Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks. I often use this free site  https://www.sejda.com/compress-pdf  for work to compress PDFs. If it's no good, as you say, split it, and we'll do the biz at this end tomorrow. Knackered here - more in the morrow.
    • This is the covering email response (all personal details removed) - the pdf with all the info is 8mb - too big to upload - I'll need to split it and redact it tomorrow. Dear, We write further to your recent correspondence. We note from this that you have submitted a Request for Access pursuant to Article 15 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). We wish to confirm that the response provided below, and via the enclosed documents, concerns the Parking Charge referenced above. This data is provided on the basis that we note that you have already been identified as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in relation to the dates of 22nd August 2023 and 11th September 2023 and therefore we can be satisfied, to the standard required, that the data collected and processed in respect of that vehicle on that date is personal data pertaining to you. We can confirm that your name and address were provided by the DVLA on 26th August 2023. This data was provided as you were identified as the registered keeper of vehicle in respect of a breach of the parking terms and conditions that took place within Mary Street, Carlisle on 22nd August 2023 Parkingeye can confirm that we issued a total of 5 items of correspondence to yourself to date prior to any further recovery or legal action. The address used was the address as held by the DVLA for the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. As no response was received to any of the correspondence sent, Parkingeye contacted a tracing agent to obtain any potential alternative address. To which end, an alternative address for yourself was provided and further items of correspondence were sent. Please note, whilst Experian are a credit referencing agency, no credit check has been undertaken in relation to this Parking Charge. We only utilise their tracing service in order to obtain alternative contact details. For clarity, personal data sent to our tracing agent is done so via an encrypted transmission route, therefore we do not hold physical copies of the same. The categories of personal data we send to them is your name, address and vehicle details. As Parkingeye did not receive any response to the correspondence sent, we entered into legal proceedings on 8th January 2024 in order to recover the outstanding sum owed for the Parking Charge and further costs were incurred. We can confirm that your name and address were provided by the DVLA on 15th September 2023. This data was provided as you were identified as the registered keeper of vehicle in respect of a breach of the parking terms and conditions that took place within Mary Street, Carlisle on 11th September 2023 . Parkingeye can confirm that we issued a total of 5 items of correspondence to yourself to date prior to any further recovery or legal action. The address used was the address as held by the DVLA for the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. As no response was received to any of the correspondence sent, Parkingeye contacted a tracing agent to obtain any potential alternative address. To which end, an alternative address for yourself was provided and further items of correspondence were sent. Please note, whilst Experian are a credit referencing agency, no credit check has been undertaken in relation to this Parking Charge. We only utilise their tracing service in order to obtain alternative contact details. For clarity, personal data sent to our tracing agent is done so via an encrypted transmission route, therefore we do not hold physical copies of the same. The categories of personal data we send to them is your name, address and vehicle details. As Parkingeye did not receive any response to the correspondence sent, we contacted our recovery agent in order to recover the outstanding sum owed against the Parking Charge. For clarity, personal data sent to our recovery agent is done so via an encrypted transmission route, therefore we do not hold physical copies of the same. The categories of personal data we send to them is your name, address and vehicle details. We can confirm, in line with s.(1)(h) of Article 15, that no automated decision-making or profiling, referred to in Article 22(1) and (4), has been undertaken in relation to personal data in this case. We note that Article 22 states as follows, “The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her”. We can confirm that you have not been subject to such a decision and that the processing falls outside the scope of Article 22. Any automated checks undertaken by Parkingeye in relation to ANPR data will only result in a decision not to issue a Parking Charge. Should the ANPR data we process indicate that a breach of the parking terms and conditions has taken place, any subsequent decision to issue a Parking Charge will require that data to pass through a substantial checking process that includes human intervention. Please note that the UK General Data Protection Regulation provides the following further rights:   •             The right to request from Parkingeye access, rectification or erasure of your personal data; •             The right to request from Parkingeye restriction of processing of your personal data; •             The right to object to the processing of your personal data.   Please note that some of these rights are not absolute and will only apply in certain circumstances. We will review each request we receive in respect of these rights. We do not have to agree with a request but if we refuse, we will still contact the data subject within one month to explain why. You also have the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). For further information, please refer to the ICO website, www.ico.org.uk. You may also seek a judicial remedy. For further information about your rights as a data subject, plus information about the categories of data we process, data transfers, the legal basis for our processing, and the purposes of processing, please visit: https://www.Parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy/   Yours sincerely,   Parkingeye Privacy Team
    • Thanks to you both.  I'd guessed it was CCTV, but the creeps who sneak up and take photos of the vehicles also use time stamps. BTW TT98, what you have received is not a fine, you can never be clobbered for the statutory consequences of not paying a fine - because it isn't one.  It's an invoice, and they have the same right to sue you as you have the right to sue anyone as a layperson who doesn't pay you for an invoice.  It's just a simple civil matter about a "debt".  Nothing worse.
    • As Dave has already said there are Consideration periods and Grace periods to be taken into account when private parking is involved. Before looking at that the first thing is to check whether your PCN complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which regulates the private parking rogues. They were very good at twice quoting from the Act but they missed Section 9[2][e] (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; They didn't do that so they have not complied with the Act which means they cannot pursue you as the keeper only as the driver which they said themselves when quoting Section 9 [2][f] . In addition they are supposed to quote the period of parking but instead given the times of arrival and departure of your vegicle which is not the same thing.Obviously their times  include the driving times to the parking place plus later from the parking place to the exit. So removing those times from your 15 minute overtime and that doesn't include extra minutes when your car was held up by stopping for pedestrians or other cars passing in front of you as well as returning the shopping trolley and possibly  queueing to get out of the car park. And that doesn't include children and or disabled people causing greater differences betwen their times and the actual parking period which is what is specified in the Act. It is perfectly possible that as much as fifteen minutes longer  could be taken in a larger busy car park compared to their spurious ANPR times. You may have noticed sating well done to you in his post. that was for two reasons. The first for giving us all the necessary details surrounding the alleged breach. the second well done was for not appealing a possibly giving away who was driving. As you the keeper is not responsible now for paying the PCN and Highview do not know who was driving they will have difficulty if the take you to Court since Courts do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person which is quite right considering that quite often family members often drive as opposed to the keeper as can loads of other people drive your  who have valid insurance motor policies. So don't worry even if you have to go to Court as the odds are in your favour and that's before we see the contract and Witness Statement which often give more ammunition against them.
    • Thanks. The way the court system works, with fixed costs included in the claim, means you have nothing to lose by fighting on. Give in now and you pay them their claim. Lose in court and you pay them their claim.  So why not fight? In fact were you to lose in court it's highly likely that the judge would increase the amount by their £25 hearing fee but then decrease it by disallowing the £70 Unicorn Food Tax they have just made up and added to the claim. It was however a mistake not to park in the far bay. But what about their negligence in allowing a disgracefully-parked vehicle to stay where it was and prevent your BB access? In any case, there is a long, long way to go before court.  A lot of these companies start a court claim in the hope that the motorist will wet themself and give in.  If a case is robustly defended and a decent Witness Statement produced, a good 20% of the time they drop the cases.  We'll support you all the way.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
×
×
  • Create New...