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
    • vidivic
    • By vidivic 6th Sep 18, 10:51 AM
    • 12Posts
    • 1Thanks
    vidivic
    Excel parking issue PCN even though paid
    • #1
    • 6th Sep 18, 10:51 AM
    Excel parking issue PCN even though paid 6th Sep 18 at 10:51 AM
    Hello, forum newbie here.
    I received an Excel PCN in July. I parked in a car park at Media City where I usually park from time to time and usually use the app to pay.
    The normal payment provider had changed from Ring go to Connect Cashless Parking who also cover car parks in some other parts of Manchester.
    Being unfamilar with the system I needed to call to secure my parking.
    I made the call, the automaton on the other end relayed my reg number back to me, turns out I was already set up after using the system once a very long time ago, the phone cut out for a second then I heard your parking has started.
    I went off, later I received a text to say my parking was due so I retuned to the vehicle to find a ticket.
    I called excel immediately to ask what the hell is going on, how can I pay for a ticket on their automated system but still receive a fine?
    They didn't have any answers and said I would need to appeal.
    At home I looked up the notice online and checked the connect cashless account.
    Turns our I had paid for parking in a different car park. The right amount just wrong location.
    I appealed with this evidence straight away.
    The charge was issued on 6th July, I appealed the same day.
    Excel came back to me on the 26th: " We are still continuing to evaluate your correspondence and as such we are unable to let you have a
    decision at this stage. We expect to let you have our decision/response by 16/8/2018."
    Then heard nothing until the 5th September.

    Excel: The signs at the car park make it clear that the land is private property and that a charge of £100 will be levied if
    vehicles are parked outside of the Terms and Conditions displayed. The signs make it clear that a valid ticket to park
    must be purchased and, where applicable, clearly displayed in the vehicle parked. The above detailed vehicle was
    observed parked whilst payment for parking had not been correctly made and you became liable for the Charge
    advertised.

    They also go on to say:

    "we must clarify that this is third-
    party software for which we are not responsible. When paying for parking over the phone, motorists should ensure

    that their payment has been allocated to the correct vehicle registration number, it is imperative that the information
    used is 100% accurate."

    Essentially saying its not our fault the software doesn't work and you needed to wait for confirmation, but I got audio confirmation and a text message to say it was up!

    As a final thought they say:
    "On this occasion the vehicle was parked when there was no valid session
    to park paid for and therefore in the absence of a Pay & Display ticket, it was parked contrary to the Terms and Conditions displayed."
    Which to me implies that unless you display a ticket you will always be in contravention of the T's & C's.

    They now want £60 going to £100 in 21 days.

    Id like to appeal as I paid fr the season but in the wrong place due to the phone cutting out and me not hearing the location but I sceptical after reading about their move to different appeals body who are just as bad!!!!

    HELP!
    Cheers
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 18, 12:02 AM
    • 63,940 Posts
    • 76,571 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 7th Sep 18, 12:02 AM
    • #2
    • 7th Sep 18, 12:02 AM
    "we must clarify that this is third-party software for which we are not responsible. When paying for parking over the phone, motorists should ensure that their payment has been allocated to the correct vehicle registration number, it is imperative that the information used is 100% accurate."
    They are responsible for a third party handling VRN data as their contractor.

    Try this (below) it's a new idea I have had which can be tried by anyone where wrong VRN or wrong location code data is being relied upon by a parking firm who knows full well from their own ANPR data stream, which car it was and which location that car was in:

    Email Excel (see their letters at the bottom, there's an email addy if you do not have it yet).

    In the subject line, put Data Rectification Notice - FTAO the Data Controller

    Then state that they and their agent, Connect Cashless Parking, are storing and processing data that is incorrect, and that Excel know to be incorrect. Under the GDPR, you require that to be rectified, and remind Excel of their legal duty as set out in simple terms by the Information Commissioner, here:

    https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-rectification/

    State that due to a processing error on the part of the new app that Excel have changed to recently, Connect Cashless Parking have brought forward in error, old data regarding a parking session and location code at xxxxxx car park and wrongly applied it to your request for a parking session at xxxxxx car park.

