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
    • bunkey999
    • By bunkey999 21st Aug 18, 10:00 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 1Thanks
    bunkey999
    MET Parking Gatwick - Two Visits
    • #1
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:00 PM
    MET Parking Gatwick - Two Visits 21st Aug 18 at 10:00 PM
    Hello, just a bit of advice please.....I received a Parking Charge Notice from MET Parking Services who had sent photos of my car entering and leaving the McDonalds Car Park at Gatwick South for a period of 86 minutes. There were in fact two visits of less than 60 minutes, which accounts for the length of time being over 60 minutes, though the rules state that there should be no return with 60 minutes, triggering the ticket. . On both occasions purchases were made and tickets were validated. Can anyone advise which template I should use to appeal in these circumstances ? Thankyou.
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 21st Aug 18, 10:06 PM
    • 11,270 Posts
    • 11,828 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:06 PM
    • #2
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:06 PM
    Send the blue text appeal from the first post in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

    Send it as the keeper.

    Send it unchanged - no additions or changes needed.

    That's all there is to it at this stage.

    Read the rest of that NEWBIES thread to better understand the game you are now caught up in.
    Last edited by KeithP; 21-08-2018 at 10:08 PM.
    .
    • bunkey999
    • By bunkey999 21st Aug 18, 10:21 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    bunkey999
    • #3
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:21 PM
    • #3
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:21 PM
    Thankyou for your prompt reply KeithP, I take it you mean this reply....?

    Re PCN number:

    I appeal and dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there an agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.

    Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require with your rejection letter, all images taken of this vehicle & the signs at the location that day. Do not withhold any images or data later relied on for POPLA/court.

    Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised too; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and say on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog).

    I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed unanimously: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.

    Formal note:

    Service of any rejection letter/POPLA code and/or legal documents by email is expressly disallowed. All responses to me from this point on, must be made by post. Regardless of any MCOL online/email system, service of any court claim must only be made by first class post to the latest address provided by me.

    Yours faithfully,

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 21st Aug 18, 10:28 PM
    • 11,270 Posts
    • 11,828 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #4
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:28 PM
    • #4
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:28 PM
    Please list all the blue text appeals you found in that post and we'll try and work out which one to use between us.
    .
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Aug 18, 10:31 PM
    • 20,598 Posts
    • 32,513 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:31 PM
    • #5
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:31 PM
    There's only one initial appeal template there. Check if it's the one you've copied and pasted here! It could be the wrong one. Double check, take nothing for granted. Why.......?

    Return within x hours is a dodgy case for a PPC to progress. There could have been two separate drivers who were blissfully unaware of the other's visit. Unenforceable by the PPC in my opinion.
    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.
    • bunkey999
    • By bunkey999 21st Aug 18, 10:42 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    bunkey999
    • #6
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:42 PM
    • #6
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:42 PM
    Well, I only found one blue text appeal in the first post and that's it ! Thanks :-)
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 21st Aug 18, 10:43 PM
    • 11,270 Posts
    • 11,828 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #7
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:43 PM
    • #7
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:43 PM
    Phew! I was worried for a nano-second there.
    .
    • bunkey999
    • By bunkey999 21st Aug 18, 10:48 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    bunkey999
    • #8
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:48 PM
    • #8
    • 21st Aug 18, 10:48 PM
    Thankyou Umkomaas Return within x hours is a dodgy case for a PPC to progress. There could have been two separate drivers who were blissfully unaware of the other's visit. Unenforceable by the PPC in my opinion. That's a good point ! And thanks again Keith P :-)
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Aug 18, 1:54 AM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,467 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 26th Aug 18, 1:54 AM
    • #9
    • 26th Aug 18, 1:54 AM
    Please can we never have anyone post 'is it this blue writing appeal?' ever again...
    • bunkey999
    • By bunkey999 24th Sep 18, 6:39 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    bunkey999
    Update ! As keeper I have now received a rejection of appeal from MET. Does anyone know if there is a suitable Template for an appeal to POPLA where two visits to McDonalds Gatwick - or elsewhere have been made please ? The two photos supplied on the original PCN show firstly, the car entering McDonalds Car Park on the first visit and secondly, leaving the car park after the second visit. Thanks.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 24th Sep 18, 6:47 PM
    • 11,270 Posts
    • 11,828 Thanks
    KeithP
    There are plenty of McDonald's Gatwick POPLA appeals on here.

    Put those bold words into the forum's search facility to find them.

    Here is just one very recent one:

    .
    • bunkey999
    • By bunkey999 27th Sep 18, 11:17 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    bunkey999
    Thanks ! I will do just that.
    • bunkey999
    • By bunkey999 12th Oct 18, 8:12 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    bunkey999
    Popla appeal draft
    Thankyou for all your previous comments, and I have as suggested, adopted a McDonald's Gatwick POPLA appeal on another thread and amended it to take account of my circumstances, namely, two visits to the same location on the same date. Any comments would be very welcome, many thanks !

