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
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 7th Apr 18, 2:36 AM
    • 15Posts
    • 12Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    POPLA Appeal ParkingEye St. Martin's Precinct
    • #1
    • 7th Apr 18, 2:36 AM
    POPLA Appeal ParkingEye St. Martin's Precinct 7th Apr 18 at 2:36 AM
    Hi, I'm hoping someone could just a quick check of my POPLA appeal before I send it off and make sure everything is correct and relevant. I've read through the newies thread and to be honest have mainly copied from other peoples appeals but I did write most of my section 2 so would appreciate a once over.

    The situation is that in February this year the driver parked in a car park which allows 3 hours of free parking. The ANPR cameras state the driver was in the car park for 3 hours and 13 minutes. This is only 13 minutes over so my main appeal point is grace periods but I think the signage is inadequate too but I've listed quite a few things for the old 'throw the kitchen sink' approach.

    The driver has not been identified to ParkingEye and all I have done so far is send the initial appeal in the newbies thread word for word in order to get my POPLA Ref which I now have.

    You can find my initial (redacted) draft at https:[slash][slash]drive.google.com/file/d/1NUlBT5FIWSieWbAGFnZhEpeKCNFmHTX3/view?usp=sharing

    Replace [slash][slash] with an actual forward slashes in the link above - if someone could post the link as a URL I'd appreciate it as I can't.
Page 2
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Apr 18, 11:00 PM
    • 20,646 Posts
    • 32,560 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    The ICO point looks good, well done for being the guinea pig to this new idea; I hope it has legs!
    I rather suspect that when PE see this, they will fold. And will keep on folding whenever it crops up, until such time they can put in place some damage limitation strategy - but amending/replacing signage to accommodate will be difficult.

    That's my bet - but my record today with my few (wasted) Rands on the Grand National might not be a great example of my gambling prowess.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 14-04-2018 at 11:02 PM.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Apr 18, 11:06 PM
    • 20,646 Posts
    • 32,560 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    In terms of signage at night, you may get want to add reference to this POPLA decision, reported today.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74160631#post74160631
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 15th Apr 18, 1:37 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    The ICO point looks good, well done for being the guinea pig to this new idea; I hope it has legs!

    I would just add where you put near the end that there is nothing on the sign about your right to a Subject Access Request (SAR), that there is also nothing on any paperwork, PCN, rejection letter, no privacy statement about data, despite there being a Data Protection heading on the back of the PCN, this is the operator paying mere 'lip service' to the right to a complaint, which is not the same thing at all. Nothing tells you anything about your right to subject access and this is a mandatory point in the ICO CoP, which in turn is mandatory within the BPA CoP and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR, such that it makes the use of this registered keeper's data unlawful.

    I would remove #3 as there is no point in that argument of the PCN is a POFA one.

    Remove #5 and #6 which detract from the rest of the appeal and have no legs at POPLA.

    And I would not have that yellow sign AT ALL in your appeal, unless you crop it to only show the (bottom of the notice) small print, and nothing above it. You are shooting yourself in the foot showing a sign talking about 3 hours 'max stay'.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    So on the back of the PCN it says the following:
    "If you believe that your details have been obtained fraudulently or misused, please contact us straight away. You may also choose to write to the Release of Information, Fee Paying Enquiries Section, DVLA, Swansea SA99 1AJ. You should include details of how the information has been misused and the vehicle registration mark. The DVLA will investigate all allegations where information has been requested unlawfully and where appropriate, refer to he Information Commissioner for prosecution. If you are not satisfied with the way the DVLA has handled your complaint, you should contact the Information Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF."

    It feels like the above is compliant with the ICO's CoP which is why I didn't mention anything about the PCN in the section I wrote....do you agree?

    Will happily remove #3, #5, #6 if they detract from the overall appeal. Also I will remove the sign if it hurts the overall appeal rather than reinforce anything.
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 15th Apr 18, 1:45 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    In terms of signage at night, you may get want to add reference to this POPLA decision, reported today.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Thanks for this. Sorry for what seems like a simple question but how would I best reference this without a POPLA appeal number?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Apr 18, 9:08 AM
    • 20,646 Posts
    • 32,560 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Thanks for this. Sorry for what seems like a simple question but how would I best reference this without a POPLA appeal number?
    Originally posted by SalomonAssassin
    You could select the relevant text from the decision and quote it in your appeal, cross referenced to the assessor's name (which is included in the link I gave).

    Or you could PM stevem365 (the OP) and ask if he'll share the reference number, or simply add another post to his thread asking for the same.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 15th Apr 18, 1:26 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    https:[slash][slash]drive.google.com/open?id=1O-gHyH9BMd9WmA4_iM5kEX-bUW9wdamf

    So I've taken out #3, #5 and #6.

    #1 is unchanged apart from the removal of the sign.

    #2 has been re-worded a bit after removing the sign and I changed the order to talk about the signs on the ANPR camera poles first and then the wall sign afterwards as I feel it flows better that way. I also added in a reference to stevem365's successful appeal. I've PMed him too so I will include the appeal number if he responds.

