VCS. Unauthorised "stopping" at Leeds Bradford Airport - discontinued after 2x complaints to airport

Gr1pr

However, The airport is not a data controller as regards your data , they don't have any on you, that status remains with VCS 

stop_this_nonsense

Gr1pr said:

However, The airport is not a data controller as regards your data , they don't have any on you, that status remains with VCS 

I could be wrong, but I don't think it is possible for a land owner to permit a company to conduct surveillance on the land and for the land owner to not be a data controller. 

stop_this_nonsense

Gr1pr said:

However, The airport is not a data controller as regards your data , they don't have any on you, that status remains with VCS 

I don't think that the airport has to actually hold the data to be the data controller. The data controller decides the purpose of processing (and contracts with VCS to do this). The actual data may only be stored by the processor, but storing the data is not the deciding factor. As I understand the Data Protection legislation.

It's largely a moot point though, as it is in both the airport's and VCS's interests to point the finger at the other. It would be covered in a contract, though ... if you ever get to see it NON-STOP PCN from Southend Airport ******* Case Dismissed, Now VCS appealing ******** - Page 16 — MoneySavingExpert Forum - top of Page 4

:-)

 

Coupon-mad

stop_this_nonsense said:

Gr1pr said:

However, The airport is not a data controller as regards your data , they don't have any on you, that status remains with VCS 

I could be wrong, but I don't think it is possible for a land owner to permit a company to conduct surveillance on the land and for the land owner to not be a data controller. 

I agree.

I think the OP should do a final SHORT complaint telling the Airport that they should seek PROPER legal advice and stop asking a biased paralegal at VCS to guide them, which is a joke.

The Airport are clearly (at the very least) joint data controllers when using an agent.  The Airport had access to view the footage, so there is no lawful justification in refusing to release it to the data subject (any other VRMs and/or faces can of course be blurred). The footage is needed to defend what the Defendant believes is a 'scam' court claim.

Finish by telling them you will report the Airport to the ICO to (probably) force them to release the video, given that the footage should never have been used to issue a PCN because the stop was momentary  and against the byelaws intention.

skuther

Ok - so I took onboard about my complaint to the airport being too long - it was, but it felt so good writing it all down!.

But then today I got the first "debt recovery" letter from our old friends DCBL which made my blood boil (although stress has been replaced with righteous indignation now).

So I just couldn't bring myself to send anything too short as I was too hopping mad.

So I shortened it alot, but probably still too long - but I have sent it now, so we shall see what happens.

skuther

Dear sirs,

re. inappropriate pursuit of Parking Charge Notice Number xxx- Vehicle: xxx

Having consulted with various people, including consumer rights groups, legal representatives and other victims of VCS -  I am left with no choice but to escalate my complaint regarding the (mis)conduct of your agents VCS and also your mishandling of my prior complaint.

You have stated that:  "we contract VCS to enforce this no-stopping zone because it serves as an emergency access point to the airfield. This is a safety-critical road, and unrestricted access is required for emergency services at all times. Blocking or restricting access here poses a safety risk to other airport traffic and emergency vehicles that may need to respond to urgent calls."

So VCS are negligent in their contractual duties in this specific example as sending a £100 speculative demand for payment days after an alleged event/incident quite obviously cannot clear any obstruction at that time. Maybe they should consider regular patrols by a vehicle similar to traffic officers on a motorway helping motorists. This would be a better modus operandi, but of course the fact is that VCS actually want people to stop for any reason as their business model is undeniably profits over safety!

VCS have a terrible reputation with motorists and consumer groups. It is well documented that they routinely use intimidation and bullying tactics to aggressively harass motorists into paying them money even when there is no legal basis for doing so. They have no interest in reasonable appeals or indeed safety - as it all about maximising profits.

VCS has moved onto the next step of their scam with me which is pretending I now owe them even more - escalating to £170 and outsourcing this to DCBL "debt recovery" services to continue their campaign of bullying and harassment.

There is no "contract", there is no "parking charge" there is no "debt". The whole thing is a scam. The behaviours that VCS demonstrate have been described in government reports as "extorting money from motorists" - I have it on good authority the new government parking code of conduct is nearly ready and will lead to such behaviours being banned at some point in the near future.

