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

[lookinforinfo]

Not sure why the ntk refers to JD Parking Consultants as the "creditor"

 

any idea?

 

Hi Paul good to see you back.

Wow have they picked on the wrong guy to issue a speculative invoice to [aka Andrex].

 

They are creditors under POFA Schedule 4 , 1 [2] [1b] “the creditor” means a person who is for the time being entitled to recover unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle;

 

Debt Recovery Plus are a bunch of unregulated low lifes posing as debt collectors so pointless contacting them or even the "creditor" at this time. The tactic is to wait until you have all your ducks in a row then give them both barrels and it prevents identifying the driver [they only know you as the keeper at the moment].

 

We can help by picking holes in their NTK if you could post it up suitably redacted.

Don't know if you are from around Doncaster but we would need photos of the Notices in the car park and the ticket machine if there is one-they usually contradict each other.

 

Other things- check with Land Registry to see who is the actual landowner [parking companies do not always get permission from them to operate but some agent or other] and check with the COuncil under the Town and Country advertisements and anpr regs.

 

Most parking companies do not bother with them but not to have those permissions is illegal-not unlawful but illegal.

 

Therefore as you know their so called contracts with motorists are worthless.

 

You didn't say how long you stayed there and what the parking company claim you did wrong. And what time were you there.

 

It is usually the parking company who asks the DVLA for your data under their membership of the BPA.

 

It's worthwhile reading other threads on this section to see how the land lies. The Parking Prankster will give you more info on what you are dealing with-it's not a level playing field but nor were the banks.

[lookinforinfo]

THE BPA and IPC members run rings round the DVLA. Civil servants are no match for the crooks that run the car parking companies but they do know how to cover their backs. The DVLA make great store about how robust their controls are to monitor these companies. In reality any company that is a member of either ATA is nearly almost always provided with the info they asked for. The DVLA is so dumb or ignorant that they supply the IPC members despite the fact that the IPC Code does not comply with the Law.

The DPA is breached when the parking companies write and ask for details on a keeper when no good reason for asking. The DVLA still issue them with the data requested. It is a pity that it is just the parking company liable for the breach and not the DVLA as well.

 

The BPA and IPC both have Codes of Conduct that have to be adhered to. All the parking companies say they do but most of them rarely comply with all the requirements. Neither ATA nor the DVLA ever seem to check that they are compliant .

[lookinforinfo]

Strange that the DVLA are providing data to Debt Recovery who are not members of BPA on behalf of JD parking who are members of BPA.

 

If Paul has got the details the right way round is there a Data Protection query involved? Where do Debt Recovery get the right to ask for our details when they are not a party to any parking infringement that may or may not have occurred.

[lookinforinfo]

It's nothing personal Paul.

 

They do it to everybody including the ICO.

They prevaricated with them for a couple of years on one subject so expect to engage in letter tennis with them for that length of time too I would imagine.

 

If only they were as "robust" in protecting our rights as they are in covering their own shortcomings of which there are many.

[lookinforinfo]

That has been known since 2011 at least but nothing seems to change-

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dvla_selling_personal_information

 

[You may already know about this judging by the name of the petitioner!]

 

We are being cash cowed as the MP below pointed out but the DVLA carry on swatting away all complaints as if it was the first time they had ever heard that particular complaint.

 

They are well aware that their system is not fit for its purpose but carry on raking in the money regardless.

 

God knows what we can do when an MP pointed out what is wrong with the current way of working all those years ago-

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/writev/dda/dda09.htm

 

After reading the MPs complaint you will realise what you are up against.

 

I am sorry that both urls I posted are not highlighted. All I can suggest is that you copy the first one and then rejoin the word "information" on the first url and then rejoin the U and the K to make UK in the second one.

 

I am sorry that both urls I posted are not highlighted. All I can suggest is that you copy the first one and then rejoin the word "informatio" on the first url and then rejoin the U and the K to make UK in the second one.

