Does using "Independent Appeals Service" ADR preclude going to court?

agrado

Here is the relevant part of their reply:

The bit up to and including "do need to be registered" seems fair enough to me, although them saying it to me rather misses the bit where I clearly told them that I had indeed registered it upon arriving at the car park and reading the terms.

ChirpyChicken

Don't let this lot worry you.

So minor.

agrado

Thanks. I'm still vaguely hoping that City of London will get back to me saying they've cancelled it, but if they don't then I'll just forget all about it unless an actual Letter Before Claim or Claim Form arrives.

Gr1pr

Seems strange to me that a person must register a BB with APCOA, yet the private parking company claimant involved is Park and Control , in theory 2 different companies

We have had similar issues with Excel Parking and V.C.S , wearing different hats

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82057771#Comment_82057771

"The bit up to and including "do need to be registered" seems fair enough to me".

No, it really isn't!

That's actually the crux of the complaint!

Send this to CoL:

Dear xxxxxx,

The matter is not resolved. Please escalate this complaint because what you describe isn't lawful.

Your agent is passing an unfair burden to all disabled motorists to have to take extra steps (never required with Councils on-street) JUST BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER NOT TO POLICE DISABLED BAYS ON FOOT.

This is a new idea from the parking industry: 'bay monitoring' by camera and it is clearly unfair and discriminatory.

Fair treatment is that Blue Badge holders should - as usual - merely have to display their Badge on their dashboard for inspection, as is the case with Local Authority parking enforcement, with patrols which (as well as not forcing unusual 'extra steps' on disabled people) have two other positives:

• bay misuse by non-disabled persons is visibly deterred, and
• if there is no Badge then a windscreen PCN is affixed and no DVLA data is sought.

The Parking firm has deliberately transferred an extra burden to disabled people which isn't inflicted on able-bodied drivers and which then creates a higher likelihood of PCNs (an extra financial risk) to those vulnerable and/or elderly service users.

In other words they are treating disabled people unfairly and causing an onerous detriment, ONLY because your parking firm agent 'wants' to use remote cameras instead of patrols.

The Information Commissioner ('the ICO') stated in a response to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) when private parking Code of Practice legislation was first gaining traction around a decade ago, that ANPR camera surveillance is highly data intrusive and should always be a last resort.

Here, ANPR is the first resort. This is in flagrant disregard for the need:

• for fair checking of accessible bays, and
• to avoid the detrimental impact of unnecessary surveillance, abd
• to avoid excessive DVLA data harvesting, and
• to avoid imposing an enhanced financial risk of PCNs likely to be posted to the most vulnerable service users.

This ANPR regime is being used purely because it is cheaper and leaner than using patrols. That's not a lawful justification, especially not in terms of disabled people.

In small print, the signs require Blue Badge holders to 'scan a QR code' but that causes extra risk because in a car park, these are widely reported to be insecure and open to scams (false QR codes can easily be overlaid on signs). This immediately places these particular (more vulnerable) motorists at extra risk.

Able-bodied people are not subjected to that risk, so it is likely to be discriminatory.

Also, many disabled motorists are elderly and/or have no smartphone and would be digitally excluded by that 'scan here' term on the sign even if QR Codes weren't insecure. Parking enforcement authorities have been warned by successive UK Governments to avoid using parking apps alone because these lead to foreseeable digital exclusion for older people.

QR codes are even worse than apps. What on earth are you doing, in allowing all this unfairness?

As a further objection, private parking firms which use 24/7 ANPR or CCTV are utilising fully automated systems, and as such, this is 'automated decision-making' (ADM).

No human is involved. This is wholly unacceptable when handling the data of disabled data subjects. Even as an unsuspecting Blue Badge holder stands there in the car park reading the sign, as I dutifully did, there would already be an electronic automatic DVLA request queued by the system and a PCN would later come by post to those drivers.

This is happening even if they manage to register (this is exactly what happened to me) and PCNs are also being issued even if elderly disabled people are frightened by the risk of a QR code scam and hurriedly drive out because of the inadequate few minutes grace periods used by ANPR firms.

No disabled motorist can avoid a PCN on their first visit. All of your disabled visitors at this car park must be getting unfair, unjustified PCNs and this is entirely due to excessive and inappropriate camera surveillance. The PCN numbers must be through the roof.

No human checks are made before most private PCNs are posted. These systems are entirely automated from the outset through to PCNs landing on doormats (something the ICO got wrong when considering the DVLA's lawful justification for handing out multi millions of keeper data to the rogue parking sector. The ICO wrongly assumed there are human checks by parking firms before PCN issuance but these days, commonly there are none).

