Parking fine "parked without valid permit for vehicle class"

moro2810

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82089040#Comment_82089040

Yea it is an N1 class

moro2810

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82088713#Comment_82088713

Iv just uploaded a pic of the only other sign present 😊

Car1980

Apart from the sign terms being far too small, doesn't really change the issue that they think you don't have a valid session.

Incidentally they claim they can recover their unenforecable £60 add-on even from the keeper even if they weren't the driver, which is specifically outlawed. But that's another subject.

Personally I would still pay the shortfall when you have your completed clutch of tickets, but see what Couponmad advises because she's the expert.

Coupon-mad

I would pay one lot of £15 via the app now, using the right location code for vans (just to appear reasonable) and then email the parking firm's DPO.

State that this is an objection to the use of camera images in regard to all PCNs issued to vehicle xxxxxxxx during recent weeks at this car park, and the DPO must investigate the reasons for the objection and respond appropriately.

Whilst £15 has been paid by app today (the van is not in the car park) and represents full and final settlement of all matters, this has been paid without accepting liability. It covers one single event and has been made as a goodwill gesture.

This is because there are significant issues at this car park:

• The t&cs sign is very poorly drafted and doesn't refer to vans (at all) so there was no breach of the contractual sign and a PCN cannot arise. It says "by parking otherwise than in accordance with the below" a £100 PCN can arise. None of the terms listed were breached.
• There is also no 'P' entrance sign that complies with the Code of Practice;
• The non-compliant orange sign at the entrance says the site is patrolled by parking attendants but fails to state that these persons will be recording, storing and sharing camera phone images for the purpose of sending a PCN by post later.
• There is no GDPR warning sign about how the images and resulting data will be used. In fact nothing tells a driver about the parking attendants using cameras for later postal PCN issuance, which is a breach of the ICO Guidance;
• Under UK data protection law (UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), the definition of a "surveillance system" is technology-neutral; it is determined by the purpose and effect of the images taken, not the specific hardware device used. Because a vehicle registration mark (VRM) and images of drivers or occupants constitute personal data, using a phone camera for this purpose triggers strict compliance obligations;
• If the only entrance sign also fails to direct motorists to a data controller identity and privacy policy, the data collection fails the core legal principle of being "fair, lawful and transparent";
• The ICO Video Surveillance Guidance explicitly notes that modern surveillance has shifted from stationary "CCTV on a pole" to portable, digital, and mobile technologies. Capturing a vehicle's licence plate combined with its location and time to identify the registered keeper through the DVLA is a form of processing personal data.
• Using a device purposefully to gather evidence for automated or postal PCNs mirrors the regulatory landscape of Automatic Number Plate Recognition and Body-Worn Video;
• TPS has breached all entrance sign and data information requirements. Articles 13 & 14 of the UK GDPR defines the right to be informed, requiring organisations to provide clear and concise privacy information to individuals about how their personal data is collected and used. Under the ICO's transparency framework, the entrance signage must serve as a Layered Privacy Notice and must deliver specific information.
• A parking operator cannot take, store and process images of vehicles without the required GDPR privacy notice and camera use warning at the entrance. This is a formal objection about the resulting multiple unfair data processing events in my case and I will escalate this complaint to the Information Commissioner if TPS fail to erase the data and cancel all PCNs.

(Also appeal each and every PCN on the same basis)

moro2810

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82089678#Comment_82089678

Thanks so much Coupon-mad,thats very comprehensive i appreciate it. Shall i leave it a few more days to see if any others come in the post. Like i said 2 received already,expecting 2 more. Shall i just pay the extra for the pcns iv recived?

Coupon-mad

Absolutely not.

Like I said "pay one lot of £15". That's it.

If that person who took unsolicited photos (for the sneaky purpose of the firm processing the pics to later issue postal PCNs) had simply affixed a PCN on day one, you would have had a timely consumer notice and adjusted your payments for the next time.

