Initial Parking at Abersoch

Mickstercf

Thanks, will do.

Mickstercf

Okay, I've done. I guess, what do I do now then? Nothing and just wait for debt collectors' letters?

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82107978#Comment_82107978

Why not:

• Go back and get a video replicating Lynda's one. Take a second person with a phone, who records a clear image of the screen as it moves on and misdirects the consumer;
• Even if you can't do that, ask your MP to weigh in, and show him/her the issues and evidence that you sent to the CMA and a link to the CMA's Open letter (MPs won't know about it). Ask the MP to complain to the charity landowners and to Initial, showing your video or Lynda's video and saying you've reported Initial to the CMA but the landowners are jointly liable and responsible for their agent's misleading conduct, if misleading payment screens are on site;
• email a complaint to the DPO of Initial Parking next, objecting to their obvious use of Automated Decision-Making ('ADM') and unfair, unjustified data processing. Clearly they did NOT carry out any 'human checks' before the automated system software interfaced with the DVLA's KADOE electronic link. If they did involve a human before PCN issuance, Initial must prove it or face a report to the Information Commissioner's Office ('ICO') for refusing to review and accept this formal objection to ADM misuse and unfair data processing, which is a breach of the DUA Act 2025, then
• When they fob you off, then email the email trail and copy of the PCN and appeal rejection to the ICO with a specific complaint about Initial Parking, that they used ADM with no 'human checks' which would have avoided automated PCN issuance by matching the only vehicle which was on site with a VRM starting with 'AB' (or whatever). This is also a blatant breach of the Code of Practice which requires human checks first, to avoid unnecessary DVLA KADOE data harvesting and to avoid unfair PCNs going to paying service users.

Mickstercf

Written to MP [x]

Emailled DPO [x]

Mickstercf

UPDATE – things I've done since my last post

Just a quick list of what I've done since I last posted here:

• Found the original physical £3 parking ticket, so I now have both the ticket and the bank transaction proving that the parking tariff was paid.

• Continued pressing Neuadd Abersoch / Abersoch Village Hall as the landowner and made a formal complaint to all of the trustees.

• Sent the trustees the ticket, bank evidence, Initial Parking's rejection and details of the similar two-character cases.

• The full Village Hall committee considered the complaint and rejected my request for cancellation. The committee decided to support Initial Parking's appeal decision/guidance.

• Challenged the Hall's reasoning that the signage settles the matter. I accept that the motorist is responsible for entering the correct registration; my position is that I did enter it. The fact that Initial's system subsequently recorded only two characters does not prove that only two characters were physically entered.

• Asked the Hall for the relevant extract from the committee minutes / formal decision record showing who considered the complaint, the decision, reasons and any action agreed.

• Raised the case with my constituency MP, Dame Karen Bradley. Her office agreed to take it up and I supplied a signed consent form and a detailed evidence pack.

• Explained to my MP why I have deliberately not used POPLA: this is a disputed machine/data-capture issue, whereas similar “major keying error” cases can simply be treated as keying errors without resolving whether the machine actually failed to record what the motorist entered.

• Asked my MP to raise the wider policy issues with the Government department/Minister responsible for the statutory Private Parking Code of Practice.

• Sent the dossier and similar-case evidence to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), given its current work on fairness in the private parking sector.

• Researched further similar cases, including reports involving truncated one/two-character registrations and the earlier Initial Parking case at this same Abersoch Village Hall car park.

• Made a formal data-protection complaint to Initial Parking.

• Initial confirmed that its system automatically generates a Parking Charge and that a member of its ANPR processing team is then supposed to manually check it before keeper details are requested from the DVLA.

• Asked Initial what that manual check actually consisted of, what the reviewer could see, and why the £3 payment made about three minutes after entry and recorded against the first two characters of the same VRM was not identified.

• Initial has now expressly confirmed in its final complaint response that the £3 tariff WAS paid and that the payment can be identified in its records.

• Initial nevertheless maintains the PCN because the payment system recorded an incomplete registration. It says there is insufficient evidence to establish that the machine malfunctioned or that a technical data-capture error occurred.

• Pointed out the evidential problem with that position: an absence of evidence proving machine failure is not evidence proving that the motorist entered only two characters.

• Exhausted Initial Parking's internal complaints procedure. Their latest response expressly says it is their final response.

• Submitted a formal Article 15 UK GDPR Subject Access Request for my personal data, including the ANPR records, payment record, complete PCN audit trail, manual-review records, DVLA/KADOE request records, internal notes and records showing how the £3 payment was subsequently found and linked to the PCN.

• Initial has asked for ID before processing the SAR. I am providing suitably redacted photo ID.

• Separately requested an anonymised PDT/payment-machine report for Abersoch Village Hall for 31 July showing transaction time, machine, tariff and the NUMBER of VRM characters recorded, without asking for other motorists' registrations or personal information.

• The point of that request is to establish whether the machine recorded other one-, two- or three-character registrations on the same day.

• Formally required Initial to preserve the underlying PDT logs, machine diagnostic/fault/maintenance/event logs, manual-review audit trail and DVLA/KADOE records because they may be relevant evidence if the dispute ultimately reaches court.

• Initial has said it is not obliged to provide the wider “commercial-related” transactional data. I have clarified that the wider PDT request is separate from my SAR and asked it either to provide the anonymised information voluntarily or expressly confirm its refusal and reasons.

• I have also asked Initial to confirm expressly that the machine and audit evidence has been preserved.

• I have NOT paid the £20.

• I have NOT used POPLA, following the case-specific advice on this thread.

• Now that Initial's internal complaints procedure is exhausted, my next sector-compliance escalation is a complaint to the British Parking Association (BPA), focusing on Initial's systems, safeguards, manual review and compliance with the applicable Code rather than asking the BPA to determine the PCN itself.

Current position: the tariff is proven paid, the original ticket exists, Initial has found and acknowledged the payment, and the factual dispute remains whether I entered only two characters or whether the machine/system failed to capture the full registration.

Jame4ters

Excellent stuff. They will end up regretting this & quite rightly so

Coupon-mad

Brilliant fightback!

Did you supply your MP and Abersoch with:

• this video proving how this happens with old machines used by some operators?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdeln2ly1z0o

• and did you show them this damning FOI evidence (the journalist was fortunate in that this landowner was a local authority so they were subject to FOI law, unlike Abersoch):

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/i-d-rather-go-to-prison-than-pay-140-euro-car-parks-fine-320781/

This conduct needs stopping across the whole rogue sector. The £20 idea is unfair.

You are absolutely right not to be bribed to line their pockets with £20.

As the Kent FOI evidence shows, unfairly forcing lots of people to feel they have no choice but to pay £20 = lots of money for old rope, basically funding and encouraging more reliance on old machines.

If the MHCLG lets this crap get past them it'll make the worst firms think:

"why should we use systems that operate in the interests of motorists when we can get away with these faulty keypads then blame drivers for errors? It's business as usual - auto PCNs, no human checks - and most of the clueless public will either pay £60 in a panic, or will hopefully pay £20 to cover our business costs & staff time spent fobbing appeals off (despite the fact appeals are meant to be free)".

Mickstercf

Done, I just sent another email to Abersoch Village Hall and my MP, and Initial.

The thing that really annoys me about this is the landowner could just look at this and say, "Oh yes, this seems unfair. I'll cancel it.". But they don't want to.

Bookends

Documents served by the Abersoch Village Hall committee to the Charity Commission show payments are either being received from Initial or made to the company. These are not explained but the sums are varied and you could ask the trustees to explain these payments

Mickstercf

Where did you find that from? Have you got some more details or some primary evidence that I could use?