pcn to registered keeper

Pdmum wrote: »

I have written a brief response to PP and will be posting a copy to ICO.
Is this acceptable or is it best to send copy by email.

Neither!

Google ICO and see how to complain online. This is simple to do. You do not just 'copy the ICO in' to what you send to the parking firm, they will not know what on earth the piece of post is about! Think about it!

Also the ICO is such a massive organisation, I would NEVER post stuff to them snail mail for them to misfile or lose! I have been in admin all my life and can tell you - NO!

Terrible idea to post something randomly to a large organisation.

You lay out a formal online complaint citing the DPA/GDPR rules, and abedegno already gave you how their privacy notice fails the GDPR.

Start with that.

Then you also have their wholly unreasonable refusal to provide the data to a person they already know is the keeper of that car. The data will not be huge or excessive, it is likely to include ANPR processing images and copies of the letters sent, hardly a big task.

You will also be complaining about breaches of the ANPR Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, including:

- failure to tell you at the time/ in the NTK, about your right to subject access

- excessive use of ANPR images as a cash-cow, 24/7 when the signage terms cannot be read/are not lit. Even if a person can find the PDT machine, they can't read any terms on signs.

- failure to make manual checks of ANPR data before issuing an automated PCN. This is a breach of the ICO CoP and the BPA CoP too, which makes it mandatory that manual checks are made before issuing any ANPR tickets, and makes it mandatory that the PPC complies with ICO rules on ANPR and data processing.

- the misleading data supplied 'PCN states Failure to pay for the duration of stay'. Appeal rejection says 'The vehicle overstayed the paid parking period'.

- unsynchronised clocks/timers between the ANPR camera system and the PDT machine system, which operate as two separate data streams and are not checked nor tallied by a real person in any way, before a PCN is issued, and which operate in a way that cause detriment to a consumer. This is due to the PPC preferring the misleading data stream timer from the ANPR cameras which suggests - wrongly - that a car was 'parked' for a longer time than it was, despite the fact the PPC has the true (and fairer, and the actual parking contract start time) data in the form of the PDT purchase time.

- the average paying consumer would rely on the time shown on the receipt from the PDT machine.

- the driver would have no idea they were also being filmed and that a completely different set of timings would be used against them.

- ANPR may be appropriate for free car parks, and/or as a double check with very limited use in PDT machine sites, only to identify non-payers and trespassers, but is unfair to use as the preferred data stream to suggest a paying patron 'overstayed' when all they did was arrive, find a space, park, go and read the signs, find change/use Ringgo to pay, then rely on that timing on the ticket. Since the BPA CoP makes at least ten minutes mandatory as a grace period at the end of paid-for time, that plus the time taken on arrival are not 'parking time' and the PPC has the data and know the driver paid, and when, and are using the ANPR data unreasonably and without sufficient checks & balances to ensure there is no excessive intrusive data processed without any justification.

- failure to regularly carry out assessments to justify 24/7 ANPR surveillance and ascertain it is appropriate and fair to process data of all visitors including those who pay in good faith, and to use the two unsychronised data streams and select the one which operates against the paying driver.

- in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, the time when a parking contract begins was held to be led by the PDT machine and the data on the ticket produced by the machine, and the contract was deemed made when the coins went in (or these days, when the RingGo phone app accepted a payment).

In conclusion:
This operator is misusing ANPR in an excessive and unjustified way, is misusing two conflicting data streams unfairly against those who do park & pay, and has compounded that by not telling drivers about their right to subject access, and then refusing to reply to a SAR.



(you can also upload evidence to the ICO - do so! May well assist your case).