JD Parking Consultants Ltd PCN - 35 Hallgate car park Doncaster DN1 3NL

[silverfox1961]

It can't hurt to contact the DVLA to find out who did access your data. It must have been JD parking as they had the contract for the car park. Where they 'might' fall down on the DPA issue is that this was trespass rather than a parking infringement and the onus for chasing should have been made by the landowner as they are the only ones that can take court action for trespass. They may have given permission to JD to chase all infringements. It gets complicated!

 

 

In any case where the signs say No Parking or Permit holders only, you cannot be bound by any terms on the signage because you are not a permit holder nor a legitimate parker.

 

 

IF any court action is mooted, a counter claim for the DPA breach may just stop them in their tracks however, I don't see them taking action as they can't afford to lose.

[paulwlton]

I understand the arguments and I too believe that JDP requested my details.

 

As I’ve already stated JDP cannot request anyone’s data because they are not registered with the ICO. Furthermore, by processing data without registration they commit a criminal offence pursuant section 17(1) DPA (this changes after the 25th May 2018)

 

Im going to submit an application to the ICO for an assessment pursuant section 42 DPA 1998 on whether JDP are complying fully with the ACT and in particular requesting personal data whilst in criminal breach.

 

The offence is a strict liability offence under section 19 of the Act. There is no defence and the director of the company is prosecuted.

 

Section 13 DPA 1998 provides that if there is a contravention of any requirement of the Act then anyone suffering damage or distress as the right to compensation.

 

Remember there’s lots of ways to skin a cat.

 

But then again I may be talking rubbish.

 

[Please upload your images as a PDF - dx]

[DragonFly1967]

I understand the arguments and I too believe that JDP requested my details.

 

As I’ve already stated JDP cannot request anyone’s data because they are not registered with the ICO.

 

Paul.

 

You seem to be labouring under the very mistaken belief that PPC's operate under the same rules as everyone else. Let me set you straight on that. THEY DO NOT! They make the rules up to suit themselves, and even when they have their own rules, they break them if it suits them. And neither ATA, the DVLA or the ICO do a damn thing about it. You might as well be 'leaking' in to the wind if you catch my drift.

 

As Ericsbro has already touched on however, anyone can get anyone else's details from the DVLA as long as they fill in the correct form, send in their £5 fee and have a "reasonable cause" for the request. The form is DVLA V888, which should not be confused with V888/2 or V888/3. They do not need to be registered with the ICO to obtain that data.

[ericsbrother]

you are jumping the gun, get the actual data from the DVLA before you do anything else and you wont trip yourself up. Theh cat upon what evidence is provided rather than assuming anything. Even if they have broken the law obtaining your keeper details doesnt remove a contractual obligation if one existed (it doesnt in this case) so you might still lose a court claim if you relied on only that for your defence.

 

Aas siad befotre, get all your ducks lined up before letting rip and be in no hurry to do so,let them waste their time and money chasing you in the meanwhile.

Edited May 21, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[paulwlton]

I'll post the letter off to the DVLA and the section 17 DPA request to JD Parking today.

 

A photograph of a vehicle registration is personal data and obtaining, sharing of the same is processing. JDP is a Data controller therefore must be registered with the ICO.

 

Should I appeal this or just let them chase me for payment?

 

As advised earlier on the thread only only a small amount is recoverable for trespass.

 

Parking charges and the penalty rule

 

97. ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it lost nothing by the unauthorised use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying.

 

On the contrary, at least if the £85 is payable, it gains by the unauthorised use, since its revenues are wholly derived from the charges for breach of the terms. The notice at the entrance describes ParkingEye as being engaged to provide a “traffic space maximisation scheme”, which is an exact description of its function.

 

In the agreed Statement of Facts and Issues, the parties state that “the predominant purpose of the parking charge was to deter motorists from overstaying”, and that the landowner’s objectives include the following:

[ericsbrother]

NOOOOO do not contact JD at this point, have you not taken in any of the advice given?

WAIT until you have the answer form the DVLA before yiou do or say anything to anyone else.

 

 

As for a picure of your reg plate being personal data, sorry mate, not on this planet it isnt. Waht they do with the info is but as you dont know who obtained your keeper details you dont know who to go after. You are not doing yourself any favours with your gung ho determination and may well end up winning a battle that gets you nowhere but lose the war. Let the parking co's have pyrrhic victories, we want all of ours to have some substance.

 

As for wittering about trespass, again you are missing the point.

 

Star to read exactly what people are putting down rather than applying an interpretation to it that isnt supported by evidence. Trespass is down to the LL, not the parking co. That is why any claim for monies for breach of contract when the offer is one of a prohibitive nature will fail.

 

Again this is made clear here and in dozens of other postings.

 

 

So advice YET AGAIN

 

Write to the DVLA and ask who abtained your keeper details and then sit on your hands until yu get a response that answers that request DO NOT do anything else

Edited May 21, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[paulwlton]

I understand that theres no contract and that ONLY the landowner is able to sue for

trespass.

 

In relation to vehicle registration numbers being personal data, Please read para 6.

 

 

https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/consultation-responses/2015/1431796/ico-response-to-dclg-parking-reform-consultation.pdf

[ericsbrother]

you are determined to go ahead and jump the gun and that is up to you, my advice doesnt change and that is you get the info from the DVLA and nothing else unti you have it. You will find out that the DPA has nothing to do with this matter and if it wasnt for their rubbish signage you would be in bother. However, I will warn others reading this thread that it is unwise to follow this path and fire off all your ammunition in one salvo.

 

I still caution people to take it one step at a time, as the parking co has to prove their claim let them put their heads above the parapet.