The fact that operators have people on foot secretly taking photos but deliberately NOT serving a timely consumer notice, likely breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

If they have foot patrols with wardens, then there's no excuse to deliberately save the notice for later, knowing that in the meantime, an average driver will remain unaware and will probably get up to TEN TIMES the PCNs in the ensuing two weeks.

That's not fair or open dealing.

moro2810

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82090903#Comment_82090903

Just checked and it's actually £17 that would be owed, however only a day at a time can be purchased (so £15 a go). How to proceed?

moro2810

Is the NTK POFA 2012 compliant? Iv seen others suggest it isn't

Coupon-mad

Just pay £15 for a day's van parking.

I haven't looked at the NTK but you can compare it to my NTK pictures thread.

moro2810

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82092321#Comment_82092321

Hi coupon-mad iv drafted this response…..

"

Subject: Formal Objection to the Processing of Personal Data and Request for Erasure – Vehicle Registration [VRM]

Dear Data Protection Officer,

I write as the registered keeper of vehicle registration [VRM].

This email constitutes a formal objection under UK data protection law to the continued processing of my personal data in relation to all Parking Charge Notices issued to the above vehicle following visits to Shaw Street Car Park, Manchester, during the recent weeks.

As a gesture of goodwill, and without any admission of liability whatsoever, I have today paid one van tariff of £15 via your parking app using the appropriate location code. The vehicle was not present at the car park when this payment was made. This payment is made solely in an attempt to resolve matters reasonably and represents full and final settlement of any genuine parking tariff that may have remained outstanding. It must not be construed as acceptance of liability for any Parking Charge Notice.

My objection to the continued processing of my personal data is based upon the following grounds:

• The contractual terms and conditions signage is poorly drafted and does not refer to vans at all. It states that a Parking Charge may arise for parking otherwise than in accordance with the listed contractual terms. None of those listed contractual terms refer to vans or prohibit payment by the method used. Consequently, there was no contractual breach capable of giving rise to a Parking Charge Notice.
• The entrance signage does not comply with the applicable Code of Practice. In particular, there is no compliant entrance sign clearly informing motorists of the contractual terms and the data processing that would follow.
• The orange entrance sign merely states that the site is patrolled by parking attendants. It does not inform motorists that attendants will be using handheld cameras to capture, store and process images for the purpose of obtaining registered keeper details from the DVLA and issuing postal Parking Charge Notices.
• There is no clear privacy notice or other information satisfying the transparency requirements of Articles 13 and 14 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Motorists are not adequately informed how their personal data will be collected, processed, stored, shared or used.
• The collection of vehicle registration details and photographic images for the purpose of obtaining keeper data from the DVLA constitutes the processing of personal data. The use of handheld cameras for this purpose falls within the scope of UK data protection legislation and the Information Commissioner's guidance relating to surveillance systems.
• The failure to provide clear and transparent information regarding this processing renders the processing unfair and lacking the transparency required by UK GDPR.

Furthermore, had your parking attendant chosen to issue a Parking Charge Notice to the vehicle at the time of the first alleged contravention, rather than taking photographs and issuing postal notices at a later date, the driver would immediately have become aware of your interpretation of the parking terms and would have altered future payment arrangements accordingly. Instead, multiple Parking Charge Notices were allowed to accrue while the driver remained entirely unaware that your company considered any breach to have occurred. This appears inconsistent with the requirement for fair and open dealing under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

In light of the above, I require you to:

1. Investigate this formal objection to the processing of my personal data.
2. Confirm the lawful basis upon which you consider the continued processing of my personal data to be justified.
3. Cancel all Parking Charge Notices issued in relation to these events.
4. Erase my personal data relating to these Parking Charge Notices unless you are able to demonstrate a lawful basis for its continued processing.

Should you refuse this request, please treat this email as requiring a full written response setting out your reasons and identifying the lawful basis relied upon for the continued processing of my personal data.

If this matter cannot be resolved, I reserve all rights to escalate my complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office and to rely upon these matters in response to any future proceedings.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Registered Keeper"

Does that reflect what you have advised well? Do i send this too the DPO email or too the appeal form?

Thanks for your help