PCN entered the car park twice to turn car around but did not park there

nutmegandwalnut

Hi,

Thanks for the responses.

Coupon-mad said:

How did you get on contacting your MP to give it the clout needed to cancel the PCN?

I sent a follow up email. I am waiting for their reply, I'll update once I get a response.

Fruitcake said:

For a definitive answer, you could pay the Land Registry to determine who owns the car park.

An online request for ownership of a specific address costs around £3. If the land has been registered digitally, then a search return only takes a few minutes.
If the address is not known, a search using a map costs about £10, but takes a bit longer.

Does the Land Registry provide direct contact details or just the name of the landowner?

DW190

nutmegandwalnut said:

Does the Land Registry provide direct contact details or just the name of the landowner?

Land Register Title will give the name and address of the Title holder together with details of any Mortgagees or Charges on the property.  Title Plan will show the outline of the land registered.

nutmegandwalnut

Hi all,

An update since last time.

There are two PCNs in question one related to an incident in January, and another September.

The one in January relates to the DCBL letters where ParkingEye have not provided an opportunity to appeal as the original PCN must have been delivered to another address thus I was not aware of it until the DCBL letters.

A question for this, I saw there is a way to request late appeal, is there any recommendations for this?

The September one I have completed the POPLA appeal and awaiting a response.

I also previously complained to BPA and today received a reply for the following related to the September PCN.

BPA reference: X
Parking Charge: X

Dear X,

Thank you for your enquiry. 

Our Role
Our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of our Code of Practice by members of our Approved Operator Scheme where evidence can be supplied and where the operator’s internal complaints process has been exhausted. We are unable to become involved in individual Parking Charge disputes.

Your Case
Please be advised that the operator must have 'reasonable cause' to request DVLA information and this reason will be detailed on the Parking Charge. 

Appealing the Parking Charge
Please be advised that when a Parking Charge Notice is issued by a member of our Approved Operator Scheme, a motorist will have 28 days to appeal this via the operator's internal appeals procedure if they believe that it was issued either unfairly or incorrectly; the process should be outlined in the Parking Charge Notice. The operator has 28 days to respond. 

If the appeal is rejected the operator should provide details on how to further appeal to the free and independent appeals service, POPLA. A further appeal is available via POPLA for 28 days following the operator rejecting the appeal. 

Next Steps
If you believe that there has been a breach of our Code of Practice by a member of the Approved Operator Scheme you must first submit your complaint directly to the operator using their internal complaints process which can be found here - https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/motorist/complaints/

If you believe the alleged breach of the Code of Practice has not been addressed in your complaint outcome, we require a copy of this and supporting evidence before becoming further involved. 

What would be the recommendations to move from here? 

Thank you in advance.

Coupon-mad

What was your complaint to the BPA?  You'll have to remind us.

Sorry... we want to help but with two completely different incidents/PCNs at different stages and a 6 page thread, I've no idea of the background.

nutmegandwalnut

Hi,

No worries this was the email.

Coupon-mad said:

What was your complaint to the BPA?  You'll have to remind us.

Sorry... we want to help but with two completely different incidents/PCNs at different stages and a 6 page thread, I've no idea of the background.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to formally file a complaint concerning the Parking Charge Notice issued by ParkingEye, reference number XX, for an alleged parking event on 03/09/24. I believe that the PCN is invalid and that ParkingEye has breached several regulations, including the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018), General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the DVLA’s KADOE agreement.

Details of the Situation:

The PCN was issued on 09/10/24, 36 days after the alleged parking event. The vehicle in question entered and left the site on two separate occasions. However, the PCN was issued for what appears to be a non-parking event, resulting in what I believe to be an inappropriate use of personal data. In this instance, it seems that ParkingEye has processed the keeper’s personal data under the incorrect assumption that the vehicle was involved in a parking event when no such event occurred.

It is likely that this issue stems from the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology, which may have misinterpreted the movements of the vehicle. It also appears that a manual quality check did not take place, as such a review of the provided photographic evidence would indicate a possible error with the ANPR camera.

Breaches of the DPA 2018 and GDPR:

1. Unlawful Processing of Personal Data: As the vehicle did not park, the processing of the keeper's personal data (i.e., the vehicle registration number) for enforcement purposes is unlawful under the GDPR and DPA 2018. The personal data was obtained and processed for a non-parking event, which is in violation of the principle of lawfulness.

