DCBL Final Reminder / PCN from Euro Car Parks Limited / Astle Retail Park.

Coupon-mad

Yes, send proof of the old address too but tell them to ensure that is flagged only as the previous address of the data subject and is erased from their database and not used.

NewAppeal34

Hi All,

I have sent them 4 current documents that should proof that I am the Data subject (Electricity, Water Bill, Council Tax Bill, Credit Card statement) and two with the old address. BUT NOTHING WITH PHOTO ID. 

They have now come back with the below: 

"Good afternoon,

As we have previously advised, under ICO guidance, we have specifically requesting proof of identity – documents recognised by the government as forms of ID include: passport, driving license etc). Furthermore, as we are a park parking management company, all data we process relates to a vehicle/s therefore it is imperative that we can establish a link between the requestor and the vehicle the data relates to. The V5C document illustrates the registered keeper of the vehicle. When we issue a notice DVLA provide us with the registered keeper information, therefore we can verify this by marrying the information together.

None of the documentation you have provided constitutes proof of identity nor does it establish a link between you and the vehicle. ‘UTILITY BILLS, BANK STATEMENTS, COUNCIL BILLS etc.’ are regarded as proof address – not proof of ID or registered keeper status.

If you would like to proceed with your Subject Access Request, please provide the required information.

With regards to your request for data rectification, the PCN has since progressed to Debt recovery and now Legal – we can place a note on our system however all/any correspondence must be made directly with them. You would need to contact them to inform them of any changes.

Thank you

DPO"

I will now complain to the ICO, however will that change anything for myself? Will they react quickly and get my Data released? 

It makes no sense to me. They have my name on file, my address on file, even my email address (as I purchased the parking ticket with an online account with them) and linked myself as the keeper to the vehicle since I received the DCBL notice. The documents I provided should be sufficient. They even mentioned in their response that DVLA provided them with the registered keeper information. That means my name and previous address...

Also, at the end, It seems they mention here that DCL will start legal proceedings. I guess we will have to wait and see. The Retail Park Management (which is currently not using Euro Car Parks anymore) confirmed last week that they would discuss this, however I haven't heard from them. I will chase this up again on Monday. 

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes chase it up.  It might work.

No paying.

You would welcome a pointless claim from DCB Legal, as they always discontinue in the end.  "Scam over" is nearing, once you get a claim!

LDast

Reporting them to the ICO will not speed anything up. You are reporting them for being obstructive and failing to provide the requested data. They will get a slap on the wrist and told not to misbehave in future.

Personally, I would have provided a copy of my drivers licence with the photo redacted as in this example:



That is a piece of government issued identity. How are they going to prove it is not my identity from that?

As this is likely to become a DCB Legal issued claim, just follow the advice and t will be discontinued in due course.

1505grandad

FWIW I have posted the following at times when this subject has been raised before (my bold on the last sentence):-

https://dpnetwork.org.uk/subject-access-requests-proof-of-id/

[Update] In the ICO’s detailed Right of Access Guidance (published October 2020) it states;

“You can ask for enough information to judge whether the requester (or the person the request is made on behalf of) is the person that the data is about. The key point is that you must be reasonable and proportionate about what you ask for. You should not request more information if the requester’s identity is obvious to you. This is particularly the case when you have an ongoing relationship with the individual.”

It continues to say:

“You should also not request formal identification documents unless necessary. First you should think about other reasonable and proportionate ways you can verify an individual’s identity. You may already have verification measures in place which you can use, for example a username and password.

However, you should not assume that on every occasion the requester is who they say they are. In some cases, it is reasonable to ask the requester to verify their identity before sending them information.

How you receive the SAR might affect your decision about whether you need to confirm the requester’s identity.”

Neither GDPR, nor the ICO provide specific details on what would be considered reasonable and proportionate. This is left for organisations to judge.

NewAppeal34

Hi All, 

thank you for your continuing support. I don't feel like sending Euro Car Parks a redacted Driving license, feels a bit weird .

I will complain to the ICO as discussed and wait for next steps to come, I will read the appropriate parts of the newbies thread in advance and will keep you updated. Hopefully, as you say, the scam is almost over. 


@1505grandad: Thank you, its good to know that there are only guidelines, but the rest is up to the organisation. Makes it easier for them to reject requests without Photo ID, I guess. 


Many thanks

Gr1pr

Personally, I would NOT send a copy of the driving licence with only the picture redacted, for the simple reason that the drivers date of birth is contained in the driver reference number listed on every UK driving licence !

So if it was being sent ( not that I have one of those anyway, I never have had a photocard driving licence. ) , the minimum would be half of the licence reference number redacted as well as all of the picture ID, Stating that the unredacted version would be brought to court for examination in the court due to the sensitive data that was redacted 

The claimant has no right to obtain those 2 personal data items for private parking charges or issues 

Complaining about it to the ICO is not going to change their stance in this case and definitely not going to speed things up or release the information, the purpose is to highlight these issues and maybe the ICO will improve the guidance for all , in the future, but it won't help this case to be resolved 

GrannyKate

The problem is it is difficult to set an exact standard for ID but it is not necessary to obtain things like driving licenses and passports unless you are dealing with highly sensitive data like medical records, children, bank account details etc.  Where there is an ongoing contact and they have no reason to think you are not who you say they are they should accept the basic ID offered. The woolly nature of the guidance means they can refuse just because they can although a judge would probably take a dim view of their reasoning. 

NewAppeal34

Hi All,

I have now received a letter of claim:

As this is pre-claim, am i correct that my only action at this point is to make them aware that I will dispute the debt as below (from post 2 of the newbies thread) :

"Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. ############
Claimant: Euro Car Parks Ltd

I refer to your your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't faff about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:
 ############

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

Don't send me your usual blather about that.
I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional increase in claim from the original PCN value to 170£ represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Yours faithfully"

Note 1: Under 1. in the message the original draft referred to an increase in cost of 70£, however as I have never seen the PCN, I dont know what the original charge was. Will the way I changed it above do the trick as well. I guess this section is only meant to annoy them? Do they usually respond to that?

Note 2: What does  the question under 2. try to achieve?

I will amend this template slightly further, so that it doesn't look like copy and paste I guess. 

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Don't change the wording in 1 (and no, it's not merely designed to annoy them).

Your PCN was £100 and the question has to specifically ask ONLY about VAT on the added debt recovery 'fee'.

No changing it or you lose the meaning.

2.  Is asking on what basis the charge is pleaded. Damages or the price to park.