Bristol Airport - PCN for stopping at a traffic light.

Fruitcake

By all means include it in complaints/defence along with as many other relevant points as possible, but I don't think it is a strong point at all.

My humble opinion is that byelaws requiring a motorist to stop at a red light/pedestrian crossing, and a driver cannot be held responsible for the actions of a(n adult) passenger (whether they got in or out of a vehicle) are stronger points on which to concentrate.
Liken the latter to an adult passenger failing to wear a seatbelt. They, the passenger, can be held liable for the act, but not the driver.

Imnotpaying

Thanks @Fruitcake.  I will - with all the many and various points I've picked up from you and others on this forum. I'll certainly take on the point about seat belts, but I must admit I thought the driver is liable in law when his passengers don't  wear seat belts.  I live and learn...
Incidentally, I'm not sure how often the signage is changed but the ones I've seen on Google Maps don't comply with the PC COP requirements.  Not sure how important that might be.... 

Coupon-mad

https://www.radiotimesmoney.com/news/eight-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-seatbelt-laws/#

Imnotpaying

Can anyone help, please?  Despite a prolonged search, I can't find any relevant contact point for Ontario Teachers'Pension Plan.  What contact point did others use? TIA

Imnotpaying

Coupon-mad said:

https://www.radiotimesmoney.com/news/eight-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-seatbelt-laws/#

Many thanks  @Coupon-mad

KeithP

Imnotpaying said:

Can anyone help, please?  Despite a prolonged search, I can't find any relevant contact point for Ontario Teachers'Pension Plan.  What contact point did others use? TIA

I don't think anyone has ever had a response from them, but if anyone knows, it will be @Fruitcake.

Fruitcake

KeithP said:

Imnotpaying said:

Can anyone help, please?  Despite a prolonged search, I can't find any relevant contact point for Ontario Teachers'Pension Plan.  What contact point did others use? TIA

I don't think anyone has ever had a response from them, but if anyone knows, it will be @Fruitcake. 

I used email addresses for their London and Toronto offices, but either they were never received or ignored. I don't know of anyone who has had a response either, but complaints should still be made to them.

Imnotpaying

ParkingMad said:

Imnotpaying said:

OK, @Fruitcake, thanks again. I'm sure I'll find a contact email for OTTP somewhere. 

There are a few email addresses for OTPP here:

https://www.otpp.com/en-ca/contact-us/

Details for their London offices:

ParkingMad said:

Imnotpaying said:

OK, @Fruitcake, thanks again. I'm sure I'll find a contact email for OTTP somewhere. 

There are a few email addresses for OTPP here:

https://www.otpp.com/en-ca/contact-us/

Thanks.  I phoned the London Office two days ago and spoke to a very nice receptionist who gave me the following email address: reception_london_office@otpp.com.  She assured me that my correspondence would be directed to the appropriate person within the company.  I'm not holding my breath....

Imnotpaying

Fruitcake said:

Gr1pr said:

Pardon me jumping in, but VCS normally enforce on airport land like Bristol airport and others, not Excel 

So I would have thought that any complaints about the PCN to the airport or the foreign owner would be about VCS 

Excel don't manage airports, so any complaint about their involvement would be with all parties, Excel/ VCS litigation team and CEO , as in SRS Mr clampit, plus to your local MP, as well as the airport and the foreign owner. ? ( possibly to the ICO in the future. )

Your proposed complaint says VCS doesn't have a contract with the landowner, but they do have one with the airport and the airport should have authority flowing from the foreign landowner 

Excel should not be replying or be involved ,  they are sister companies but each to their own , no cross pollination, only VCS should be processing your data, not Excel 

I believe, like many others including myself who have fought a PCN from VCS, and appealed, they have then received a reply from Excel, a completely separate accounting company with a different company number registered at Companies House. In my opinion, that is a data breach about which complaints should be made.

As for the major shareholder landowner, I personally believe they are not even aware of the actions of VCS, their sub-contractor's sub-contractor, or don't care about it. I have yet to find anyone, including myself, who has ever had an acknowledgment from the foreign investment company that holds the majority of shares in the airport ownership.
I have advised many posters to challenge the existence of a contract with or flowing from the foreign landowner to VCS that allows this parking company to issue court claims, which is usually where a PCN for not stopping at this airport normally ends up. I say this because I firmly believe if such a contract existed, it would at least be mentioned, or referred to by BA Ltd and VCS, and would be produced in court when its existence is challenged. 

