That's all brilliant. Thank you very much.

Ah I see. Thank you, that's a weight off of my mind. I have to admit the tone of the letter was a lot less harsh than my previous correspondence. Any thing that you think I should do to cover my arse or will it just simply go away?

Hi There, I'm posting here asking for help with what I consider to be a very confusing matter. I have been issued with a couple of parking tickets by a private firm Parking Control Management UK LTD. It was for parking on an unmarked, supposedly private road that had access to a housing estate, the actual Road is Bullrush Close in Croydon, if anyone fancied checking it out on google maps. There are numbered bays and obvious parking areas that are for residents only. However on one side of the road (after the double yellow lines) is an unmarked section of road that I have parked in for years without a problem or need for a permit. After checking with the council they assured me that they had adopted the road some years ago and was under their care for it's upkeep etc. So if it is an adopted road and i'm parking in an unrestricted area how can a private parking firm be issuing me with tickets?!?! After looking at a few websites the general feeling was to ignore the threatening letters and they would eventually go away. The reason why I am worried is that I am now being persued by a company called Newlyn (bailiffs) with whom I had a very nasty experience with years ago. Any advice as to how I should proceed with this would be very helpful as dealing with the Newlyn bailiffs and their employees was an experience I do not want to revisit. Many thanks in advance!!!!!!!

Tomtubby, you may recognise my name from having an interest in this particular subject a couple of weeks ago on another thread. I believe that LA's had no idea that the passing on of drivers details to 3rd party bailiffs was an offence against their own Data Protection Policy. Am I right?

I understand what you're saying although I don't need it spelling out quite so literally. That comment was meant with the best intentions by the way. I can understand why you thought I was coming in from that angle though. I was merely trying to see if there was a possibility that LA's could be taken to court for being in breach of their own Data Protection Policy.........NOT as a means to avoid paying a penalty charge. My understanding is that the majority of complaints within this particular topic are to do with council contracted bailiff companies that charge extorsionate/illegal amounts of money for penalty charges and the recovery thereof. I'm new here so may be a bit green, but if LA's were in breach of their own Data Protection Policy, by passing personal data to debt collection agencies which as a result meant that all bailiff fees were revoked and the offender just had to pay the original fine..........well.......that's a good thing isn't it?

If they only updated or added this purpose a couple of months ago would it be logged anywhere? And if so, would it mean that any charges issued to me not covered by this purpose at the time of offence could be challenged?

I copied the below from my local council. To me it looks like they've covered themselves. Any thoughts Purpose 15 Method 2 Data Controllers further description of Purpose: ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC REGULATIONS INCLUDING PARKING Data subjects are: Staff including volunteers, agents, temporary and casual workers Customers and clients Suppliers Offenders and suspected offenders Data classes are: Personal Details Financial Details Goods or Services Provided OFFENCE DETAILS INCLUDING CCTV DETAILS Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act): Data subjects themselves Employees and agents of the data controller Suppliers, providers of goods or services Persons making an enquiry or complaint Debt collection and tracing agencies Police forces Local Government Central Government Data processors Transfers: None outside the European Economic Area

Ah ok I see. So they could for example add the collection of pcn fines to their list of information that could be passed on to a 3rd party. Although would this go against what FP was quoting from Lord Falconer.

Hi Tomtubby, I've been following this data control thread on here and on other threads and have been fascinated by it. When you mention the "free speech" option could you clarify what that means for me with a little more detail. And also, for example, if I was to persue a local authority for pcn's issued from 07-08 and they only opted for the free speech purpose in 09, would I still be able to sue on the fact that they weren't covered by this purpose at the time. Be gentle with me........it's my 1st post!! Many thanks.