Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It’s truly inspirational to think their £460,000 “Partygate” performance piece has not yet reached its final form. That will come as early as today, when a number of the officers tasked with not spotting Boris Johnson in a series of piss-up photos get signed off with stress.   Only when they’ve been on the sick for two years, then retired with a full pension but also returned to a high-paying station desk job, will Partygate have attained the British establishment gold standard.   - Marina Hyde
    • Hi allets, CCA to whoever is the debt owner today, let us know their response, or lack there of, for further guidance   Or you could read up other like threads and the advice will be the same, so you'll know what to expect   BT
    • OK, let's get stuck into these damn fleecers.  Building on last night's version, new bits in red.   LFI, can you check I've understood the POFA bits properly that you suggested (4.  NO KEEPER LIABILITY)?  Thanks.     IN THE COUNTY COURT SHEFFIELD    CLAIM NO: XXXX   HX PARKING LTD  (CLAIMANT) VS XXX (DEFENDANT)   Date: 3rd May 2022   Witness Statement   1. I, Mr XXX, of xxx am the Defendant against whom this claim is made.   1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX.   1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.   INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE   2. I confirm that i was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma Leisure Centre, Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (bank statement proof exhibit 1).   2.1. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   2.2.  In their Witness Statement opposing my set aside application the Claimant includes a site plan showing the position of their signs and a close up of a sign to make it look like it is featured in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest billboard in world history.   2.3.  The reality for the motorist is completely different.  I attach photos, some from Google Earth but most taken by myself, which show what a motorist sees when approaching the site in daylight (exhibit 2).  There is no sign at the entrance.  The car then drives past a gym and a cinema without encountering any signs.  When then parking in the car park outside McDonald's once again there is dearth of signage.  Admittedly a motorist who perhaps came out with binoculars might just about be able to make out signs in the far distance mounted on various buildings.   2.4.  The driver visited the site around midnight.  I further attach photos taken at night from the McDonald's area (exhibit 3) and defy whoever is representing HX Parking at the hearing to point out the signs the driver should have read.  There aren't any.  I have not doctored these photos in any way or deliberately not photographed visible signs.  There simply are no visible signs.   2.5.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?   2.6. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it is likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.   2.7.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.   UNFAIR TERM   3.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit 4) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.   3.1.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.   3.2.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not.    3.3.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.   NO KEEPER LIABILITY   4. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.     4.1.  The Claimant's PCN does not comply with Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  POFA states that a parking period must be stated and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit.  All that takes time.   4.2.  To transfer liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper, in their PCN the Claimant must include the wording at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)" but they have not. That in itself makes it non-compliant.   LOCUS STANDI   5.  Looking at the contract with the landowner which the Claimant included when opposing my set aside application, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of who actually signed.   5.1.  There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow court action in pursuit of non payers.   In section 11 which is like an addendum it states "the Company shall provide parking control" but does not state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   6.  After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.   6.1.  The Claimant is supposed to comply with the law and the IPC Code of Conduct and they have done neither.  The new government Private Parking Code of Practice draws attention as well to s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   ABUSE OF PROCESS   7. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.    7.1.  As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice).    7.2.  Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued” (exhibit 5).   7.3.  Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.    7.4.  Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ‘’Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’’   7.5.  In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ‘’It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''    7.6. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   Statement of Truth    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.   I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • Hi dx100uk. I didn't know about the above. Do I request a new CCA from Cabot? Are you  also suggesting that I stop payments to Cabot until this is sorted out?  I have since then built up a good credit rating from the reference agencies  and would not like to turn this sour again. It took some time to get straight. Allets.
    • ah! FCA their new name (well 15yrs ago) for the FSA.   interesting they helped here this must mean they have had a series of complaints then.   dx      
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Web based payslips via 3rd party - DPA issue?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3101 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi, not sure if this is the right section to post - mods feel free to move to a more suitable section if necessary.

 

Any advice on the following issue(s) appreciated.

 

I work for a large employer and we are told that in a couple of months our payslips will no longer be printed on-site. Our BACS wage payments will continue to be processed by our employer's accounts dept as usual, however our payslips will no longer be physically printed. We will have access to all payslip information via a 3rd party website using a personal / work email address and password (apparently the 3rd party are used by other companies already and use proper web access encryption etc).

 

Initial indications are that employees will be able to opt out (either due to no web access at home or for personal reasons) from this on-line payslip system and continue to receive traditional printed payslips as we do now, however our employer expects the number opting out to be the exception rather than the rule. If opted out then it is not clear if the payslip information will still be sent to the 3rd party or not - opted out employees will receive a printed payslip but not receive access to the 3rd party on-line system.

 

Now,

 

With regard to DPA requirements, does our employer have the right to pass our name, hourly rate, salary, NI number and tax code to this 3rd party. I do not think we have signed anything on our employment contracts permitting personal detail disclosure to 3rd parties and there is nothing (yet) within the employers HR procedures regarding this.

 

Before the system goes live we will have slips to complete with an email address to be used for the sytem and a 'tick box' to agree to the system - will this cover the company regarding DPA?

 

 

Thanks for any observations and input.

DD maker

Link to post
Share on other sites

You raise two points so i suppose one should ask which are you bothered about? the website will be secure and access will be nigh on impossible for those not entitled to see it and the smae goes fro printed slips, they are not typed out one at a time but automated so it will take and effort to intercept the data.

There is always a risk that any information can get misused and a case in point was in the news last week with the gaolling of a group of identity thieves who included someone who worked for Santander. Now, the chances of a crook working for the data handlers is probably less than there being one working in your payroll office so the risk to your data is no greater.

I see the problem as being one of change- we all hate change for its own sake and you undoubtedly see this one as being unnecessary. Your organisation could have expalined their thinking better and shown what the advantages are for their business but the actual operation isnt in breach of the DPA although I'm not sure that the opt out part will be left free to be used by all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the answer is yes, the employer may do this and in fact does not need your consent. The DPA is not an absolute bar on using personal data, it requires fair and lawful processing, and administration of payroll is fair and lawful processing.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My employer is also about to do this, and did not even give us the choice, so it will cost us to print them!

 

me second employer is also conducting background checkes and is demanding a cipy of my bierth certificate to be held by experian, which im not thrilled with...any ideas if I can avoid this? thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi bluestar83

 

Regarding the payslips, make sure that they have plans in place for when an employee leaves the company - will they still have access to their payslips online? If a mortgage provider (or any other organisation) requires copies of payslips will your employer be able to print them off for you (if the organisation doesn't accept your printed copy)?

 

Regarding the background checks / birth certificate, I believe that some jobs require it but I don't know a lot about that - wait for someone more knowledgeable to answer that one.

DD maker

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bluestar83, if you are already employed it would be rather difficult for your employer to force this upon you. The thing about background checks is they are supposed to be used only where there is a necessity to do so or for statutory reasons but many employers now do this as they are basically too lazy to have proper interviewing and farm out all of their HR requirements to other companies. Whether you have to cooperate would be down to the job role and how long you have been employed = less than 2 years and they can boot you out. Fred Goodwin passed all of the banking industry backgound checks and he managed to lose so mch money that if RBS was owned by Scotland it would have bankrupted the country. He id this becuase he sacked all of the compliance officers because they kept telling him he couldnt legally do what he was doing but he isnt in jail so perhaps you can break the law with impunity of you aim high enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...