In all my dealings with BA Ltd, VCS, Excel, my MP, and all the threads and posters I have tried to help on and off this forum about BRS, not once has a reference ever been made about such a contract existing, and not once has such a contract ever been produced. If it did exist, I think it reasonable for the Man on the Clapham omnibus to believe on the balance of probabilities that it would at least be referred to by the parties involved, and more importantly, it would be produced in evidence.

I'm preparing a complaint to the DPO at VCS.  I've just read their Privacy Policy.  In it they state under
"Who Do We Share Your Data With??....

"...... Organisations who we may share some of all your data with include:.......Other companies within the Excel Parking Group of Companies."

The implication is that VCS is part of the Excel Parking Group of Companies, presumably along with Excel Parking Services.  Is VCS  legally allowed to share personal data with another company in that group, EPS?  If not, I can't believe VCS would publish a policy that is contrary to their legal obligations. I'm also puzzled because there is no Excel Parking Group listed on the Companies House list on gov.uk.

Fruitcake

Imnotpaying said:

Fruitcake said:

Gr1pr said:

Pardon me jumping in, but VCS normally enforce on airport land like Bristol airport and others, not Excel 

So I would have thought that any complaints about the PCN to the airport or the foreign owner would be about VCS 

Excel don't manage airports, so any complaint about their involvement would be with all parties, Excel/ VCS litigation team and CEO , as in SRS Mr clampit, plus to your local MP, as well as the airport and the foreign owner. ? ( possibly to the ICO in the future. )

Your proposed complaint says VCS doesn't have a contract with the landowner, but they do have one with the airport and the airport should have authority flowing from the foreign landowner 

Excel should not be replying or be involved ,  they are sister companies but each to their own , no cross pollination, only VCS should be processing your data, not Excel 

I believe, like many others including myself who have fought a PCN from VCS, and appealed, they have then received a reply from Excel, a completely separate accounting company with a different company number registered at Companies House. In my opinion, that is a data breach about which complaints should be made.

As for the major shareholder landowner, I personally believe they are not even aware of the actions of VCS, their sub-contractor's sub-contractor, or don't care about it. I have yet to find anyone, including myself, who has ever had an acknowledgment from the foreign investment company that holds the majority of shares in the airport ownership.
I have advised many posters to challenge the existence of a contract with or flowing from the foreign landowner to VCS that allows this parking company to issue court claims, which is usually where a PCN for not stopping at this airport normally ends up. I say this because I firmly believe if such a contract existed, it would at least be mentioned, or referred to by BA Ltd and VCS, and would be produced in court when its existence is challenged. 

In all my dealings with BA Ltd, VCS, Excel, my MP, and all the threads and posters I have tried to help on and off this forum about BRS, not once has a reference ever been made about such a contract existing, and not once has such a contract ever been produced. If it did exist, I think it reasonable for the Man on the Clapham omnibus to believe on the balance of probabilities that it would at least be referred to by the parties involved, and more importantly, it would be produced in evidence.

I'm preparing a complaint to the DPO at VCS.  I've just read their Privacy Policy.  In it they state under
"Who Do We Share Your Data With??....

"...... Organisations who we may share some of all your data with include:.......Other companies within the Excel Parking Group of Companies."

The implication is that VCS is part of the Excel Parking Group of Companies, presumably along with Excel Parking Services.  Is VCS  legally allowed to share personal data with another company in that group, EPS?  If not, I can't believe VCS would publish a policy that is contrary to their legal obligations. I'm also puzzled because there is no Excel Parking Group listed on the Companies House list on gov.uk.

You are dealing with the murky world of the unregulated private parking industry referred to as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers by MPs in open parliamentary debate.
Consequently I can believe one of their ilk would publish a policy that is contrary to the laws of this land purely to suit their own end. It is possibly a minor point in the scheme of things, but every small point added together will help.

Good spot on the Excel Parking Group omission from the Companies House listing. From memory, Excel Parking Services, company number 02878122, owns VCS and does all the back office work, as well as operating as an unregulated parking company in its own right. I believe both companies are owned by the same millionaire ex-clamper.
Irrespective of ownership, they are separate companies and therefore the DPA/GDPR requirements should be met. 
Again, it's a small point, I think, but can be argued in court where a judge can decide its significance.