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

Thorndorise

Just as an aside, whilst doing a little research, this is an interesting 'perspective' on the value of car parking enforcement...

Aside from the 'revenue' generated by paying customers at this imaginary site, you can also increase your revenue through enforcement too...win win 

Coupon-mad

Where's that from please? Useful evidence but which PPC? Link?

Thorndorise

Sorry @Coupon-mad
It's NPC link is here....  https://www.nationalparkingcontrol.co.uk/
Scroll to the bottom and put in a postcode (let's use theirs for example) and the car park capacity, and the hourly charge - what it then goes to produce is this lovely visual for you....

I've noticed it on other sites, but normally behind a 'give us your email' wall.

Coupon-mad

Perfect.  Gonna use that. Thankyou!

Thorndorise

Also this, which I still can't get my head around - feel's wrongly incentivising....but you know - and site's got to make a decent living doing literally nothing... They've actually updated this now to only pay 15% of the parking charge...

link is here... https://www.nationalparkingcontrol.co.uk/services/car-park-enforcement/self-ticketing-app

Thorndorise

Coupon-mad said:

I'm not overly concerned about the copy & paste.  The Code will progress now that the Summer Recess has ended and Government business is starting properly.

But: Who in the industry has successfully got at Jayne Kirkham?!

That is one of the most tone deaf questions about ANPR that I've read in ages. If anything, the question should be 

"when will the Government ban CCTV and ANPR from private firms' use for parking enforcement, to mirror the (right & proper) ban that applies to local authorities?"

Hey, so I've seen that someone is being pretty good at realigning the questions with the right departments (and not sticking to whichever dept it originally was asked of)...

Coupon-mad

We are now interrupted by yet another Parliamentary recess (Conference Season) so the MHCLG's answer will be the same due to the timing of the question/answer.

Thorndorise

Thank you to everyone that has commented so far on this topic...

Now, I know some of you will say only follow the guidance we give out....but I wanted to try something....you know - test the waters etc (I may have mentioned before that these PPCs rub me up the wrong way), anyway, I've sent a complaint about the handling of my data, in breach of the KADOE/DVLA contract, then the breach by sharing that information out with the PPC's privacy policy. I've copied the landowners are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents. Let me be clear, I know that the DVLA don't give a monkey's and I know that the PPC is unlikely to shift their money grabbing position, and finally - I know I may have given some stuff up, but actually I'm pretty confident in my case should it get to court so don't think this will trip me up too much.

Anyway, here's my email to NPC...

National Parking Control Group Ltd

The Pinnacle

Station way

Crawley

RH10 1JH

 

X September 2024

 

 

COMPLAINT re. PCN: XXXXXXXX

Dear Jonathan/DPO

I am writing to you to complain about your lack of adherence with your industry (ATA) code of practice, and subsequently failing to ensure that you have reasonable cause to acquire vehicle keepers’ details from the DVLA. NB this is discordant with National Parking Control's own statement on the NtK that ‘The car-park operator has agreed to adhere to an ATA Code of Practice’.

As the landowners/managing agents of X Business Park (managed by X) are jointly and severally liable for any actions of their agents, they are copied so that they too can action any submissions to their regulatory bodies should they apply.

 

COMPLAINT 1

NPC failed to install, or ensure that signs were installed in compliance with the IPC Code of Practice.

The keeper of a vehicle received a Parking Charge Notice (Notice to Keeper) on X X 2024 after their vehicle parked at X Business Park ("Strictly JW customers only" car park) on the X X 2024, on that day in question entrance signs were absent and other signs inadequately placed, missing and/or not worded to alert any driver to any terms and conditions as to parking on the site (in contravention of Schedule 1 – signage, additional signage and changes in Operator’s Terms and Conditions Of the IPC Code of Practice V9 – relevant at the time of issuance of the PCN).

National Parking Control Groups (NPC hereafter) own literature states; “…it will provide, free of charge, and install signage throughout your car park at ‘optimum positions’ so that motorists are informed of the parking conditions at your premises, in accordance with IPC guidelines.”.

For new schemes, such as this, the IPC CoP clearly states that the following must be implemented;

Wording:            Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the Car Park

Requirement:   “…the Operator should place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance…”

Time Period:     “Notices should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.”