    This is a data mismatch and/or error, not caused by the consumer, and Excel have been advised of it already.

    As such, you require that Excel tell their agents to rectify the error, which was not keyed in by the driver, but was brought forward by the new system which had unfairly stored an old location code.

    Retaining that data for xx months/years is excessive and unjustified data storage, and for that, Connect Cashless Parking is at fault and places consumers at risk of detriment by carrying forward data that makes an assumption about a vital piece of information - the location code - that will cause consumers to suffer loss as a result.

    To expect a consumer to assume the burden of having to notice and override incorrect data every time they use a phone app, when the app company have stored that data and introduced it for a completely different parking session by presumption is wholly unreasonable, and this undoubtedly a serious matter for the Information Commissioner to consider.

    And it is not just the app that is at fault (Excel being reminded that they remain liable for the actions of their agent, anyway). By failing to rectify the error when advised of it in an appeal, Excel have breached the GDPR and must not continue to rely on what they know or should know, to be inaccurate data.

    Not only that, their own data images tell Excel that the vehicle was in the second car park, and that the payment needs to be rectified and matched to that site instead. The ANPR image is a data stream in its own right and Excel must consider it when addressing this data error, and not blame a consumer.

    This is clearly wholly within the control of (and is indisputably the data liability of) Excel, and for a parking firm to reject the information in an appeal and mislead a consumer by saying ''we must clarify that this is third-party software for which we are not responsible'' is not only disingenuous, but an untrue statement from the company and the Data Controller must take steps to prevent that sort of flagrant disregard for data protection rules - and negligent misinformation about the law of agency - from happening again.

    It may have been different, had the driver actually keyed in the wrong location code, and that would be a matter for the ICO to decide. But in this case, the phone app contractor (appointed and used by Excel to handle the data stream from the app, on their behalf) has introduced old, incorrect data from a long since forgotten parking session.

    There can be no quibble that the situation falls squarely within the GDPR:

    When is data inaccurate?

    The GDPR does not give a definition of the term accuracy. However, the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) states that personal data is inaccurate if it is incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact.
    State at the end, that you require a reply from the Data Controller within 30 days, and you wish to exercise your right to request 'restriction of the processing' of your personal data during this period from contesting the data accuracy, while Excel and its phone payment agent check it, in accordance with Article 18 of the GDPR:

    What should we do while we are considering the accuracy?

    Under Article 18 an individual has the right to request restriction of the processing of their personal data where they contest its accuracy and you are checking it. As a matter of good practice, you should restrict the processing of the personal data in question whilst you are verifying its accuracy, whether or not the individual has exercised their right to restriction.
    Finish by telling Excel that they have no proportionate justification to ask for ID, as they hold enough other data to have identified the complainant already, and so now, their only options are:

    1 - to confirm that the data is inaccurate, and to rectify it and confirm the fact, or

    2 - to confirm that they believe the data is 'accurate' (which it clearly isn't), or

    3 - refuse to comply with a request for rectification if the request is manifestly unfounded or excessive (which it clearly isn't).

    Should Excel opt for (2) or (3) as their formal response, their Data Controller will be held personally liable, jointly and severally with Excel's own corporate liability, and the response will be used in evidence for a formal Information Commissioner's Office complaint regarding a failure to rectify known inaccurate data fed by their own agent's archive storage, which should have long since been erased.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 07-09-2018 at 12:19 AM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • vidivic
    • By vidivic 7th Sep 18, 11:05 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    vidivic
    • #3
    • 7th Sep 18, 11:05 AM
    • #3
    • 7th Sep 18, 11:05 AM
    Hello Coupon

    What and excellent amount of information you have Kindly shared with me.
    Many thanks for this, it is such an important point which I knew was in there put couldn't clarify.

    Excel informed me they now consider this a matter for the appeal board and won't take any further appeal:
    "It is important we also highlight that no further appeals will be accepted at this office; any such appeal must be made to the IAS."

    Are the IAS any good do you know?

    Shall I draft a letter from your info and send it to all do you think?

