Jump to content
paulwlton

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

Recommended Posts

well, DR+ are NOT the agents of the landowner and nor are JD parking

. The DVLA owe you a duty of care but they prefer to ignore this inconvenient fact.

 

A carefully constructed argument about the lack of quality control and the allowing of an UNINTERESTED THIRD PARTY may at least get DR+ banned from accessing anyones details in the future.

 

You have a case for suing DR+ for obtaining your details in breach of the KADOE agreement and processing it unlawfully ( passing them on) Knowing what the parking contract with LL says will determine if JD should also get the treatment.

 

I cant find an ICO registration for JD parking consultants so you will have to make further enquiries as to whether they are actually allowed to process data.

 

I suspect this is why they cant use the KADOE so look at the cases involving MIL and supposed parking debt buying and use that to your advantage

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many situations not revolving around parking a third party may have rights to take action or enforce their interests but in this case DR+ said they were acting on behalf of the landowner as their agent and that is patently untrue.

 

DR+may be the agent of PD but that doesnt automatically mean that they have the necessary permissions either.

 

This is where the DVLA do badly and try and cover up their terrible quality control. They only ask one of the bigger parking co's to show they have done things nicely once a year and take at face value what they are told rather than doing something like picking say even 5 access requests at random

 

and then asking not only the parking co for evidence they are fulfilling the requirements of the Act an their agreement but asking the motorist if they believe the request showed reasonable cause.

 

Now going on the usual stats 4 out of 5 wouldnt even get a response so it would be then necessary to consider carefully the 1 that did reply to the survey.

 

Winning an appeal or even beating off a court claim doesnt automatically mean that the parking co were wrong to apply for the keeper data but there are many circumstances where it never would apply and if an appeal is won on procedural grounds the the parking co would be wrong even if on another occasion they got it right.

 

The DVLA would lose millions in income, as would the parking co's so dont expect any changes in the near future despite a supposed tightening up of the privacy laws. Laws are there to protect money not people

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVLA will carry on regardless as they make money from the non GDPR Compliant relase of Keepe data. As a Quango they rgard themselves as beyond the law. Time they were tolchocked.


The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like other grand designs of governemnt they are too big to fail, they will ignore the law even when the ICO orders them to behave in a certain way. HMRC ad councils do it all the time, the NHS and govt ministers individually may get ordered by courts to take certain action but no-one sends them to prison for contempt of court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes DVLA are slippery as evidenced by their many appearances on Watchdog. They are good at removing entitlements and substituting others, so car driver loses car entitlement and gets full Motorcycle when he has never been near one in his life. Time they were brought to book


The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?




  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The part that I have highlighted in bold, I think it's not quite right.   I don't believe that if a consumer took a dealer to court, with the defect being a blown bulb, 25 days after taking ownership, they would win. Or else, people could just decide they didn't like the car anymore, put a knackered bulb in the car and reject it.   The severity of the defect does matter.   It needs to render the car not fit for purpose, not as described, or not of satisfactory quality. That's what defines whether a defect is really a defect or  not. Small but subtle point that needs to be clear to people reading the forum I think. Otherwise, people may think they can take a car back for any old reason.    
    • whatever it was you need the date and the rebate. then you enter that as a MINUS figure in the spready same as a PPI payment on the date they made it.  
    • Thanks dx, one more question 😕   the final payment I paid 6014.71 after 6 months, presumably because the ppi was front loaded and the loan was only 5000 that final payment included the rest of the total ppi (1174 added at the beginning)   if i got a rebate would it of shown on the statement as i cant remember from so many years ago!? 
    • Sangie5952   Thanks that has clarified what the ET1 form represents. We haven't made disclosures yet so I can include the relevant evidence then. Appreciate your help many thanks.  
  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
      • 0 replies
    • 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415585-30-day-right-to-reject-vehicle-casualty-report/
      • 57 replies
×
×
  • Create New...