Biting back with a vengeance

Gr1pr

Lynnzer said:

And hey guys 'n gals, 

One of the reasons I have been off the forum for so long is that my email address that is registered is no longer the one I use and I couldn't access my account.

Is there any way I can change my account email address?

You should message the forum admins if you want to change details etc, an admin could change the personal database details should it be necessary or useful 

Good luck in your quest 

Lynnzer

The appeal is now with POPLA as described in my previous posts.
However, I'm not totally happy that that should be the end of the matter even if I get the result I want, which may take a few more days. Id' be equally as happy if I don't win the appeal though and would progress to court if needed. 
I'm doing this as the situation remains the same, ie no entry sign, thus many more people may have had PCN's issued without due cause.
I have now sent a notice to the Data Protection team at ParkingEye claiming damages for the breach, as follows: 

:PCN - Ref 23******

I am aware that a Data Breach has occurred in relation to the above Parking Charge Notice and am seeking appropriate compensation as I am entitled to.

ParkingEye has breached the Data Protection Act in obtaining my details from the DVLA in order to issue a Penalty Charge Notice to myself as the registered keeper of vehicle ********

I base my claim on the fact that my details were obtained without reasonable cause and refer to the case of ParkingEye v Beavis at the Supreme Court. - Para 95: “..........Where a motorist becomes liable by contract for a “sum in the nature of a fee or charge” or in tort for a “sum in the nature of damages”, there is a right under certain conditions to recover it: Schedule 4, paragraph 4. One of those conditions is that the keeper’s details must have been supplied by the Secretary of State in response to an application for the information:ibid, para 11. The Secretary of State’s functions in relation to the provision of this information are performed by the DVLA.

Under article 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2742), the Secretary of State is empowered to make available particulars in the vehicle register to anyone who “has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him”.

Since 2007, the policy of the Secretary of State has been to disclose the information for parking enforcement purposes only to members of an accredited trade association. The criteria for accreditation were stated in Parliament to include the existence of “a clear and enforced code of conduct (for example relating to conduct, parking charge signage, charge levels, appeals procedure, approval of ticket wording and appropriate pursuit of penalties”

The underlying context of my complaint is that ParkingEye obtained my details when it was in default of the compulsory conditions set by the British Parking Association's Code Of Practice. (COP) by failing to have an entry sign into the road system of the hospital location.

It is now known that the entry and exit into the roadway has been changed in recent weeks. While the ANPR cameras have been relocated to monitor incoming and exiting vehicles, the Entry sign has not been erected at the new entry point, thus leading to a breach of the BPA Code of Practice and a direct contravention of the conditions set by the Secretary of State.

Furthermore, the same case of ParkingEye v Beavis also resulted in the Honourable Law Lords making it quite clear that compliance to the BPA Code of Practice is mandatory in para.11 of the findings, I quote the text : “......... while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced. “

The Supreme Court made it known that compliance to the COP was mandatory. The Court made it clear that in order to obtain a registered keeper's details, it had to be in compliance with the COP.

Since the DVLA has to release the keeper's details based upon the mandatory membership and compliance to the BPA Code of Practice, which they are unable to actually monitor and therefore object to, it is critical that the mandatory Code of Practice rules are followed.

Since those rules have been broken by the lack of signage, ParkingEye has thus obtained my details without due cause.

I fully expect a response telling me where all the signs are at the location, as were submitted to POPLA as evidence you wished them to consider,. If so I take issue with that, inasmuch that no mandatory entry sign was shown. Signage further into the location had little relevance without the entry sign, and it's possible that travelling within the roadway system may even have resulted in no further sign being passed.

As I have now had to spend a fair amount of time in fighting the resulting PCN, I now claim the amount wrongly claimed against myself as reasonable compensation.

I expect the sum of £60 to be paid within 30 days from date of receipt of this notice, as will be the date shown on the email. Failure to make this payment will result in the charge increasing to £120 which will be held for a further 21 days.

After the expiration of both periods, I will pass the complaint to the ICO for them to take necessary action.

I add here the images of the entry to the hospital system so you can see the breach for yourself, and if you require further proof of there being no entry sign, all you need do is to contact the hospital's on site parking monitor.

Sincerely

Lynnzer

As expected - DENIAL Now to draft up a complaint to the ICO.
:
Thank you for your email. 

Please note, it is Parkingeye’s position that this charge was issued following a contractual breach of the terms and conditions in operation onsite, and that we had reasonable cause to request the Registered Keeper’s details from the DVLA. Parkingeye acknowledge your points raised in relation to obtaining your personal information without consent, (my bold) however please note that our lawful bases for processing data are Performance of a Contract and Legitimate Interests. Parkingeye do not rely on Consent as a legal basis for processing data when issuing and pursuing the payment of outstanding Parking Charges. We are registered with the ICO to collect and process data for the purpose of car park management, which includes dealing with appeals and any subsequent recovery action required.

