Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm removing two posts here – one because it refers to "… All from the same ethnic background" and the second one referring to the fact that the customer was Spanish. The first, particularly by king12345 has a strong racist tone about it and is completely unwelcome here.  king1 2345 has been here long enough and knows very well that this is not what we do. ==============================================================================   In terms of the building and insurance problem, it certainly sounds if you are being treated very badly and we would be very happy to help. Unfortunately I find your story is rather unclear – probably because there is a lot of narrative and I'd be grateful if you could clarify your story and in particular breaking down the insurance job and the rest including giving their values. Do you know if the insurance money has been paid to the customer or is the insurance company simply waiting for some kind of approval. You say that the insurance company has signed the job off and so this suggests to me that they are satisfied but what worries me is that they may already have paid the money to the customer who is merely withholding it from you rather than authorising the direct payment of the insurance money to you. Your story needs substantial clarification please. Finally, does your customer own the property? If you are not sure then you should consult the land registry website to ascertain the owner of the property
    • update:  Tried with new micro filter and still no difference in the speeds.  Called plusnet and they sent this 🤪 although looks like there was interference in the line which i never picked up   
    • Hi dx100uk   He is the information you asked for.   OC: Capital One    Type of debt: Credit Card    When taken out: 29/10/2017   Current owner: Capital One    Defaulted date: Hasn’t Defaulted    Outstanding sum: £156.52   ———————————————————————   OC: Vanquis   Type of debt: Credit Card    When taken out: 21/05/2018   Current owner: Vanquis   Defaulted date: 31/05/2019   Outstanding sum: £355.00   ———————————————————————   OC: Ocean    Type of debt: Credit Card    When taken out: 09/09/2018   Current owner: Ocean   Defaulted date: 07/06/2019   Outstanding sum: £318.00   ———————————————————————   OC: Instant Cash Loans T/A Payday Express   Type of debt: Payday Loan   When taken out: 22/01/2014   Current owner: Instant Cash Loans T/A Payday Express   Defaulted date: 04/06/2014   Outstanding sum: £492.00   ———————————————————————   OC: NatWest   Type of debt: Current Account    When taken out: 05/08/2003   Current owner: NatWest   Defaulted date: 30/04/2016   Outstanding sum: £468.00   ———————————————————————   OC: British Gas   Type of debt: Utility Gas Account   When taken out: 01/08/2015   Current owner: British Gas   Defaulted date: 06/09/2018   Outstanding sum: £712.00   ———————————————————————   OC: British Gas   Type of debt: Utility Electric Account   When taken out: 01/08/2015   Current owner: British Gas   Defaulted date: 06/09/2018   Outstanding sum: £819.00
    • Thanks DX re counterclaim. Just to clarify regarding witness should I just put one on the N180 and at court just take a witness statement from partner?  
    • I am hoping someone can advise me regarding my salary. I work as an emergency response driver for a private medical transport company. I work 6 x 24 hour shifts on call(total of 144 hrs) followed by 2 rest days(48 hrs). I work from my home address, with a company vehicle parked outside. During my six on call shifts, I must be available to respond to any task given to me (by phone-call) within a certain time. As you can imagine, while on call I am very limited to what activities I can take part in. Due to the nature of my role and the need to respond within 30 minutes to 90 minutes I am somewhat tied to my home. Obviously I cannot consume alcohol, go for family meals, go shopping etc. Even while attending hospital appointments, popping to the shop I must wear my uniform, take the vehicle with me and be contactable and ready to respond. It has been brought to my attention that on call time is now classed as working time if you must be at the disposal of your employer during that on call time.   Is that correct and if so, should I be paid at least the minimum wage while on call. I am currently paid an annual salary of £22,000 for being on duty an average of 6,570 hours per year which would put my hourly rate at well below the minimum( not including annual leave).   Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
  • Our picks

paulwlton

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

Recommended Posts

 

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

 

 

 


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by ericsbrother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reg is entered correctly.

The company is called Bank Park Management Ltd.


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by paulwlton

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Scan.pdf

 

Edited by paulwlton

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

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
Posted (edited)
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 by paulwlton

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
 
 

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

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

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.


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by lookinforinfo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

bae7471710c27d4d03bc22c4486bd258?AccessK

Edited by paulwlton

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

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

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. 


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ...?


×
×
  • Create New...