2. Failure to Adhere to the DVLA’s KADOE Agreement: ParkingEye has unlawfully obtained and processed the keeper's personal data for a non-parking event. This violates the DVLA's KADOE (Keeper and Driver Online Enquiry) agreement, which requires the data to be used only for enforcement of parking charges related to actual parking events.

3. Breach of Clause 22.4 of the BPA Code of Practice (Version 9): According to Clause 22.4 of the BPA Code of Practice (Version 9), operators must ensure that they comply with the GDPR and DPA 2018 when processing personal data, including making sure that the data is only used for the specified purpose (enforcement of a valid parking charge). Since this PCN was issued for a non-parking event, ParkingEye has failed to comply with this clause, as they have unlawfully processed the keeper's data.

Request for Resolution:

In light of the above concerns, I would appreciate your consideration of the following actions:

1. Request for Cancellation of the PCN: I kindly request the cancellation of the PCN, as the circumstances of this case indicate that the event in question does not constitute a valid parking event.

2. Investigation into Data Protection Compliance: I kindly request that the BPA review this matter to determine whether ParkingEye’s actions align with data protection laws, particularly regarding the potential unlawful processing of personal data. 

3. Confirmation of Compliance with Data Protection Standards: I would be grateful if the BPA could confirm whether ParkingEye has acted in accordance with the relevant GDPR and DPA 2018 principles, as well as the DVLA’s KADOE agreement, in this instance.

I would be grateful for your attention to this matter and kindly request a response outlining the steps you intend to take to address this complaint.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Thank you in advance.

Coupon-mad

You should have made it far simpler and used the phrase 'double dip'.  Have you used that phrase to ParkingEye?

nutmegandwalnut

Coupon-mad said:

You should have made it far simpler and used the phrase 'double dip'.  Have you used that phrase to ParkingEye?

No I will communicate that to them. How can I contact them with the January PCN as I do not have the option to appeal for that one?

I'll also clarify that with BPA.

Thanks for the help.

Gr1pr

Look at the complaint links on the BPA AOS members list for contacting parking companies,  including Parking Eye 

They also have a litigation section 

nutmegandwalnut

Hi,

An update on the September PCN. I previously submitted my POPLA appeal and have received a reply. I have been asked to provide comments on the operator's evidence.

I have attached a pdf of my appeal letter which I adapted from Batman3479 found in the POPLA decision thread and also a pdf of the operator evidence.

I have highlighted some areas I think would be useful and added some comments in textboxes.

If you could kindly provide some recommendations I would greatly appreciate them.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1E5ouiEgT0sA1D5I61MCaxcCB3lMSZP-t?usp=drive_link

Thanks in advance.

nutmegandwalnut

Hi,

I've received a letter of claim from DCB Legal. This is related to the January PCN.

I do apologise that my post is very long and that I ask many questions. To refresh the community helpers' of my situation it involves a double dip situation where the vehicle entered the site on two different occasions to turn around due to a lack of space in the local area. At no point did the car park on the site. I have two queries if you could kindly assist me with them please.

1) Reading through the newbie's post the next course of action is to send an email. I've drafted the following and added my reasons for disputing the claim in bold. If you could please let me know if it is suitable to add this in or if I should leave this out (does this weaken or strengthen my case later in court), I would greatly appreciate that.

To: info@dcblegal.co.uk

"Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. ############
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd

I refer to your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:
XXXXX

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".

Additionally, I bring to your attention that this claim does not relate to a parking event. There is no evidence that the vehicle in question was parked on the site; it entered and exited on two separate occasions for the purpose of turning around, which constitutes a "double dip" scenario. As such, any claim for parking charges is invalid, as no parking occurred during either entry. In light of this, I request that you provide evidence of the alleged parking event, including a copy of the original Parking Charge Notice (PCN), clear photographic evidence of the vehicle being parked, and any other documentation that supports your claim that the vehicle was parked on the site at the relevant times.

Furthermore, I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 is being presented as a 'Debt Recovery' fee? If so, is this amount nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, please 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"

2) Would it be useful to request ANPR logs? Given that the vehicle has not parked at the site, if they only provide two timestamps (one from each visit) and cannot prove continuous parking, it highlights the flaw in their case and strengthens my argument later in court?

Thank you in advance.