    Thanks again, really really appreciate it.
    • vidivic
    • By vidivic 7th Sep 18, 11:19 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    vidivic
    • #4
    • 7th Sep 18, 11:19 AM
    • #4
    • 7th Sep 18, 11:19 AM
    Also I have a receipt from the connect cashless people which shows the last time I parked was 18 months previous.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 7th Sep 18, 12:28 PM
    • 3,944 Posts
    • 4,742 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #5
    • 7th Sep 18, 12:28 PM
    • #5
    • 7th Sep 18, 12:28 PM
    NO the IAS are no good
    They g'tee to REJECT 85% of ALL appeals, regardless of merit.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 18, 12:52 PM
    • 63,940 Posts
    • 76,571 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 7th Sep 18, 12:52 PM
    • #6
    • 7th Sep 18, 12:52 PM
    Forget the IAS.

    Send the email I told you to, using my words and subject line. It is not an appeal.

    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • vidivic
    • By vidivic 9th Sep 18, 9:43 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    vidivic
    • #7
    • 9th Sep 18, 9:43 AM
    • #7
    • 9th Sep 18, 9:43 AM
    Hi

    I have drafted a letter using your words. I can't seem to find an email to send it to. Can you help?

    Here is draft:

    "Excel and agent, Connect Cashless Parking, are storing and processing data that is incorrect, and that Excel know to be incorrect. Under the GDPR, I require that to be rectified, and remind Excel of their legal duty as set out in simple terms by the Information Commissioner.
    Due to a processing error on the part of the new app that Excel have changed to recently, Connect Cashless Parking have brought forward in error, old data regarding a parking session and location code at Victoria car park and wrongly applied it to your request for a parking session at The Pitch car park.

    This is a data mismatch or error, not caused by the consumer, and Excel have been advised of it already.

    As such, I require that Excel tell the agent to rectify the error, which was not keyed in by myself, but was brought forward by the new system which had unfairly stored an old location code from march 2017.

    Retaining that data for 18 months is excessive and unjustified data storage, and for that, Connect Cashless Parking is at fault and places consumers at risk of detriment by carrying forward data that makes an assumption about a vital piece of information - the location code - that will cause consumers to suffer loss as a result.

    To expect a consumer to assume the burden of having to notice and override incorrect data every time they use a phone app, when the app company have stored that data and introduced it for a completely different parking session by presumption is wholly unreasonable, and this undoubtedly a serious matter for the Information Commissioner to consider.

    And it is not just the app that is at fault (Excel being reminded that they remain liable for the actions of their agent, anyway). By failing to rectify the error when advised of it in an appeal, Excel have breached the GDPR and must not continue to rely on what they know or should know, to be inaccurate data.

    Not only that, their own data images tell Excel that the vehicle was in the second car park, and that the payment needs to be rectified and matched to that site instead.

    This is clearly wholly within the control of (and is indisputably the data liability of) Excel, and for a parking firm to reject the information in an appeal and mislead a consumer by saying ''we must clarify that this is third-party software for which we are not responsible'' is not only disingenuous, but an untrue statement from the company and the Data Controller must take steps to prevent that sort of flagrant disregard for data protection rules - and negligent misinformation about the law of agency - from happening again.

    It may have been different, had the driver actually keyed in the wrong location code, and that would be a matter for the ICO to decide. But in this case, the phone app contractor (appointed and used by Excel to handle the data stream from the app, on their behalf) has introduced old, incorrect data from a long since forgotten parking session.

    I require a reply from the Data Controller within 30 days, and I wish to exercise my right to request 'restriction of the processing' of your personal data during this period from contesting the data accuracy, while Excel and its phone payment agent check it, in accordance with Article 18 of the GDPR:
    Under Article 18 an individual has the right to request restriction of the processing of their personal data where they contest its accuracy and you are checking it. As a matter of good practice, you should restrict the processing of the personal data in question whilst you are verifying its accuracy, whether or not the individual has exercised their right to restriction."

    Is there a better address to send other than info@? Shall I send it to other bodies too? I think the data issue is massive and needs shouting about.