 The signage on site states that, ‘Certain parking terms and conditions apply, which are set out within this notice (the "Parking Contract"). By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this car park, you agree to comply with the Parking Contract, including making payment as required and entering your vehicle registration details via the payment and/or terminals. If you fail to comply with the Parking Contract, you will become liable to pay the sum specified on this notice (the "Parking Charge").’

 The signage clearly conveys that by remaining within the car park, the motorist becomes bound by the terms and conditions of parking. Parkingeye operates a consideration period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These consideration periods are sufficient for this purpose.

 Whilst we note your request for the sum outlined in your correspondence, we must confirm that all invoices issued to Parkingeye by motorists, whether they concern an alleged loss, cost, or expense, are rejected as you have not formed a legally binding contract with Parkingeye under which you have acquired any right to invoice Parkingeye and/or seek payment for goods or services. 

 Please note that the UK General Data Protection Regulation provides the following further rights:

•             The right to request from Parkingeye rectification or erasure of your personal data;

•             The right to request from Parkingeye restriction of processing of your personal data;

•             The right to object to the processing of your personal data.

Please note that some of these rights are not absolute and will only apply in certain circumstances. We will review each request we receive in respect of these rights. We do not have to agree with a request but if we refuse, we will still contact the data subject within one month to explain why. You also have the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). For further information, please refer to the ICO website, www.ico.org.uk. You may also seek a judicial remedy.

Lynnzer

Further email to them.

I am writing further to your recent response to my email about my information rights complaint because I would like further clarification.

I note your comment that Parkingeye acknowledge my points raised in relation to obtaining my personal information without consent, and that you state your lawful bases (sic) for processing data are Performance of a Contract and Legitimate Interests. You then state that Parkingeye does not rely on Consent as a legal basis for processing data when issuing and pursuing the payment of outstanding Parking Charges.

This response is in need of an explanation. You acknowledge my points about the access to the DVLA for my personal information. There is no doubt that in normal circumstances, this is as would be expected. However your acceptance of my points of access without reasonable cause due to non compliance to the BPA Code Of Practice, shown to be a mandatory practice by the Supreme Court for obtaining such data has not been fulfilled.

Please explain why such a legal basis for the initial access to my details falls outside of the Supreme Court's decision.

I make it clear that I am not asking you to address the formal process of contractual agreements. I am not asking for comments on how to appeal points in any PCN, nor what legal authority you have with landowners to take action against drivers on the monitored property. I also do not need comments on the wording of signage on site, nor any other matter beyond the initial access to my personal data when you have failed to uphold the basis for such access set by the Supreme Court.

Before I pass this complaint to the ICO in the case that you still fail to respond adequately, and to provide a sum in compensation for your unlawful access, I give you the chance to rectify the response by answering the further points raised in order to clarify the situation.

I understand that before reporting my complaint to the Information Commissioner I should give you the chance to provide a full explanation.

If, when I receive your response, I would still like to report my complaint, I will give them a copy of your response to consider.

GettingOnInYears

As expected, POPLA didn't even consider the point I wanted them to. As a consequence they denied the appeal. I have now informed ParkingEye that payment won't be forthcoming and they need to either drop the claim or take court action. Either - or. It sets me back a bit on the data breach aspect though.
In the meantime I have issued a Letter Before Claim (LBC) to Nexus for the same sort of thing. Even though they were informed at the appeal stage that the area didn't have entry sign, they chose to reject the appeal and it went to POPLA who allowed it.
That being the case, I have now issued the LBC for a breach of the Data Protection Act. and will be very happy to take it to court.
I'm not doing this for personal gain. I want to make the parking companies feel the pain. They need to be held accountable for the many breaches of their own Code Of Practice. A win for me, will be one huge win for the innocent people who get harassed for payment when their details have been obtained without reasonable cause.
Claim details:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Letter Before Claim – Breach of Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR

Reference: Unlawful access to personal data and subsequent monetary demand

I am writing to formally notify you of my intention to bring a claim against Group Nexus for breach

of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. This arises from your alleged unlawful access to

my personal details via the DVLA without reasonable cause, and the subsequent use of that data to

issue a monetary demand.

As resolution has not been possible through informal channels, I write in accordance with the Pre-

Action Protocol for Data Protection Claims under the Civil Procedure Rules.

Claim Summary:

I seek compensation in the amount of £350, broken down as follows:

£100 for unlawful access to my personal data from DVLA records

£100 for harassment and distress caused by the monetary demand and threat of court action

£150 for stress, anxiety, and disruption to my daily life, including time spent investigating the

breach and its implications. This disruption is particularly acute given my responsibilities as a carer

for my wife, who suffers from advanced Alzheimer’s Disease and resides in a care home where I

visit her as often and for as long as possible to give comfort in her horrendous situation.

I reserve the right to amend this amount to reflect any additional costs incurred in pursuing this

matter.

