BPPM ANPR PCN - failed to pay - part reg only - even though I paid??!!

[paulwlton]

 

On the 03rd July I paid to park for 2 hours in Greasborough Road, Rotherham car park.

 

Today I've recieved a parking charge for £100 because of the "failure to pay for parking" They have a photo of my car entering at 14:28:19 and departing at 15:58:35.

 

The letter is threatens enforcement action, including county court proceedings for failing to pay the charge.

 

I was certain id paid for parking and as i was taking my daughter to have her nails done for her school prom she was also 100% certain id paid.

 

I've just checked the glove compartment of my car and there the parking ticket is.  I paid the £1.00 parking fee to park between 14:29 and 16:29

 

I think there maybe a breach of the new data protection regulations in this case????

 

Regards

Paul

 

 

 

[ericsbrother]

Ok, you are in the right so far so name the parking co and we will advise on the next steps.

Also, who owns the land? a stiff letter to them complaining about the useless bandits they have allowed to run amok on their property causing peopel to have a cloaim against themt for the behaviour of the parking cowboys may well get them to tell the parking c to wind their greedy necks in.

 

i bet that the payemtn system uses ANPR so requires to to enter car reg as well as cash into the machine. can you check the details on the ticket and let us know if the reg entered  is correct?

Edited July 19, 2019 by ericsbrother

[paulwlton]

The reg is entered correctly.

The company is called Bank Park Management Ltd.

[dx100uk]

where does it say FINE paul please on any of their paperwork?

 

please complete this so we have all the correct info to properly advise you.

 

also scan up the NTK/PCN to one multipage PDF bothsides

read upload

 

dx

 

 

 

[ericsbrother]

 

they are IPC members so gulity by association of not caring about honestly and that is borne out by the fact the company hasnt registerd properly with Companies House.

 

You would have thought that an accredited trade association that is run by two solicitors would have done some due diligence checks before accepting a crook as a member fo their upright organisation.

This means that any appeal to them will fall on deaf ears.

 

Scan up the NTK so we can pick holes in that as well. remove your personal details plus any of their reference numbers QR codes barcodes etc. but leave on the dates and times for both the event and the date of the notice.

 

 

[paulwlton]

Looks like my mistake. The new machine requires the full reg to be entered now, whereas before, only the first two numbers were required. I entered the first two numbers.

Edited July 19, 2019 by paulwlton

[paulwlton]

Scan.pdf

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by paulwlton

[paulwlton]

Scan.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

 

Hi Paul,

Interesting that you say you only received the Notice yesterday when the PCN is dated the 12th. To be compliant it should have reached you by the 17th. Also they have used a PO Box number for their address-another no no.

[brassnecked]

If they try Court with this they are going to lose, they are going to send ever more srident and demanding letters, invole a tame DCA who has no power to do squat.  Time to act is when they send a LBA from a tame solicitor then rebut them with an acidic letter that as paid and still have ticket they will look very silly if the progress further.  Others will no doubt expand on the correct course of action to take.

[paulwlton]

5 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

 

Hi Paul,

Interesting that you say you only received the Notice yesterday when the PCN is dated the 12th. To be compliant it should have reached you by the 17th. Also they have used a PO Box number for their address-another no no.

 

I thought the same. Date of sending is 12th, but recieved on the 19th.?

 

 

The ticket to prove I paid within a minute of parking .

ticket.pdf

Edited July 20, 2019 by paulwlton

[lookinforinfo]

The date question is I suppose not really relevant in your situation as you paid so you owe nothing. it does therefore call into question Bank Park's record keeping accuracy. Your ticket clearly shows you paid; their Notice clearly stated that you haven't paid. So they had no reasonable cause to access your data from the DVLA.

I have added below the most recent DVLA Instruction manual to the parking companies on how they should operate which will probably give you a better idea of how to approach the DVLA with your complaint. The manual also confirms that the DVLA do require them to adhere to the now defunct OFT's Guidance on Debt.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455973/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf

This is a very interesting pamphlet which if the mods read this might decide its worth putting in the Library.

[paulwlton]

I only inputted the numbers in the reg not the full registration. This is their get out clause. 

 

Just sent off the appeal.

 

 

I recieved a NTK on the 19th July 2019 from Bank Park Management Ltd, which claims that on the 03rd July 2019 I failed to pay for parking.

 

I appeal the charge on the basis that I paid for parking between 14:29 and 16:29.

 

As you have no legitimate interest in continuing to process my data pursuant GDPR I request that you delete my personal data off your systems.