The lack of human checks to marry up the parking firm's ANPR data and separate APCOA 'VRM register' data is exposed by this case. This is clearly unchecked and unlawful ADM and as principal and site landowner, the CoL Corporation should not allow an agent to impose an intrusive surveillance system which auto-requests disabled people's data; probably hundreds of times every week at this site alone.

Are the CoL Corporation even keeping tabs on the numbers of PCNs issued here? You should.

The CoL Corporation have admitted in your reply that (despite the promise on the signs of immediate exemption) it takes several hours to exempt those disabled people who do realise they are expected to register. If there were timely 'human checks' of the parking firm systems, then the 'pending' registration requests of compliant motorists like me would be spotted and no DVLA data would have been sought in my case, but it was.

No PCN should have been issued, but it was.

You should also be aware that the fact that a person has a Blue Badge means that making a DVLA enquiry for their name and address, as keeper of a vehicle is 'data regarding health' and therefore 'special category data'. A natural consequence of this ANPR system is that the parking firm is foreseeably much more likely to obtain special category data than they will of other service users, who don't have a 'use a QR Code to register yourself' unexpected burden.

To process special category data, there must be a double justification - pursuant to the Data Use and Access Act (DUAA) - yet here, even a single lawful justification for this excessive camera surveillance and automated PCN-posting system is absent.

Therefore, it is my position that this set-up is highly likely to breach the Equality Act, the DUAA, UK GDPR / the DPA 2018 data principles and it also runs against the ICO's Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.

What needs to be done?

The CoL has 14 days to provide my with a meaningful reply to this escalated complaint and you must also disclose:

• Your disability impact assessment
• Your data use impact assessment

…both of which should have been carried out in advance by the CoL or by your parking firm agents, well before introducing ANPR surveillance and certainly before allowing an onerous burden to be shouldered by Blue Badge holders just because the rogue parking industry want to use 24/7 cameras everywhere.

Did nobody question the lawfulness of all this or were you taken in by the ANPR spiel that it's new technology and offered free to landowners? Of course it is free! These hated ANPR firms make millions (all their profits) out of unfairly penalising people like me. Were there really no red flags seen by the CoL?

If there were no Impact Assessments carried out, then the CoL Corporation have 14 days to reply admitting this and confirming that your disability discrimination and data use complaints procedures have now been exhausted, because this matter will then be escalated for an opinion from the Information Commissioner.

Finally, kindly note as separate FOI requests (you have 30 days to reply to these):

• Please tell me the total number of PCNs issued month by month to date, since this new ANPR (with Blue Badge holder VRM registration burden) regime started, compared to the numbers issued per month in the year before;
• Please disclose how many complaints, appeals and disputes you and your agents have received from or on behalf of Blue Badge holders, since the new and onerous 'VRM register' & PCN risk was imposed;
• I also want to see the Data Sharing Agreement between 'APCOA' and 'Park and Control' because to register my Blue Badge, I had to do that with a third party firm, APCOA Ltd, yet the private parking company involved is a different legal entity, Park and Control Ltd.

Kindly do not delay your reply to my substantive complaint for 30 days using the FOI requests as an excuse.

I expect a full reply to the non-FOI matters first, and within 14 days of receipt of this email

Yours sincerely,

………………………………………

Reply to the CoL stating the above (word for word)

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82057793#Comment_82057793

I hope APCOA and Park and Control have a data sharing agreement in place.

Especially as the fact that a person has a blue badge is data regarding health and therefore special category data.

1505grandad

In case of copy & paste of another excellent reply by C-m - typo:-

"to avoid the detrimental impact of unnecessary surveillance, abd"

"The CoL has 14 days to provide my with a meaningful reply to this escalated complaint….."

Just checking:-

"Therefore, it is my position that this set-up is highly likely to breach the Equality Act, the DUAA, UK GDPR / the DPA 2018 data principles and it also runs against the ICO's Surveillance Camera Code of Practice."

Would it also likely breach the ppss CoP the COMPLIANCE of which enables the data harvesting from the DVLA via the KADOE contract.

agrado

Just a quick update in case anyone cares: City of London got back to me today saying they have instructed Park & Control to cancel the PCN so I should ignore it.

Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82061264#Comment_82061264

Plenty of us do care. It’s why we come here daily. Well done in resiliently pursuing this.

Do you have the CoL confirmation in writing? If not, try and get that. Also, check the PPC’s website regularly to see if there is any update confirming cancellation (I doubt the PPC will write to you to confirm). Once you see it cancelled, screenshot it and retain for posterity!

Nice outcome. 👍

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82061264#Comment_82061264

Nice result - but that doesn't address the underlying issue.

Did you send my suggested complaint?

If yes, please show the CoL's reply about their disability IA and data use IA. Please show their FULL reply, even if you think it's short/unimportant wording.

If no, send my complaint now because this MO needs the ICO to step in.