Documents I Intend to Rely On:

1. DVLA correspondence confirming your request for my personal data

2. Supreme Court decision: ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67

3. POPLA decision: Ref. 1760575022 (PCN CP30498159)

4. BPA and IPC Single Code of Practice

5. BPA Code of Practice Version 9 – February 2024

6. Photograph of entry point behind Peterlee Town Centre shops (taken on receipt of Notice to

Keeper)

7. Google Street View screenshot of same entry point (July 2022)

8. A summary of the subsequent PCNs issued at the same location after I reported the lack of

signage. This to include the number of payments made, and the total cost of those payments, plus

those unsettled and potentially liable for debt collection or court action.

Documents Requested from You:

Please provide the following within 28 days:

1. Evidence of your contractual authority to operate at the site

2. Records of your response to my notification regarding missing signage

3. Any site inspection reports or communications with on-site personnel

4. Documentation of signage installation and maintenance history

5. Internal communications regarding my appeal and your decision-making process. This to include

any deliberations as to why the report of there being no Entry Sign was not actioned and allowed as

a reason for dismissing the P.C.N. before a further POPLA appeal was made

6. The number of PCNs issued at the same location since my initial report

I am not questioning the actual P.C.N. No part of this claim is based on that. It is purely for the

Breach of Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR

I am open to resolving this matter through mediation or other forms of Alternative Dispute

Resolution (ADR). Please advise if you are willing to engage in such a process.

Please treat this letter as a formal notice under the Pre-Action Protocol.

If I do not receive a response within 28 days, I will proceed with issuing a claim in the County

Court without further notice.

I reserve the right to seek legal representation, and any associated costs may be added to the claim.

Yours faithfully,

GettingOnInYears

Oh, just to avoid confusion my form name has been changed as has my email address.
I'm now GettingOnInYears both metaphorically and factually.

Coupon-mad

GettingOnInYears said:

Oh, just to avoid confusion my form name has been changed as has my email address.
I'm now GettingOnInYears both metaphorically and factually.

I remember you - shopping trolley legend as I think I said before! Best of luck with your case.

Are you already doing the government's Public Consultation? Their proposals are wrong. We must stop them.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline! Just 2 weeks left but please don't rush it. You can do some then save it and come back to it as you have time.

We understand that some people may need pointers. It looks laborious & it s long. So to try to help, I've written some guidance on that thread.

Not sure old hands like you need it but hey!

GettingOnInYears

I've already completed it. The shopping trolley lark was just to kill time while my wife was away with her friends in Las Vegas, and a week after my adorable rottweiler had died. I was in tears most days so had to do something to cheer me up.
Since then I have had dozens of tickets despite having a blue badge and have had them all successfully appealed, except for the one from ParkingEye used at the start of this thread. It matters not. My aim was really to get to court with it anyway so non payment may take me there anyway.
I have sat for two days using AI to draft a complete court bundle in preparation of the Nexus claim, and Oh hell, if I were Nexus I'd pay up before it even got there. It's bloody amazing what AI can do, including adding a claim for injunctive relief against issuing more PCN's at the site until they have finally put an entry sign to the site.
I really want this kick them in the !!!!!!. It's time we put them to account for the failures of compliance to the BPA Code of practice, especially when it impacts on the reasonableness or otherwise of obtaining the keepers details from the DVLA. 
I would really like this case, if Nexus sees fit to have me take it to court, to be given nationwide attention so that it can be set as 
Persuasive Finding for other similar cases. I'd even like it to go to High court where the finding would become a binding precedent. That's one of the reasons for asking for Injunctive relief as I'm sure Nexus will be really against that.
I have also drafted into the claim that they should include details of the number of other PCN's and the amount of money (personal enrichment) following notification of the entry sign being absent. Can you see them accepting that without taking it to the high court?

doubledotcom

Make sure you sue the legal entity that actually pulled your DVLA data.

In “GroupNexus” cases, that is ordinarily CP Plus Limited (t/a GroupNexus), which is the BPA-approved operator and ICO-registered data controller (ICO entry lists “Other names: GroupNexus”). Ranger Services Ltd (t/a GroupNexus) also operates some sites. Check your NtK/signage/privacy notice: sue the entity named there as the controller/requester.

So, unless your documents actually name GroupNexus Limited (a separate company), the correct defendant for a DPA claim about the DVLA request is CP Plus Limited (or Ranger Services Ltd if that’s the entity on your NtK). 

There is a UK company called GROUPNEXUS LIMITED (company no. 15560549), incorporated on 13 March 2024. As a private limited company, it can be sued in its own name but it is doubtful that this is the company concerned here, even though it is owned by the same directors.

The parking brand “GroupNexus” is (and for years has been) a trading name of CP Plus Limited (company no. 02595379). Their own site footer states “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus.” In most PCN matters, CP Plus Limited is the contracting party and to whom you would have to make your claim.

GettingOnInYears

Thanks. Ive asked the DVLA to send me details of the data request already so will amend the claim. The thing is that all emails have to be sent to Nexus and they have responded with objections and answers already so they know what's in the pipeline