 

If that still doesn't work then paste-what do they know +dvla+DPA+Stuart walton into the search section CAG or Google to get the whole thing.

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks dx100uk. I am new here so didn't realise that.

[lookinforinfo]

No response hitherto from the DVLA. Methinks the DVLA are protecting the cowboys.

 

Protecting themselves more like.

[lookinforinfo]

Don't expect too much from the DVLA. I have seen dealings between them and the ICO and quite frankly a dead bee has more sting than the ICO.

They did to the ICO the same as they are doing to you. They takes ages to reply and if they do it will be to answer a completely different question to the one asked.

[lookinforinfo]

J D Parking Consultants Ltd ICO registration number- Z1617300.

 

Am I correct in thinking that only JD Parking have the right to ask for PWs data in this instance as their signs advise the motorist that they may contact the DVLA. Whereas DR+ have not given

any prior notice that they intend to ask the DVLA for ones data.

[lookinforinfo]

Certainly anyone who has been on this motoring Forum for a while knows that none of the major parking companies told the truth when they became members of the BPA or the IPC. Not a single one complies with all the requirements in order to be able to form a contract with motorists. This of course means that these crooks have no reasonable cause for asking for our data. Yet one gets the impression that the DVLA appears not to know. And it isn't as if it is a secret. Every week we see motorists having their ticket quashed because of failures by the parking companies to comply with the Law.

 

As ignorance of the Law is not an excuse one wonders whether the DVLA knows but carries on regardless [ perhaps because they need the money] which means they are unfit to administer

the release of our data.

[lookinforinfo]

Or they don't know about the lies in which case they are unfit to administer the release of our data.

How the DVLA have got away with this for so long is amazing. They are an embarrassment. It is a reflection perhaps just how weak the controls are over the DVLA.

[lookinforinfo]

We'd all love to see that Paul.

[lookinforinfo]

You haven't really given enough information to be able to make as appropriate comments as would help.

 

My initial observation is that PoFA was introduced in 2012 and only now are they deciding that the DVLA are processing our data under the wrong section. And the DVLA never got it right from the start.

 

The ICO 

Consent is only appropriate if you can offer people real choice and control over how you use their data, and it can help to build trust and engagement. But if you cannot offer a genuine choice, consent is not appropriate. If you intend to process the personal data anyway on another basis, asking for consent is misleading and inherently unfair.

You must also be able to stop processing on request. If you need to continue to process the personal data even after consent is withdrawn, consent is not appropriate.

If you are processing the personal data of children under 18, you can still consider asking for consent. However, sometimes using an alternative lawful basis will be more appropriate and provide better protection for the child.

 

And this

Can we change our lawful basis?

You must determine your lawful basis before starting to process personal data. It’s important to get this right first time. If you find at a later date that your chosen basis was actually inappropriate, it will be difficult to simply swap to a different one. Even if a different basis could have applied from the start, retrospectively switching lawful basis is likely to be inherently unfair to the individual and lead to breaches of accountability and transparency requirements.

 

 

To my mind the DVLA have never got to grips with the meaning of  "reasonable cause" especially when dealing with the bunch of crooks that are the main parking companies. Also the DVLA  seems to accept any old tat that the rogues provide them with as a reason for sending our data without as much as a query. They rely on the Code of Conduct of those other well known scammers-BPA and ISC. And at the moment neither of their codes comply with PoFA nor the Private Parking Code of Practice But the good old DVLA bashes on totally oblivious to the situation they are in. 

 

Time and again we see VCS for instance having their cases at Liverpool airport, Bristol airport and every other airport they cover because of  airport Byelaws. Do the DVLA know about these? If so why do they continue to send our data to other motorists for exactly the same reason.

And where is the reasonable cause when the crooks send in requests for data on residents parking in their own bay or on roads covered by the RTA? One hopes that they are just incredibly useless rather than involved with the scammers.

 

[lookinforinfo]

At the moment the Law and the Codes of Practice of the scammers are out of kilter. I wonder if the DVLA will ever notice............