    I also received a fresh letter in the post stating the reason for contravention was the absence of a ticket, but I paid for parking remotely.....so frustrating


    Thanks again
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Sep 18, 2:18 AM
    • 63,940 Posts
    • 76,571 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 12th Sep 18, 2:18 AM
    • #8
    • 12th Sep 18, 2:18 AM
    I've added more to this version I wrote for someone:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74774025#post74774025

    Really go to town and use the best bits of both versions.

    Is there a better address to send other than info@?
    No.

    Shall I send it to other bodies too?
    The second stage is a complaint to the ICO as explained here:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74778358#post74778358

    I think the data issue is massive and needs shouting about
    So do we, and the ICO is the right ear to shout in, once Excel muck up their response to the Rectification Notice.

    This is a new untested fightback tactic which was posted about only days ago for anyone with a PCN from a private firm, which relies upon blaming the driver for 'incorrect data' when in fact the data subject has the legal right to just ask for it to be rectified...and can't possibly be penalised for the trader's data processing 'automated decisions' and failures.

    Bring on the ICO complaint ''bombs'', as long as posters word and evidence them well, and understand they are not writing an appeal to the ICO, but a data processing complaint.

    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 20-09-2018 at 10:24 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • vidivic
    • By vidivic 12th Sep 18, 11:58 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    vidivic
    • #9
    • 12th Sep 18, 11:58 AM
    • #9
    • 12th Sep 18, 11:58 AM
    great sending now.
    • vidivic
    • By vidivic 20th Sep 18, 11:41 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    vidivic
    hello there, I haven't had any response to my email and im concerned the fine will rise and court case will proceed.
    Any help appreciated
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Sep 18, 10:25 PM
    • 63,940 Posts
    • 76,571 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Did you send the rectification notice to the Data Protection Officer's contact details, as set out by Excel in their 'privacy notice' page?

    Have you double checked the email address was correct when you typed it?

    It is not a fine, and it does not rise. It falls...in reality, to nothing when you win in court.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • onlyfoolsandparking
    • By onlyfoolsandparking 20th Sep 18, 10:33 PM
    • 433 Posts
    • 557 Thanks
    onlyfoolsandparking
    hello there, I haven't had any response to my email and im concerned the fine will rise and court case will proceed.
    Any help appreciated
    Originally posted by vidivic

    As C-M and others have said "it's not a fine" and please don't be concerned about the "INVOICE" rising, anyone can demand what they want doesn't mean they are legally entitled to it and I hope you don't get too concerned when you start receiving the begging letters off the debt recovery sewer rats!!
    The real meaning of life is the pursuit of happiness and avoidance of pain
    • vidivic
    • By vidivic 8th Oct 18, 7:01 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    vidivic
    Hi there

    Email was address for info@excel but I couldn't find any other address, can you advise?
    I have received the NOTICE OF INTENDED COURT PROCEEDINGS today.
    • vidivic
    • By vidivic 8th Oct 18, 7:05 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    vidivic
    I have also found the data protection address, I haven't been able to think too much about it of late, many things going on.
    Resent to both addresses.
    • vidivic
    • By vidivic 10th Oct 18, 12:01 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    vidivic
    a reply
    a reply:


    Dear Ms McIntyre,

    Thank you for your email dated 29 September 2018 relating to the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to you at The Pitch Car Park, Media City Salford and your concerns relating to data arising from this contravention.

    In your email you state that on the date of the contravention you made use of Connect Cashless Parking to make payment for your stay on site. At this site motorists are permitted to use Connect Cashless Parking as an alternative method of making payment for their parking via phone call or SMS text message. Once payment for parking is made, an acknowledgement is received by the motorist confirming that their parking has been authorised and also gives details of the parking duration paid for and its expiry time. All Connect Cashless parking sessions are virtual which means that a paper ticket is not required to be displayed in the vehicle when parking using the service.

    In your email you have complained that “I had paid via the telephone system, the system automatically engaged parking with a code from 18 months previously without my authorisation”. I can confirm that we have investigated this matter with Connect Cashless Parking and they have confirmed that on the date of the contravention you called their payment phone line at 12:45; during this call the system in place prompted the details of your previous booking, including the vehicle registration mark (VRM), parking location and the length of parking. These details were subsequently confirmed and payment was entered, completing the transaction. As such I would note that at the time of parking you were clearly offered the option to either confirm your previous details, as you did, or to amend them for the details as required. As you confirmed the parking location for Manchester Victoria, your payment was not allocated to this location and so our Patrol Officers (PO) were unable to validate your parking at the time of observation. As such, the contravention of the Terms and Conditions of parking was correctly recorded. It is always imperative that motorists ensure their details are correctly entered when using this system if they wish to make valid payment for their duration of parking against the applicable car park.

