Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 5th Jan 18, 4:10 PM
    • 89Posts
    • 41Thanks
    Pdmum
    pcn to registered keeper
    • #1
    • 5th Jan 18, 4:10 PM
    pcn to registered keeper 5th Jan 18 at 4:10 PM
    Received pcn as registered keeper. I am not the driver. Put in appeal using template letter which has been rejected. reason for rejection is different to reason shown on PCN. Does this breach POFA 4. If so what do i do now, I have been issued with a POPLA CODE.
Page 8
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 21st Jul 18, 3:27 PM
    • 89 Posts
    • 41 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Address i have on documents is PO BOX 527, SALFORD, M5 OBY.
    Email address is ccmcce-filing@justice.gov.uk.
    Is it best to stick with the address on the documents i have?
    I know the decision is ultimately mine, but would it be possible to comment on my final draft please, and also give thoughts on inclusion of the point i made about expired contract?
    Thank you for all your help.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jul 18, 3:42 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,660 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Expired contract is something you can expand on at WS stage (don't tip them off yet, so no saying 'it's expired' in your defence!). As long as your defence mentions that you put them to strict proof that they have landowner authority and that you believe they do not, let them dig the holes for you to fill in on top of them, later, in spades!

    Address i have on documents is PO BOX 527, SALFORD, M5 OBY.
    Email address is ccmcce-filing@justice.gov.uk.
    Then that is where it must go, NOT to the usual email addy.

    Re your defence, remove this, too much detail; NO attachments at defence stage:

    (I have attached a copy of the wording from the Popla Annual Report 2015 for your information):

    Understanding keeper liability

    ''There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no 'reasonable presumption'; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988,a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.[...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
    and remove this because they don't have to do a 'risk' assessment before getting data:

    and also proof of the risk impact assessment before they applied to the DVLA for keeper details and issuing the PCN.
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 21st Jul 18, 4:06 PM
    • 89 Posts
    • 41 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Thanks again, will edit over weekend and send on Monday.
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 7th Aug 18, 6:57 PM
    • 89 Posts
    • 41 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Letter from PC requesting Insurance documents in accordance with Pre Action Protocol, with the threat of obtaining an order from the court compelling me to submit.
    Is it worth responding to this when i send copy of DQ?
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 8th Aug 18, 6:59 AM
    • 3,656 Posts
    • 5,976 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Is it worth responding to this when i send copy of DQ?
    It doesn't go with the DQ which is a scheduling form for the courts.

    You don't need to send it and they are inviting you to help their case as if it shows only 1 driver, it will help them.

    with the threat of obtaining an order from the court compelling me to submit.
    This is nonsense but they will likely complain if you don't send it. When you reply saying you do not intend to provide it, say that under the Data Protection Act 2018 they should not be requesting personal information that is unnecessary - and they know this. You do not have the permission of others to share their personal information.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
    • DreamDetective1
    • By DreamDetective1 8th Aug 18, 9:19 AM
    • 3 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    DreamDetective1
    I would not even respond to this... I would tell them when we get to DISCOVERY of documents I will follow the order of the court.
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 8th Aug 18, 6:07 PM
    • 89 Posts
    • 41 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Thanks both, thats pretty much what i thought.
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 10th Aug 18, 2:49 PM
    • 89 Posts
    • 41 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Opted for a very simple refusal to the above.
    Would someone confirm if its absolutely necessary to include phone numbers on DQ, as dont want to encourage any unwanted phone calls. Will be providing an email address.
    Thanks
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 10th Aug 18, 2:53 PM
    • 3,677 Posts
    • 4,504 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    No need for phone numbers. Address and email is sufficient.
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 10th Aug 18, 2:58 PM
    • 89 Posts
    • 41 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Thank you so much for your prompt response.
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 16th Sep 18, 4:39 PM
    • 89 Posts
    • 41 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Just a quick update to say that i have had a very favorable response from ICO complaint.
    Waiting now for allocation of court date.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 18, 6:44 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,660 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Good, you mean the ICO are investigating PP's intransigence about the SAR and the fact they tried to charge you 30 for it, saying it was ''excessive'' for a victim of their scam to actually want to see data and evidence?
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 16th Sep 18, 11:10 PM
    • 89 Posts
    • 41 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Response to SAR was not dealt with appropriately.

    Concerns about use of ANPR will be looked into further if i provide evidence.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Sep 18, 1:56 AM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,660 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hmmm, the ICO will need evidence and a good argument that exposes this ANPR system as in breach of the ICO Code of Practice for ANPR & Surveillance Cameras.