 

 

[brassnecked]

Might have been better not to have appealed, you will lose, then they will think you are on their hook to be reeled in with some threatograms, and added Unicorn Food tax.

[paulwlton]

Ive made it clear that they've no lawful basis to continue to process my data. They have no legitimate reason or purpose as there was no parking breach. If they send threatening letters ill issue a claim for compensation under Article 82 GDPR for the distress they cause.

[lookinforinfo]

Their get out clause  would only work if it stated on the PCN that you failed to input all your registration. But their PCN didn't state, it said only that you  didn't pay. You have the ticket that says otherwise. Therefore their records are inaccurate and so in breach of GDPR. The pamphlet I added in  post 12 has this to say at

 

A5.1. The Customer shall at all times comply with Law and Industry Best Practice in carrying out its obligations under the Contract. 

and

 

D1.7. The DVLA is satisfied that providing the data to the Customer for the Reasonable Causes is compliant with the first and second principles of  the DPA in that it is collected and provided lawfully and fairly for the for the purpose of supporting the lawful use of vehicles.

But  Bank Park did not comply with the first and second principles. I note that the DVLA wash their hands of any blame attached to themswlves  providing data as they have transferred the act of being a Data Controller from themselves to the parking company in all cases. 

You will probably find that if you wait fro a reply from Bank Park they may hide behind their registration number and not agree to quash your ticket. Whereas a complaint to DVLA [as well as asking thabout the date that requested your data was requested ] might encourage them to see sense more quickly.

As an aside I am surprised that you didn't ask for a payment from BP of between 250 and 500 pounds for their breach when you appealed.

Edited July 20, 2019 by lookinforinfo

[paulwlton]

The requirement was to enter the full registration  prior to parking. I messed up, so their system flagged up non compliance and the process of contacting the DVLA was valid in their view.

 

The breach of GDPR would take effect if they continue to process data after being informed that theres no legitimate reason to do so.

[lookinforinfo]

I would have thought that as you paid for your parking up front that by them  contacting the DVLA claiming you hadn't paid for parking was when the breach of GDPR took place.If they continue to contact you re the ticket, that would be a further breach of the GDPR.

 

To illustrate your position there is the case some time ago regarding Baroness Walmsley and TFL. She paid the ticket and entered the wrong registration and ended up in the High Court where it was established that it is not the purpose of the scheme to penalise those who make a genuine error. A fact that should be well known to the parking companies since some of them will have lost in Court over the same situation. So as I said, the GDPR breach was theirs when they asked the DVLA for your data.I have included the relevant section below  from her case.

 

 

 

. 43. This interpretation of regulation 16 has the effect of reconciling the provisions of the Scheme as a whole with its purpose, which is to ensure that charges are paid for cars that enter the Zone and that those who fail to pay are penalised. It is not a purpose of the Scheme to penalise those who make a genuine error as to their vehicle's registration number. As has been seen, many people do make such errors and are relieved of penalty. It is and must always have been obvious to Transport for London that there were bound to be many people who would mis-state the registration numbers of their vehicles. For example, it is obviously easy to confuse the letter I with the numeral 1, and the letter O with the number zero, quite apart from the room for mistyping or simple mistake as occurred in this case. 4

[paulwlton]

Edited July 21, 2019 by paulwlton

[paulwlton]

Interesting judgment.

 

 

http://nebula.wsimg.com/bae7471710c27d4d03bc22c4486bd258?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Edited July 21, 2019 by paulwlton

[brassnecked]

Think the tack suggested by Lookedinforinfo, is a decent one, you paid, so no consequantial loss, the wrong entry is a trifle as per the TFL case, so if they tried court I'm sure there will be other ways to tolchock them and cost them more money for a vexatious case.

[paulwlton]

If they ignore my appeal and continue to pursue their case without any lawful reason I shall seek compensation for the distress they'll have caused and if they further ignore I shall issue a court claim under Article 82 GDPR. 

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry Paul I forgot to add the Case no myself on my previous post.

[ericsbrother]

they will reject your appeal because they want the money and that is that.

They will lose a court case as there are plenty of persuasive cases t be considered and they all hinge on the fact that you paid so were granted a licence to park and their pettifogging attempt to chisel you for more money  woudl fall in the "de minimis" rule and as they have used the wrong reason for saying you have breached the contract they cant go back and try again so they dotn ahve a cause for action

[paulwlton]

You're correct, they've stated I failed to pay for parking.