    Your further state: “Due to a processing error on the part of the new app that Excel have changed to recently, Connect Cashless Parking have brought forward in error, old data regarding a parking session and location code at Victoria car park and wrongly applied it to my request for a parking session at The Pitch, Media City, Salford”. We would note that the Connect Cashless Parking system has had over 4 million transactions in the past 12 months, 1.1 million of which involved customers making use of the Buy Again option as you did and without encountering any problems. The Buy Again option is presented at the start of the payment line process for ease of use for returning customers, though I would note the customer is also offered the option to change their details at the start of the call process in addition to the Buy Again option. I would therefore contest your portrayal of events in describing this as a “processing error” is incorrect as to complete your purchase you would have needed to confirm you wanted to use these details at the time of the phone call. It is the responsibility of the motorist to personally ensure that their details are entered correctly at the time of parking.

    You further state that the retention of your previous purchase’s data location is “excessive and unjustified” and also argue that Excel have breached the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in using this data. I would note that in this matter you are incorrect; the prior location data presented to you as the customer is not deemed to be personal data and therefore falls outside the scope of the GDPR. I would further note that the prior purchase data of any customer is not used or accessed for any purpose unless they contact the Connect Cashless system to purchase any further sessions. As such, your concerns regarding data protection in relation to this matter are unfounded. I would note that the Connect Cashless application is third-party software for which we are not responsible for and have no control over. It is possible for your account and its associate data to be deleted at any time subject to your confirmation. In order for this to happen though you will need to contact Connect Cashless direct and request that they delete your data under the ‘Right to be forgotten’.

    To conclude, when paying via Connect Cashless, motorists must always personally ensure that payment has been allocated to the correct vehicle and correct parking location as this is the only means by which the PO is able to correctly validate the parking of the vehicle involved.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Data Protection Team
    CENTRAL PROCESSING OFFICE
    • vidivic
    • By vidivic 10th Nov 18, 10:54 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    vidivic
    Hi there

    I have now received a letter from Napier / BW Legal asking for payment.
    What should I do?
    The data team replied and just ignored my appeal.

    Any help appreciated
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 10th Nov 18, 11:11 AM
    • 10,610 Posts
    • 10,443 Thanks
    The Deep
    im concerned the fine will rise and court case will proceed.

    It is not a fine, it is an invoice for an alleged breach of contract. They feel that your behaviour has so damaged them that they need £100 in compensation, it is a scam. If it did get to court, imo they would come a cropper.

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

    Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by in the not too distant future..
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • vidivic
    • By vidivic 10th Nov 18, 3:33 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    vidivic
    Thank you 'The Deep', fascinating reading and a case very similar to my own is cited.
    I am unsure whether I should get in touch with BW Legal.
    I have no intention of paying the now increased figure of £160 fine, especially as ultimately I paid for parking but in the wrong location. Should I acknowledge them?
    Their letter to me is also missing details and is completely devoid of any relation to my case.
    It states the contravention date but the contravention description is blank, thats because they dint have a category for fining me for wrong location. I paid for that location too and have the evidence.
    Im very confused.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 10th Nov 18, 3:38 PM
    • 37,945 Posts
    • 22,057 Thanks
    Quentin
    You are now in the wait and see/debt collectors stage


    See #4 in the newbies FAQ thread for advice on debt collecting letters


    You now ignore everything except a LBCCA or Court correspondence


    They have 6 years to start legal proceedings against you


    If it comes to this then come back at that time for advice on how to defend it
    • vidivic
    • By vidivic 10th Nov 18, 4:47 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    vidivic
    Amazing, can you give me a link to the newbie thread, I can't seem to locate it.

    Thank you
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

2,654Posts Today

9,315Users online

Martin's Twitter