There is no legal basis for pursuing me at all - I have already lodged a complaint to the ICO https://ico.org.uk/ about VCS and their misuse of my personal data.

1. I was the "keeper" of the car and was not driver. As the emergency stop happened on “relevant land” as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') - the keeper can't be held liable. VCS know this as they have been defeated in court over this before already.
2. The driver of the car stopped due to an emergency - to not stop (or to have set of again before safe to do so) would have been unsafe and in breech of DVLA rules and UK law. Stopping in an emergency is also allowed in the LBA bylaws - which VCS have chosen to ignore.
3. Neither the driver nor myself have yet to see the terms of the so called contract (either on the day in question or sent from VCS) - but based on google street view of the entrance sign, it is unfair and dangerously unsafe:

• a) There is no allowance for stopping in emergencies
• b) no allowance for stopping at zebra crossings (like the one in front of the car on the photos...)
• c) no allowance for stopping to give way at the roundabout, or stopping at the car park barrier, or stopping to give way going onto the main round.

The only way to be compliant with this so called contract is to run over pedestrians, smash through the entrance barrier and bash other cars out of the way!. No sane motorist would ever sign up to such a contract - and good luck defending that in court, especially when this contradicts your own LBA bylaws, which do support stopping in an emergency.

 

I have also sought advice regarding the release of CCTV footage - which you declined.

• I have been advised that you are (The Airport) are clearly (at the very least) joint data controllers when using an agent.  
• See also: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/controllers-and-processors/controllers-and-processors-a-guide/
• The Airport had access to view the footage, so there is no lawful justification in refusing to release it to the data subject (any other VRMs and/or faces can of course be blurred).
• It is more than 1month since my request -  so you are now in breech of GDPR rules.
• Due to the misconduct of VCS the footage is needed to defend what I believe to be VCS attempt to drum up a 'scam' court claim.

I have been advised to tell you to and I quote:  "seek PROPER legal advice and stop asking a biased paralegal at VCS to guide them(you), which is a joke".

I have already reported VCS to the ICO. I have not (yet) reported the Airport - but will do so unless you release the footage to me. The footage should never have been used to issue a PCN because the stop was momentary and against the byelaws intention. 

 

I you have any sense then you will instruct your agents VCS to cancel this absurd scam - and that will be the end of it (in which case there will be no need for me to have the CCTV footage, I will not need to escalate my ICO complaint to include you and I will not need to instigate court proceedings against you).

If not, then I will require the CCTV footage otherwise there will be a formal complaint against you lodged with the ICO.

If VCS continue with their harassment of me - then I will be left with no choice but to put in a claim jointly again both you (Leeds Bradford Airport - as they are acting on your behalf and you are complicit) and VCS, for: various GDPR breeches and misuse of personal data leading to harassment and (legally grey at best) attempts to extort money from me.  There is appropriate case law to support this and I have been advised that I have a good chance of success against you.

I look forward to hearing from you soon, hopefully with good news so we can put this unpleasantness behind us.

Yours sincerely,

xx

LDast

"GDPR breeches" Oh dear... you've already been advised about this misspelling.

1505grandad

(Typo)  -  "(I) you have any sense then you will instruct your agents VCS to cancel this absurd scam....."

Half_way

Re GDPR, if the principal is jointly and severally liable for the actions of its agents, then could the principal also be held to account ? There is also an interesting piece in GDPR that adds in personal liability where an individual can be held personally liable for any data breach and not the company/organisation they work for/represent

A bit of a long shot, but potentially if joe bloggs signed the deal/was responsible for the deal with VCS at the airport then any GDPR issue could hit Joe blogs  (who works at the airport) personally and not the company Joe blogs works for

As for Breeches vs Breaches

LDast said:

"GDPR breeches" Oh dear... you've already been advised about this misspelling.

Turn up on a horse, with a horse and cart?

What about cyclists stopping to take a break/fix a puncture etc

skuther

LDast said:

"GDPR breeches" Oh dear... you've already been advised about this misspelling.

I am a doctor with a pregnant wife - so pregnancy "breech" is the word I start typing out automatically. I will try to remember this in the future. thanks.