 

As for para 6 of the ICO consultation document, that is not the law, it is an interpretation for best practice and not a prohibition of capturing images. The guidance refers to "what other information is available" so that depends on what else the company has on you. By applying for your keeper details it clearly comes under the DPA but you dont know yet whether it was them who applied for your details. the law doesnt cover third parties so clearly in this respect. So it is the disclosure that it what makes the ICO interested so again I say wait and see who asked for it in the first place and then consider the next step.

Edited May 21, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[paulwlton]

I am not jumping any gun.

 

I have sent a letter to the DVLA to find out who requested my details and I’ve sent JDP a legal request pursuant section 24 DPA to provide further information as they are not registered with the ICO.

 

Please advise what I’ve done wrong so far!?!

 

Regards

 

Checked again on the ICO register and J D Parking are registered.

 

Ill chill now and wait for the DVLA to get back.

[ericsbrother]

why on earth have you contacted the bandit co when the advice given quite strongly was not to do this.

you shouldnt have done this as you will give away half of your advantage over them, they will now know that 1) you havent done your research properly so take you for a fool and 2) you have forewarned them of your approach.

 

If you go to the ICO with this you cnat get any money out of them whereas if you use the info you get to take them through the courts for a number of thisng then you can still make a complaint to the ICO and it will have more strength because of the courts decisions in your favour, The ICO may very well order the company to tighten its procedures ( they wont now you have made a boo-boo) and that is the Alternative resolution - you cant then sue them becuse you have had satisfaction of your complaint.

 

I hope that this thread doesnt turn into a textbook demonstration of how not to do it so please, if you want help and advice bear in mind timescales. Some things have to eb done quicly ( acknowledgement of court claim) and others slowly. you have 6 years to get to the bottom of this starting on the date you get a reply from the DVLA. If they contact you in the meanwhile, even better, they may well get something else wrong.

Edited May 22, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[paulwlton]

The letter I sent to JDP was a separate issue to the parking notice and in no way did I refer to the parking charge I've received.

 

I'll post what the DVLA send.

 

Regards

[ericsbrother]

yes, but they will look up your address and find they have a reference to it.

[paulwlton]

DVLA emailed me yesterday, they're sending details of the requester by first class post, so should receive it today or tomorrow.

 

Question for ericsbrother could the charge be contractual in nature??

 

Regards

 

I don't like this judgment!

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27029

 

Para 14, 15 of the judgment below makes sense.

 

http://nebula.wsimg.com/07b493fc1a4ea8623a8fe73dce20287a?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

[ericsbrother]

the Ransomes case is very differetn to almost all of the ones we deal with because it is about a commercial contract and a veryconvoluted way of assignment of the debt. Have you read not only this but the background to it? They arent allowed to get keeper details form the DVLA so rely on using the operator details written on the lorries and ban them from entering the port if they dont pay up. That is unlawful but as yet no-one has got an injunction to stop them as it all takes too long when you have 32 tons of fresh goods going rotten.

I don't like this judgment!

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27029

[paulwlton]

Ok, ill read up. Is this judgment relevant?

 

http://nebula.wsimg.com/07b493fc1a4ea8623a8fe73dce20287a?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

[ericsbrother]

not to you unless you were driving a lorry at the time

[paulwlton]

But its regarding a parked car.

 

http://nebula.wsimg.com/07b493fc1a4ea8623a8fe73dce20287a?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

[ericsbrother]

the defendant won that one so what are you on about? make it clear so we can advise rather than throwing in apparently random court decisions and asking for opinion on them

[paulwlton]

If all you intend to do is lambast, please do not post on my thread again. If you'd took notice I stated that par 14, 15 of the stated judgement made sense.

 

Its a parking charge, it is not a big issue to me whether it goes to court or not. I have issued claims against bigger fish than a small parking company and had fun doing so.

[honeybee13]

Ericsbrother is an excellent advisor and has helped many people to win cases against these people. It would be unfortunate for you if you lose him.

 

 

HB

[ericsbrother]

It all makes sense but I fail to see the point you are trying to make so it is relevance that is the issue. We are 62 posts into a thread and it is still as clear as mud as to what you want from this forum.

 

We know you have won another case but you are still dancing in a minefield so tell us WHY the 2 cases you raise are relevant in your mind and in the second one explain why this differs from hundreds of others. It is always worth citing previous cases as being persuasive but at the moment we havent got anywhwere near that far, you have only just left the starting gate so pace yourself

Edited June 8, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[paulwlton]

I know very little at the moment, so I continue to read up and garner knowledge on the matter.

 

For the charge to be contractual the driver must have been issued with a permit which allowed the contractual right to park. If the driver then failed to display the permit I believe the charge would have been enforceable.

 

JD Parking have stated in email exchange that the charge is payable under contract, this is contrary to the second case.

 

I should receive the information from the DVLA today.

 

I do intend to issue a claim under the data protection act, but I need to be confident of all my arguments.

 

In addition to my last post as I read it the contract is formed when the permit has been issued and not when the vehicle enters the land.

[ericsbrother]

you are still ahead of yourself, at the moment they arent doing anything and that is what matters. Permits? only applies to those with them so if you dont have one you cant be bound by the conditions of issue.

 

your response from the DVLA will help determine whether you have a good case for claiming damages from one or more of the companies you have named in your post. That is all you shoudl concentrate on for the time being.

 

As for the rest of what they say, it is all wind and water at the moment, they certainly arent suing you so calm down and get everthing lined up before you fire off a volley. that is why we advised you not to engage with them until you know more about them adn what they have actually done.

 

It would suit you best if they did start a claim against you as you could eat them for breakfast and then use that win to get double the amount in damages when you sue them but I really doubt as though they will

[paulwlton]

Thank you.

[dx100uk]

Thread tidied

23 unnecessary quotes of the full previous post removed