Civil enforcement error

lydecker_777

I am sick to the back teeth now of constantly defending these trumped up charges...

Why do the dvla release my details In the first place to these cowboys..

See the letter I received today,  pulled over for the grand total of 12 minutes 12 seconds... to use my phone on the way home..

And apparently I've exceeded the 90 min limit so liable for £60..

Surely this is a clear breach of the data protection act?

Its a complete farce, and waste of my time fighting these cowboys ...

oldernonethewiser

lydecker_777 said:

I am sick to the back teeth now of constantly defending these trumped up charges...

Why do the dvla release my details In the first place to these cowboys..

See the letter I received today,  pulled over for the grand total of 12 minutes 12 seconds... to use my phone on the way home..

And apparently I've exceeded the 90 min limit so liable for £60..

Surely this is a clear breach of the data protection act?

Its a complete farce, and waste of my time fighting these cowboys ...

Why do you think that?

lydecker_777

oldernonethewiser said:

lydecker_777 said:

I am sick to the back teeth now of constantly defending these trumped up charges...

Why do the dvla release my details In the first place to these cowboys..

See the letter I received today,  pulled over for the grand total of 12 minutes 12 seconds... to use my phone on the way home..

And apparently I've exceeded the 90 min limit so liable for £60..

Surely this is a clear breach of the data protection act?

Its a complete farce, and waste of my time fighting these cowboys ...

Why do you think that?

Surely they cannot request my personal details from the dvla without a proper reason or conducted their checks properly that I had breached their terms and conditions..

They way they are carrying on is ludicrous...

I by their own admission in the above letter have not breached any terms or conditions set out by them -(90 mins) but they still request my details and issue a charge !

oldernonethewiser

They obviously believe they have a proper reason.

Even if their own evidence suggests they have ****ed up in this case.

Bazarius

Looking at the period of parking noted - it is likley that the wrong contravention was used when it probably should have been “parked after the  permitted hours” . 

If this was my PCN I would wait until day 13 and appeal as the keeper making sure that the driver is not identified in any way . This includes “I” only parked for 12 mins - is a no no.   

Coupon-mad

It'll be that the time limit out of hours is only ten minutes.

Sorry to ask but: why drive into a private car park at night?  There is never a need to seek out a car park.

This is what the street kerbside is for.

Most on-street residents or commercial permit bays would be unrestricted at that time of night and you can always use single (or double) yellow lines on-street for brief stops and you cannot get a PCN by post.

Use the street.  Make a phone call when pulled over on a double yellow or out of hours bay.  Avoid car parks for brief stops.

Fruitcake

As already mentioned, the alleged contravention does not tally with the time on site. Less than twelve minutes does not exceed the notified maximum free parking period of the 90 minutes.

You should appeal as keeper using the template in blue text from the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES and add a one liner that the NTK proves conclusively that the time on site of 11m 48s is less than the maximum time of the contravention quoted, 90 minutes, therefore no breach of parking terms occurred and CEL had no right to obtain and process your data, nor issue a spurious parking charge notice.

LDast

Coupon-mad said:

It'll be that the time limit out of hours is only ten minutes.

I doubt that it is an "out of hours" issue based on the actual times of 23:40 to 23:52. Maybe if the times were cardinal ones. Irrespective of that, the NtK is the document that the alleged breach is noted on. If this goes to POPLA, it cannot be shown that the PCN was "properly issued".

As for the GDPR aspect, the OP could, if they're up to it use the following:

Article 12 of the UK GDPR legally requires data controllers to store and process personal data accurately: clearly, any data controller issuing an invoice to you because it has wrongly recorded that you parked in breach of the alleged contract between you and the landowner (or, as in this case, an agent of the landowner) is processing your personal data unlawfully. 

The precedents for claiming damages and compensation for such unlawful processing are the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Zeta Jones & Douglas v Hello! Magazine [2003] EWHC 786 and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd (CCF) [2013] EWCA Civ 333, both being binding on all County Courts in England and Wales.  In the latter claim, Mr Halliday was awarded compensation of £750 at what the Court regarded was the lowest level of award, and although this was a claim under Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, similar provisions - amended to take account of a decision by the EU Grand Chamber that the 1998 Act did not properly implement EU law into UK domestic legislation - replaced the old Section 13 provisions with Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

In short, you ought to give 21 days notice (the pre-action protocol only really requires 14 days but hey, you can be charitable!) to the data controller of your intention to seek (say) £100 nominal damages and compensation under Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for their unlawful processing of your personal data: you could say that you will not file your claim with the County Court if they confirm in writing that all references to this alleged debt have been deleted within (say) 14 days. Clearly mark your letter as a "Letter before County Court proceedings".

Anyone who is fairly confident can claim as a litigant-in-person in Part 27 proceedings in the County Court (commonly but wrongly described as "the Small Claims Court").  Each party is responsible for their own legal costs whether they win or lose and the claim for £100 can be issued online for a fee of £35 at moneyclaimonline.gov.uk which also gives useful advice if you want to have a look at what is involved.  Your claim will automatically be listed as being for a total of £135, i.e. the successful party gets their Court fees back.

If you want to be really serious, you could claim for more.

Coupon-mad

I don't agree.

I think the time limit at night (in smaller print on the signs) is 10 minutes. There's no scope for a claim under the DPA.

There will be scope to appeal on unlit signs I expect.  Unclear terms and an expectation going by the entrance sign (probably) of 90 mins free.

We need sign photos.

lydecker_777

Hi hwre isnthe sings taken tofsy

lydecker_777

Sorry here is the signage taken this morning , they are unlit and the only condition is 90 mins maximum stay or permit holders only after 11.30pm?