What do I do? Email following passing over of driver details

Senorb

Passed drivers details over, yet apparently I went over the 28 days, what do I do? This was following a ntk and a couple of the usual warnings 

ChirpyChicken

Go back to them and tell them there is no such limit as per POFA. They know this. They just act dumb. As long as legal proceedings have not begun you have no liability.
Then ignore zzps etc

Which parking firm btw

Car1980

Send her this:

You either completely misunderstand the legislation, or are purposefully misrepresenting what the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states. The 28 day time period is not a “transfer of liability window”. It is a date before which you cannot legally hold the keeper liable. By subsequently naming the driver of the vehicle - which can be done any time up until proceedings - any obligations as keeper have been discharged.

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5 [are met]

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

Once the claimant has actual knowledge of the driver identity (name and address), the conditions in paragraph 5 are no longer met, so the right to pursue the keeper is extinguished.  

I would like to point out that that your response, if purposefully false, would amount to an offence under the 2006 Fraud Act:

Fraud by false representation

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

I suggest you rethink your communications, or obtain some guidance from your superiors.

Finally, you must now ERASE all the details you hold for me under Article 17 of the GDPRs. No "review" is necessary.

Coupon-mad

True to form, yet again ZZPS. Shocking.

I hope they are among the first to be DVLA banned, come the glorious day.

Which parking firm?

Senorb

Car1980 said:

Send her this:

You either completely misunderstand the legislation, or are purposefully misrepresenting what the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states. The 28 day time period is not a “transfer of liability window”. It is a date before which you cannot legally hold the keeper liable. By subsequently naming the driver of the vehicle - which can be done any time up until proceedings - any obligations as keeper have been discharged.

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5 [are met]

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

Once the claimant has actual knowledge of the driver identity (name and address), the conditions in paragraph 5 are no longer met, so the right to pursue the keeper is extinguished.  

I would like to point out that that your response, if purposefully false, would amount to an offence under the 2006 Fraud Act:

Fraud by false representation

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

I suggest you rethink your communications, or obtain some guidance from your superiors.

Finally, you must now ERASE all the details you hold for me under Article 17 of the GDPRs. No "review" is necessary.

Hi, I sent the email as you advised, which I thank you very much for, they then sent me the above

Gr1pr

So which Parking Company are ZZPS representing   ?

Senorb

Gr1pr said:

So which Parking Company are ZZPS representing   ?

Hi it's GBP MANAGEMENT LIMITED 

Gr1pr

Senorb said:

Gr1pr said:

So which Parking Company are ZZPS representing   ?

Hi it's GBP MANAGEMENT LIMITED 

So, it's a BPA AOS member , probably a tiny outfit because I hadn't heard of them 

ChirpyChicken

Gr1pr said:

Senorb said:

Gr1pr said:

So which Parking Company are ZZPS representing   ?

Hi it's GBP MANAGEMENT LIMITED 

So, it's a BPA AOS member , probably a tiny outfit because I hadn't heard of them 

Yes they are small, which is why they use ZZPS for their back office processing 

Johnersh

That's the GDPR, yes. And I agree that they requested info in good faith and are not required to immediately destroy it.

However, they've not addressed the main issue.

Write again and press the point that there is a difference between what they say in their letter and what the law actually requires. This is pre-proceedings so the recipient o/p has provided the necessary information. If the Claimant chooses to disregard that, it is their lookout, but they cannot maintain that they are unaware of the drivers' details.

You reserve the right to produce that correspondence to the court and to seek costs on the basis of unreasonable conduct.

Clearly, if the PPC could prove the o/p was driving that would be different... But it seems unlikely 

Coupon-mad

Senorb said:

Gr1pr said:

So which Parking Company are ZZPS representing   ?

Hi it's GBP MANAGEMENT LIMITED 

Haven't got that NTK in my NTK pictures thread! Please post both sides of the NTK.