of your AOS members, NPC, I will have to elucidate further the issue at hand. You wrote;

"V9 of the IPC Code of practice states: "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.' As explained in our previous response, this is not a mandatory requirement that all car parks must have an entrance sign.

V8 of The IPC Code pf (sic) practice states: 'Where a Car Park has a defined entrance, Operators should display entrance signs. An example is below.' Again this is not a mandatory requirement.

Under V9 of the Code, is (sic) there is an entrance sign installed then it must inform the motorist (sic) the type of parking available amongst other requirements, this does not make the use of an entrance sign mandatory."

I'm going to have to remind you of two things, firstly that the header to Sch 1. states.

'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.'

For the avoidance of any doubt, this site has a Car Park located away from the main road into the site, at the entrance to that car park, there IS an entrance sign - however, this is not passed or visible to a Motorist if using the car park of the alleged parking incident. This indicates that the 'nature of the Private Land' in this case - allows strict compliance to the Code. NB that entrance sign elsewhere does not conform to the minimum requirements of the Code.

Further, the meaning of that first sentence in Sch. 1. is this; This schedule states the rules (prescribes) the Operators closely follow (adhere) are the proper, reasonable or the best thing to do (should) in observing or representing signage characteristics. It then, as shown above, indicates that in this example 'strict compliance' IS feasible, but even if it weren't, that it is compulsory (required) for Operators to follow the 'intention' (i.e. in the spirit) of the purpose the guidance exists. As such that intention would be to properly form a contract through full disclosure and not entrap, be misleading or predatory in Operator's practices.

Given that, there is no choice about installing entrance signs, either at a site entrance or each car park entrance - otherwise the intent to choose not to do that would be against the spirit of the code, and where shown to do this in say 1 of 3 car parks on a particular site, but not the 2 others, it would be entirely disingenuous to suggest that the Operator is doing so in the spirit of the code, and therefore is breaching the Code. The intent in a situation like that would be to deliberately choose to not install signs at the entrance to each car park, thus deliberately trying to entrap motorists, and as such be predatory. Mandatory or not, the intention to not include signs at all car parks entrances is deliberate - but you already know this as you have allegedly audited the site and are therefore IPC are party to that. One can only surmise that deliberate choice is with the intent to generate revenue for your member and not to manage rogue parking on this site.

Not only this, but you have clearly stated - that if a sign is installed, that this should inform the Motorist of the type of parking available amongst other requirements - there are a lot of non-Operator signs on this site, some of which are 'invites to park' , i.e. 'Main Car Park' with no mention of T&Cs anywhere else, others are directional signs directing 'customers' - members of the public, to park for specific businesses - with no T&Cs referenced (or indeed 'private car park') - these were all present at the time of your audit, and very much could be construed as 'Additional signage' that contradicts the terms applicable to Motorists or are misleading (p. 29).

So either the IPC is entirely complicit in this subterfuge to gain a higher revenue by allowing the site (and/or the advice of the Operator to the site) to mislead motorists, either by association, or indeed by IPC's audit not being adequate OR, you MUST investigate this malpractice where it can be proven that a choice was made by the Operator to deliberately mislead Motorists by not installing signs that they could, and should have done - to make sure they 'adhered' to the prescriptions and spirit of the Code. To suggest that no investigation is required would be tantamount to whitewashing by yourselves.

The meaning of 'where practicable' is this: it is feasible or capable of being done - this is true of this site. It also means it is 'not intended to provide an opportunity for NOT meeting this guideline'. Neither of these thresholds was met on this site as seen above - and can be evidenced through your audit, and my evidence. Obvious has a fairly obvious meaning - it means easily discovered (this would imply looking for them - which would imply the knowledge of their existences through an entrance sign), seen (i.e. enough of them, pointing the right direction etc) or understood - well, the signs on this site talk are specific to a certain type of parking, which don't align with the car park the alleged car park event took place in.

I will therefore remind you of your duty as an ATA approved by the DVLA - I really felt that the initial complaint was fair and balanced, it was not vexatious nor mendacious in any way (nor is this one). You have deliberately skirted round the issue of non-adherence to the Code by NPC by citing 'non-mandatory' clauses - which as seen is not enough - it can be proven that they are prescribed to adhere to, and in this instance NPC did not.

One overarching piece you've entirely omitted from your previous response is the inclusion of Annex A guidance. You even make a big thing of how inclusive you've been in your foreword, not that you are adhering to that guidance.

I have entered into discussions with the DVLA about your deliberate avoidance of any proper complaint investigation on the above and other points previously raised. I would like to think that complaint about the IPCs behaviour can be dropped should you show that you have acted in your role as a compliant and serious ATA.

You are requested to properly investigate the following.

1. Known and deliberate choice (material breach) to omit entrance signs from some of the car parks on site (or at the entrance to the whole site).

2. Non-adherence (material breach) to the spirit of the Code, where it is proven practicable to install entrance signs for some of the car parks on site (or the entrance to the whole site).

3. Why you have made the decision to not investigate the lack of a mandatory complaints policy for NPC (either supplied or on their website), (you previously stated that NPC had followed the correct process, this is just not true).

4. Why you have made the decision to not investigate NPCs personal data breach, despite you reminding your Operators they MUST be aware of their legal obligations - do you not think it would be prudent to remind them of this - as they clearly have little regards for legal process.

5. As you have disowned the Operator's non-adherence to GDPR and the DPA 2018 - Can you also clarify the process by which any personal data breach can be brought to your attention - in non-adherence to your Code (e.g. do you require an ICO case proven against the Operator? or merely the suggestion that they can be proven to be noncompliant with the law?) - to not investigate an Operator seems highly irregular given it is a sanctionable material breach of the Code.

I don't want to seem like I don't trust you, or jump on the bandwagon that the Government will enforce on you as the new Code of Practice comes into force. But you seem to be very much NOT investigating serious allegations of the material breaches of your Code by one of your members. If this were to be included in evidence to the DVLA for example it would show a deliberate and mendacious attempt to NOT perform your role as an ATA. And you know what - despite what you read above, I believe that there is a place for regulation, I don't like persistent offenders and rogue parking, but - you are not doing your job right now, and that's a real shame. Prove me wrong.

As always, I am happy to provide further evidence or indeed have a conversation. I would also ask you again, even though of course you are under no obligation to, to please provide a copy of your Audit of Diss Business Park prior to the enforcement commencing by NPC on site.

Yours faithfully

Your best fan




Response from IPC is well thought out, and fair and balanced...

Dear Fan

Thank you for getting in touch with us again.
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

PS please keep writing to us, we're lonely (made this bit up)