    The now #3 is unchanged

    The now #4 is unchanged given my concerns about the PCN I talked about a few posts ago

    Looking to send the appeal off today unless there are any glaring mistakes or omissions?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 15th Apr 18, 6:20 PM
    • 4,158 Posts
    • 5,007 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Gah, slash as a replacement is far more annoying than just changing http to hxxp

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=1O-gHyH9BMd9WmA4_iM5kEX-bUW9wdamf

    Why today? What's the deadline?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 18, 2:30 AM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,471 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So on the back of the PCN it says the following:
    "If you believe that your details have been obtained fraudulently or misused, please contact us straight away. You may also choose to write to the Release of Information, Fee Paying Enquiries Section, DVLA, Swansea SA99 1AJ. You should include details of how the information has been misused and the vehicle registration mark. The DVLA will investigate all allegations where information has been requested unlawfully and where appropriate, refer to he Information Commissioner for prosecution. If you are not satisfied with the way the DVLA has handled your complaint, you should contact the Information Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF."

    It feels like the above is compliant with the ICO's CoP which is why I didn't mention anything about the PCN in the section I wrote....do you agree?
    Originally posted by SalomonAssassin
    No.

    It's only compliant with the requirement to tell motorists how to COMPLAIN to the ICO about their data being used. Which is not something my wording says they've failed on.

    My wording says they've failed to tell motorists about their right to a SAR, from the data controller (the PPC).

    I had already checked several NTKs (including a PE one) before I came up with the new argument. I saw NONE that comply, none that tell people about their right to a SAR.

    Complaints to the ICO are covered on many PCNs and signs by PPCs, as standard, but that's not the same thing as is being argued.



    Will happily remove #3, #5, #6 if they detract from the overall appeal. Also I will remove the sign if it hurts the overall appeal rather than reinforce anything.
    Remove them.
    Looking to send the appeal off today
    Why? Did you get the code 30 days ago then? POPLA codes last a month. And no 'sending' a letter to POPLA by mail.
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 16th Apr 18, 6:13 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    Gah, slash as a replacement is far more annoying than just changing http to hxxp
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    Noted for next time!

    No.

    It's only compliant with the requirement to tell motorists how to COMPLAIN to the ICO about their data being used. Which is not something my wording says they've failed on.

    My wording says they've failed to tell motorists about their right to a SAR, from the data controller (the PPC).

    I had already checked several NTKs (including a PE one) before I came up with the new argument. I saw NONE that comply, none that tell people about their right to a SAR.

    Complaints to the ICO are covered on many PCNs and signs by PPCs, as standard, but that's not the same thing as is being argued.



    Remove them.

    Why? Did you get the code 30 days ago then? POPLA codes last a month. And no 'sending' a letter to POPLA by mail.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Right OK - with ya. Will update that point and expand on the points you made before.

    Today (Monday 16th) is the 32nd day from receiving the POPLA code (16th March) so as far as I'm led to believe today is the last day my POPLA code will be active for. I didn't send it off yesterday but will definitely have to today. And when I say send off I do mean by attaching a PDF using their online appeals system not by mail
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 16th Apr 18, 1:09 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ub4B0A_PgnitpSpteM2fpx2yzNlQeCUJ

    Only change since the last upload is expanding on the SAR point to incorporate Coupon-Mad's comments.

    Any other comments or thoughts?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 18, 1:21 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,471 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would just remove the BPA CoP 36a (bottom of page 11) and the two quotes (top of page 12) because PE did both those things and that's not what you are arguing here.
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 16th Apr 18, 1:34 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    I would just remove the BPA CoP 36a (bottom of page 11) and the two quotes (top of page 12) because PE did both those things and that's not what you are arguing here.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Oh yeah good spot - thanks. I think mixing those points up is what had me confused before. I've removed that now but I won't re-upload for such a small change.

    If that's all then I'll upload that this evening and then come back with the outcome whenever that comes through.

    Thank you to everyone who has helped. It's very much appreciated!
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 4th May 18, 4:42 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    Just had an email from POPLA to say ParkingEye do not wish to contest the appeal so another success!

    Bit of a shame as I'd have been interested in what an assessor would have had to say especially regarding the ICO point. Out of interest have you guys seen any responses about the ICO point from anyone else yet?

    Thank you all for your help. It's very much appreciated!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th May 18, 4:45 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,471 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Out of interest have you guys seen any responses about the ICO point from anyone else yet?
    Not yet, but it is being tried in POPLA appeals and defences from now on.

    I am glad PE backed out and wonder if the DPA breach ANPR/ICO thing bothered them.
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 4th May 18, 8:33 PM
    • 2,887 Posts
    • 3,626 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    well done ...... shame you never got to test your points .....

    did you ever as in 'the deeps' post #4 complain to your MP ?

    to refresh

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

    ''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

    These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.



    every MP who receives letters from constituents is more likely to support this bill ...... and we do need this bill to progress ...

    Ralph
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

412Posts Today

2,979Users online

Martin's Twitter