    So evidence about the excessive & disproportionate use of data, specifically, could be:

    - that ANPR operators like this are using ANPR excessively and without proportionality (use those words, they are the ICO's own words from the CoP).

    - in this case, they use ANPR 24/7; excessive & unnecessary at this site where the signs are unlit, so the contract cannot be read and enforcement should not be taking place.

    - they misuse and abuse the two data streams for profit, and routinely use against consumers, the ANPR data stream with the unknown 'alternative time' that they call 'total stay' that works most onerously against unsuspecting, genuine paying drivers.

    - PP fails to properly inform people of this, and these are paying customers who will be reasonably relying on the tangible PDT issued by the machine, as that has actual 'parking time' on it. Misleading data with no warning printed on the ticket.

    - e.g. they should have a wealth warning: 'PLEASE NOTE: Your total stay time has been calculated from the point of your car's entry, by ANPR, and you will only be allowed a total of 10 minutes extra, for driving in/out before a PCN is issued - so the time shown on this ticket may not be relied upon as the time to return to the car if it took you more than 10 minutes to park today!''.

    - PP use the ANPR 'data stream' (a) to create an artificial 'total stay time' when in fact, this trader has the actual 'parking contract' time in their hands already, via the second 'data stream' (b) of the PDT machine.

    - The two times conflict, and yet the PDT data stream is surely the truest data (for those people who have paid) because the time taken to drive round and find a space before parking and paying can vary, due to all sorts of factors that PP are disproportionately taking advantage of.

    - and they retain the data of people who the PDT machine 'data stream' tells them HAVE paid, then simply churn out a PCN if ''(a) - (b) = more than 10 minutes'', this despite the fact that the BPA Code of Practice and a well-cited BPA article* state that 'observation time' (on arrival) and 'grace period' (at least 10 minutes purely for the end of paid for time) are two different things, and clearly a car cannot possibly teleport into a space and have the tariff paid, in zero seconds flat...! A 'grace period' does not negate the 'observation period'.

    - and PP make wholly 'automated decisions' to issue PCNs with no human intervention, clearly nothing is checked individually by a person.

    - it's just an algorithm between the data from the ANPR versus the data from the PDT machine, regardless of any other factors (very busy car park due to a local event, bad weather, hours of darkness where it takes longer to read signs and use a crappy scratched old PDT machine with faded keys...disability of a driver or passenger, which remote ANPR systems cannot pick up, but which is a factor within the population at large)

    - this method of enforcement fails to grant disabled people any additional 'reasonable adjustment' of say, an added hour of parking time, nor even an extended grace period, contrary to this court case below, the lawful findings of which relate just as much to private car parks as public ones, yet this has never been tested or looked at by the ICO:

    https://www.wake-smith.co.uk/news/council-car-park-case-settled-a-victory-for-blue-badge-holders/

    Not that you have protected characteristics, but some 10% of the 'population at large' do (not just mobility issues), and if the ICO are investigating a complaint about this misuse of data of people at large, you ask that they also consider that court case (high time it was applied to ANPR private car parks). As a public body, the ICO must consider disability discrimination aspects of a trader's operation as a whole. Such a 'reasonable adjustment' would be easy to display on signs at the disabled bays and on the machines which should offer the option of 'more time needed' for disabled people or explain how to claim it.

    - to ignore the needs of such people and the myriad of other (external conditions) factors that can easily make the 'total stay' minus 'parking time purchased' more than ten minutes, is unjustified, unreasonable and data misuse.

    - whilst ANPR may have its place in a 'free for 2 hours' car park - although it discriminates against disabled people there too - it has no place used in this automated way alongside a misleading timing that consumers will rely on (the PDT in their hand).

    - The Parking firms using ANPR in this way, do so purely in order to profit from genuine paying drivers whose tariffs do match their actual parking time, but simply could not complete the in/out actions in 10 minutes flat. And who never knew they had to...


    *Google: Kelvin Reynolds BPA good parking practice observation and grace periods and attach that as evidence too, along with the para 13 of the BPA CoP about the TWO grace periods.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 17-09-2018 at 2:05 AM.
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 20th Sep 18, 1:46 PM
    • 89 Posts
    • 41 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Belated thanks Coupon Mad.
    Will adapt to my circumstances and submit.Every bit helps i hope.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Sep 18, 12:30 AM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,660 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I think this latest fightback of reporting any and every 'data misuse', or 'GDPR failure to reply to a SAR or a rectification notice' and /or 'excessive use of ANPR' examples to the ICO can only be a good thing.

    Hopefully the ICO will get the above argument, which you can use verbatim.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,066Posts Today

8,759Users online

Martin's Twitter