For your information the signage ‘ordinarily required’ (at the entrance to this particular site and car park) were not in place on the above date, nor were any additional signs (photos A-D below)

As a leading supplier of car park services, NPC will know all of this, further it’s noted on your website you claim to provide “FREE CAR PARK SIGNAGE All car park signage is provided and installed by NPC free of charge.” This tells me that you are knowingly issuing tickets on a site that does not have the basic signage requirements mandated by your CoP. However, it’s noted that on your ‘legal’ section of your website you state

Contract Law

If a driver parks on your land and you have displayed our warning signs correctly, the driver is entering into a contract with you. If they break your parking rules they are 'in breach of contract'.

Suggesting that NPC didn’t install the signs – and possibly not on the site below. The site managing agents have previously informed me this site is categorically a warden-controlled site, and not self-ticketed, according to NPCs website, if genuinely warden-controlled, then NPC would have installed the signs. If you could circle the outward-facing entrance (and additional) signs NPC installed on the pictures below and reply that would be most helpful.

 

COMPLAINT 2

NPC had no reasonable cause to pursue the Keeper's details from the DVLA as they were in breach of the aforementioned IPC Code of Practice, as such NPC are in breach of their contract with DVLA/KADOE.

 

As NPC failed to adhere to this basic requirement of the IPC CoP shown above (i.e. adequate signage), any subsequent request to the DVLA for a vehicle’s keeper’s details for this site are illegal (and not ‘public task’ with reasonable cause ref ICO report on DVLA April 2022).

Both the KADOE process and the DVLA “request for information for those who issue a parking charge notice” V888/3 form clearly state that the DVLA need written confirmation:

·       That you own the land that parking charge scheme is on, or

·       from the landowner that you are acting with their consent (if you are an agent)

·       that signs are clearly visible and comply with the Accredited Trade Association (ATA) code of practice.

If you provided this written confirmation along with the form V888/3 or via a contract with DVLA and/or KADOE (implying the same) for use through KADOE, then you have breached the terms of that agreement and signed the form/contract falsely as no such signage was clearly visible and/or in compliance with your ATA CoP.

Further details on the clear guidance on this topic can be found in Part C of the KADOE contract under Signage, Terms and Conditions and Correspondence.

C1.1. The Customer (NPC) 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.

 

COMPLAINT 3

NPC shared illegitimately acquired Keeper's details (and possibly more) with a third party in contravention of their own privacy policy, possibly breaching GDPR law due to lack of legitimate interest (lack of contract and lack of being informed as to the use of data).

 

You have kindly directed the keeper to your website, in order to read your privacy policy, this includes why and how you process keepers’ details and images of vehicles. It also clearly states to whom you share keepers’ details with, however Debt Recovery Agencies, either named or not, do not appear on this list, nor does any agent acting on your behalf, or as a subcontractor.

As the keeper of the vehicle for this alleged PCN, I would also like to understand how and why you have shared vehicle keeper details with a third party without my consent (either express or implied) or proven three-part legitimate interest, contrary to your own privacy policy under section “Who do we share data with”. Debt Recovery Agents and their legal representatives are not listed.

This is a clear breach of your own privacy policy, and GDPR.

NB This data sharing is not covered by any exception or exemption as listed on the ICO's website, nor does it fall outside GDPR under Domestic, Law enforcement or Intelligence services processing. Nor can NPC rely on legitimate interests (no contract) as there is a more reasonable and less intrusive way to achieve the same result, moreover the impact on the individual outweighs the need for processing, and the individual also objects. Further to this, Complaint 2 above has proven that you have not gained the keeper's details in a legitimate manner (explicit non-adherence to ATA CoP), therefore you should not be processing this data at all.

 

Final comments:

It seems there is some contradiction between what the site managers have imparted ("NPC employed warden") and what is expressed on the PCN details online (NPC website), namely that "The Site Enforcer had reasonable belief that the above vehicle had committed the following contravention:"

The fact that there seems to be inadequate/missing signage, and that your own system states the ‘site enforcer’ rather than warden, leads one to believe that NPCs signs have not been properly installed, either by NPC or more likely the site managers. Either way, all these complaints still stand and are valid.

If a further claim is made pursuing this PCN, then let it be known that the contents of this email shall and will be shared with the Court and Judge. The Courts look unfavourably against any claim action known to the claimant (or a party acting on their behalf) to be unenforceable, whether filed, set aside, discontinued or dismissed.

 

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS BY NPC

NPC immediately desists from any further action relating to this mendacious and onerous parking charge notice, either by NPC or any of your agents (including but not limited to Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited and Direct Collection Bailiff Legal Limited).