    POPLA APPEAL

    POPLA Ref __123456789____
    MET Parking Services PCN no _MP987654321_____

    A notice to keeper was issued on XX Aug 2018 and received by me, the registered keeper of AB12 XYZ for the alleged contravention: ‘exceeding the maximum stay of 60 minutes in the car park at McDonald's, Gatwick. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.


    1) MET has deliberately chosen not to use POFA, they failed to comply with POFA 2012 act by not keeping to time scale when issuing NTK - therefore they can not hold the keeper liable.
    2) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    3) Misleading system and signage at fault
    4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
    5) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach.
    6) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate
    7) In fact the vehicle AB12 XYZ made two visits to the McDonalds Car Park, and the photographs supplied by MET show the vehicle entering the car park on the first visit and leaving the car park on the second visit. They have stated on the PCN "On the XX Aug 2018 Vehicle AB12 XYZ entered the McDonalds Ring Road North Gatwick RH6 0NN car park at 14:25 and departed at 15:52 on XX Aug 2018." But this was not one individual visit, and there were actually two visits by the same vehicle. The allegation by MET Parking is inaccurate and misleading.
    MET has deliberately chosen not to use POFA and make no mention of such or the transfer of liability to the keeper under POFA 2012 in the Notice to Keeper I have received.
    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.
    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4 which they have not in this case. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
    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."
    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which in this case the operator is not.
    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    "I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."
    The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 5 above.
    2) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
    3) Misleading system and signage at fault
    The signage states that, 'motorists must validate their car park stay in the restaurant with proof of purchase prior to exiting the car park and use their validated ticket to raise the exit barrier. Pressing the barrier button to exit may lead to a charge notice being issued.' The driver of the vehicle understood this to mean that the parking charge would only apply to vehicles parked in the area where the barriers were in place, and therefore parked in a bay outside of this area, which was not controlled by barriers. This signage is therefore misleading and confusing for motorists.
    4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
    I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:
    ''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.
    Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.
    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:
    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.
    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.
    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''
    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.
    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''
    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    5) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO CCTV Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach.
    BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) states that:
    “It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
    - be registered with the Information Commissioner
    - keep to the Data Protection Act
    - follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
    - follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.

    BPA’s Code of Practice (36.1a) states that:
    “You may send an NTO to the registered keeper…”
    “You must tell them about the complaints procedure they can use to tell the Information Commissioner and the DVLA if they believe their data has been used inappropriately.”

    The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at [link]

    The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:

    “This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment including:
    - Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);”

    “the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any organisation using cameras to process personal data should follow the recommendations of this code.”

    “If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.”

    “You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on individuals”

    “You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper assessment.”

    “If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary.”

    “Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to minimise these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park.”
    “Note:
    ... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations should therefore also consider these issues.”

    “A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate.”

    The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that if MET Parking Services wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary. It also states that MET Parking Services must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.

    It therefore follows that I require MET Parking Services to provide proof of regular privacy impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact assessments to show that its use has “a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate”.

    The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state:
    “5.3 Staying in Control
    Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the code’s requirements in practice. You should:
    - tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their request;”

    “7.6 Privacy Notices
    It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground level or more prevalent then it may first appear. One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s right of subject access.”

    MET Parking Services have not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). This is in direct violation of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice – specifically with the extracts quoted above.
    As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and in turn the BPA’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law, POPLA will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given.

    ANTHONY HANCOCK
    23 RAILWAY CUTTINGS
    EAST CHEAM
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Oct 18, 8:14 PM
    • 20,387 Posts
    • 25,744 Thanks
    Redx
    if that is your name and address at the bottom, I suggest you remove it
    Last edited by Redx; 12-10-2018 at 8:35 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Oct 18, 8:20 PM
    • 11,270 Posts
    • 11,828 Thanks
    KeithP
    if that is your name and address at the bottom, I suiggest you remove it
    Originally posted by Redx
    HaHaHa... Not heard of Tony Hancock of East Cheam then Redx?




    Last edited by KeithP; 12-10-2018 at 8:23 PM.
    .
    • bunkey999
    • By bunkey999 13th Oct 18, 12:30 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    bunkey999
    Popla appeal draft
    Just bumping to see if anyone has the time to look at my draft please ....Thanks.
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

5,103Posts Today

7,013Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Many saying sexism or ego. My suspicion as someone who works in TV is that this is a format point. I'd think whe? https://t.co/AXfrv5YqKA

  • I do always ponder when watching apprentice why Lord Sugar is "Lord Sugar" but Baroness Bradey is Karen. #bbctheapprentice

  • Lord Sugar just said "she's talking like she's a 50 year old, she knows it inside out?" Genuine question if ther? https://t.co/6cZJ9d2Cni

  • Follow Martin