ANPR Carpark with no entrances signs vs GDPR

trickedAndFrstrated

I've been issued a charge by UK Car Park Management.

I found this forum since appealing (and failing) but by sounds of it with these guys that makes no difference anyway as they reject all appeals.

I found and have contacted the land owner but he is just ignoring me, no reply, no nothing.

I stopped in a carpark for 20 minutes in the evening that used to be pay and display, with no overnight charge, and that has at some point been changed to pay on exit with ANPR and 24hours.

At the top end of the carpark where i parked there is little in the way of signage. We crossed the road to go to the library, not walk down to the town where more signage exists.

To my knowledge there are no other 24 hours carparks in the area. Based on the google maps reviews and having spoken to friends I am not the first to fall for this.

I'm just wondering at this stage where I stand on the grounds that there is absolutely no signage on the entrance to the carpark, let alone any mention of the fact that ANPR is in use. There is signage re ANPPR elsewhere having gone looking but it is not prominent and only visible after entering the carpark - so drivers have no chance to "opt out"  as they've been caught on camera before knowing the cameras are there.

Now I was of the impression that this was a violation of GDPR and am wondering what you guys think. Is it worth raising this with the ICO? They say I have to complain to the offending company first and can then contact the ICO after 30 days of inaction - or something along those line, I brought up the ANPR / GDPR point in my appeal so I think i can count that as done.

I have seen mention of wanting an app to help with this stuff. I'm a software engineer and whilst I am not going to say this is easy (it depends on what we want it to do) it has never been easier to make an app than it is now. I was thinking of something that would make it easy for users to register carparks and there signage/known PCNs and how to proceed in each case. Maybe this is a topic for a separate thread.

Nellymoser

Your appeal decision should respond to your points. Be aware their emails often end up in junk/spam so do check that folder too.

For more info read the Private Parking Sector single Code of Practice 
https://www.theipc.info/publications

James_Poisson

These charges are issued under contract law the signs make the contract and are supposed to conform to the BPA/IPC joint COP.

You can raise a complaint with the ICO to give them some pain why not.

You should have followed the newbies recommendations in your appeal the ANPR / GDPR points will either be brushed aside or ignored but so would anything you put, the scammers just want money.

No doubt also if this was at night the signage was even less obvious, the Joint COP is here look specifically at signage requirements: 

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector Code Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130225.pdf 

trickedAndFrstrated

Nellymoser said:

Your appeal decision should respond to your points. Be aware their emails often end up in junk/spam so do check that folder too.

For more info read the Private Parking Sector single Code of Practice 

<link redacted as forum won't allow it>

It looks to me like the reply re my appeal is just an automated response generated from a template, not "considered on a case-by-case basis" as it claims at a. There is no reference to any of the points i raised. I will look to see if I can find any responses received by others on this forum to see if that can be confirmed.

Re the link, from what I've read elsewhere on this forum the IPC is nothing but a gang of charlatans, cronies of the very people issuing the these invoices, if that is so is this actually worth reading? 

James_Poisson

trickedAndFrstrated said:

Nellymoser said:

Your appeal decision should respond to your points. Be aware their emails often end up in junk/spam so do check that folder too.

For more info read the Private Parking Sector single Code of Practice 

<link redacted as forum won't allow it>

It looks to me like the reply re my appeal is just an automated response generated from a template, not "considered on a case-by-case basis" as it claims at a. There is no reference to any of the points i raised. I will look to see if I can find any responses received by others on this forum to see if that can be confirmed.

Re the link, from what I've read elsewhere on this forum the IPC is nothing but a gang of charlatans, cronies of the very people issuing the these invoices, if that is so is this actually worth reading? 

You are correct, but you will need the background for rebutting any court claim.

Nellymoser

It's certainly worth reading the CoP. You do realise this CoP is a joint code written by the BPA and IPC for their members. It's the same document James_Poisson linked you to (odd the forum won't allow my link).

Unfortunately not everyone shares the forum's views of the IPC. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute is one organisation that has a different opinion....they actually list the IAS as an approved Alternative Dispute Resolution body. 🤨

95Rollers

I am assisting someone i know with a PCN at this location with similar circumstances. The points I've picked out from my research are the lack of entrance signs. Nothing tells the motorists that they are leaving a public road and encroaching onto private land, the only way you'll see a PayStation is if you walk in the road through the gap into the Arcade, but why would anyone necessarily walk that way when there are vehicles constantly reversing/ turning and there is a covered walkway on the left hand side or people might be exiting via the West Alley or going to the library/ waitrose across the street.  There are no signs directing anyone to this and the signs are ambiguous, carpark poorly lit and contradictory.  There is also the issue of ANPR use. If they want to take this to court we're ready for them. So far we've not heard anything since the appeal rejection and "last chance to pay £100" letter which has been filed away.