1. Cancel the above parking charge notice immediately as it is evidenced it was issued without adherence to any ATA CoP, as was the illegitimate request for keeper’s details from the DVLA.
2. Delete keeper's details, it has been proven that you cannot have formed a contract with the keeper (and/or driver) as no ATA mandated CoP signage was in place on the date of the alleged parking, subsequently NPC have attained the keeper's details and shared without transparency to a third party (in breach of GDPR - Right to be informed), legitimate interest fails without a proven contract formed. The keeper objects to your use of their details as it can be proven you have no legitimate interest, and are in breach of both your own contracts with DVLA (business) and GDPR (legal).
3. Report yourselves to your ATA, for breach of process, and lack of conformity with your mandated code of practice (International Parking Community CoP V9 relevant at the time of PCN). Specifically, not adhering to your ATA code of practice in pursuit of issuing PCNs on this site.
4. As Data controller, report yourselves to the ICO for sourcing keeper details from the DVLA in breach of your contract with the DVLA. Specifically, not adhering to your ATA code of practice in pursuit of issuing PCNs on this site. You must also report the sharing of keeper details and images with a third party, not explicitly named or implied within your privacy policy (transparency).
5. As Data controller, report yourselves to the DVLA for sourcing keeper details from the DVLA in breach of your contract with them (either directly or through KADOE). Specifically, not adhering to your ATA code of practice in pursuit of issuing PCNs on this site.

It is respectfully requested that you correct your poorly considered actions by actioning the above promptly (NPCs ATA CoP mandates 14 days of receipt for acknowledgment and 28 days for a response). Your complaints policy is not on your website as it should be, and as mandated by your IPC CoP (section 21 complaints handling), but I assume that NPC have one (perhaps you would be so good as to supply me with it when you respond to this complaint?).

Please reply to inform the outcome of the above actions as soon as you are able and within the reasonable time frame as outlined in your complaints policy (to be forthcoming). Failure to do so will result in the registered keeper reporting NPC to the above industry and government bodies, there may also be costs associated with this if a claim for compensation over misuse of personal data is made. The keeper reserves the right to make these reports themselves at any time, therefore NPCs swift action is important to prevent further investigation.

 

Yours faithfully

XXXXXX

Copy to X Business Park Managing Agents

Thorndorise

Impressed with the comprehensive research in the serious complaint I made to NPC - and the thorough and detailed response ... no, sorry no, I just can't keep it up...this was NPCs response.

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your email,

I have looked into the charge and events around the issuing of this PCN.

Before I continue, please note our complaints policy can be found within the privacy policy on our website. I can confirm that we have registered the below complaint, and your reference number is XXXX.

Regarding complaint 1, I would like you to note that all our sites are audited with our Accredited Trade Association, the IPC, before enforcement commences. Not only are our sites individually audited but the signs we use have also passed audit. This means that we know our signage not only follows regulations in sizing, wording and position, but are also sufficient in informing drivers of the terms and conditions on site.

As you failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the area, we did have reasonable cause to pursue the Keeper's details from the DVLA, which brings us on to complaint 2.

Unfortunately, the contractual terms required you to hold a valid e-permit and by not obtaining any such permit you agree to pay the charge. We believe you should have ensured that a valid permit was held by the vehicle, otherwise you should have parked elsewhere. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with.

We are members of the ICO. We are allowed to share information with DCBL as the represent us as our debt recovery company. We do only pass over the information we receive from the DVLA, DCBL recovery all other information themselves by doing additional traces.

We have followed our procedures and sent the Notice To Keeper to the address your vehicle is registered to with the DVLA. As no response was received to this letter, the charge was passed onto DCBL after 42 days, who then proceeded with their 4-stage letter cycle. However, it has now been passed to DCB Legal who have been instructed to start court proceedings and, unfortunately, the charges have been escalated too far and we are no longer able to cancel or reduce them.

All further correspondence will now need to be made via DCB Legal.

If you are unhappy with the outcome of your complaint, please refer this to the IPC, our Accredited Trade Association.

Kind regards,

XXXX
Head of Customer Services.

Flipping weird getting this from customer services and not their DPO given the gravity of what I suggested they had done...naturally some awful, awful 'answers'. I especially loved "We are members of the ICO. We are allowed to share information with DCBL as the represent (sic) us as our debt recovery company."

I know this needed no response, but I just couldn't help myself (will share soon) it's just so awful....(but why am I not surprised).!!
link to their PP btw...for your reading pleasure https://www.nationalparkingcontrol.co.uk/privacy-policy

Coupon-mad

'Members' of the ICO, eh?!