Your parking ticket may be unlawful

[JonCris]

Under the circumstances as they have provided data for the wrong reasons (Breach of (implied) Contract/Tresspass) send them a D10 withdrawing consent to process your data. However do state that they may only process your data if requested by the police or in an effort to combat fraud

[Fletch]

Under the circumstances as they have provided data for the wrong reasons (Breach of (implied) Contract/Tresspass) send them a D10 withdrawing consent to process your data. However do state that they may only process your data if requested by the police or in an effort to combat fraud

 

What's a D10? Where do I get that?

[JonCris]

It's in the templates library. It a letter telling them to stop processing your data as is your right under the DPA 1998

[TideTurner]

Let me get this straight.

 

Anybody can set up a Limited Company or other, and providing they provide 'reasonable cause' for needing the information, they have access to a national database!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I'll be on the phone on Monday.

 

SAR or Freedom of Information Act application won't suffice.

 

Who have you given my personal information to.

 

Did you take into consideration your legal obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998?

 

How the flick can this happen?

 

This shows a complete lack of control, a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, and exposes anybody with a number plate to threats, intimidation and danger.

 

ROAD RAGE!!!

 

This is a disgraceful abuse of power in the name of raising money - at no expense to the taxpayer!!

 

Disgusted.

 

Annoyed.

 

Want answers and details of all records they have provided and to whom, and under what authority.

 

Tide

[Fletch]

Under the circumstances as they have provided data for the wrong reasons (Breach of (implied) Contract/Tresspass) send them a D10 withdrawing consent to process your data. However do state that they may only process your data if requested by the police or in an effort to combat fraud

 

 

 

Dear Sir/madam,

Regarding my vehicle: Silver Renault Scenic Vehicle Registration Mark-XXXXXXX

 

I am the Keeper of a silver Renault Scenic XXXXXX. The vehicle is registered at the above address. I am extremely concerned by recent events.

In early March 2007 I received notification of a parking charge in respect of an alleged parking contravention on private land in Croydon on 20/2/07. I understand the land in question is jointly owned by Lidl and Fitness First. I have been contacted by a company called Athena ANPR Ltd of PO Box 420, Hounslow, TW3 9EL who claim to be pursuing costs in respect of the alleged ‘contravention’ which took place on 20th February 2007.

As this matter had nothing to do with me I ignored the first letter. On receipt of the second I wrote to Athena (Thursday, 22 March 2007). I received further unwarranted and harassing demands for monies culminating in a spurious County Court demand which could only be designed and intended to intimidate and harass since it has no legal standing.

 

It is apparent that the firm Athena ANPR obtained my details upon submission of a V888/3 under Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. Athena state that they are an agent acting with the consent of the owner. The V888/3 is part of a multiple application- requesting the personal data of keeper’s of 34 other vehicles.

 

However, it is equally apparent that the information should not have been provided by DVLA for the following reasons:

 

1. Part 3 of the V888/3 states that “Keeper details required to issue PCN/Reminders as keeper’s (sic) violated car park restrictions.”-I have researched the matter and it appears there are no legally enforceable car park restrictions at this car park. Any ‘violation’ therefore could only refer to trespass or breach of contract. When a driver of a vehicle drives into a car park and parks his/her car he/she is implied to accept the offer for parking on the terms of the offer or (the parking company or land owner). A contract is formed and therefore the contract can be broken (or breached) or an offence of trespass may arise. In either of these cases identifying the keeper of the vehicle will not advance the landowner’s cause. They need to prove who was driving the vehicle at the time, not who the keeper was!

 

2. I understand that parking at this particular car park is free. If an individual overstays and occupies a space that could be used by another vehicle there is no consequential loss to the landowner. Thus if parking is £1 an hour and you overstay by an hour then the damage is £1. For damages to be justifiable and enforceable by the courts they must be a reflection of actual loss. A demand for £170 which is what I received is no more than an attempted extortion and DVLA is aiding and abetting that offence.

 

3. Athena do state in the application that “offences are captured with an automatic camera system and we are therefore unable to always accurately provide the make and model.” Clearly from an evidential point of view this is highly unsatisfactory and may lead, as in this case, to mistakes being made. My vehicle is described as a white Nissan when the vehicle registration document (and your computer records) clearly shows it is a silver Renault.

 

4. Athena ANPR do not appear on your list of companies approved to access DVLA information via an electronic link. If they cannot be trusted to access this information electronically how is it that information can be passed (without verifying the accuracy of the application) on written request?

 

 

The V888/3 information contains a signed declaration to the effect that “the information given in this application is correct to the best of my knowledge. Any information obtained will not be used for any purpose unrelated to this enquiry. I am also aware that it is an offence under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to unlawfully procure information or to sell personal information.”

 

On 22 March 2007 I wrote to your Fee Paying Enquiries Section asking whether Athena had supplied you with sufficient information to establish ‘reasonable cause.’ I stated that I realised that ‘reasonable cause’ is not defined in the Act but that one would presume that this requires some positive demonstration of proof on the part of the person requesting the information, (Proof that they are acting on behalf of the landowner, an outline of facts, a declaration that the information will not be misused etc) and not just an automatic presumption on the part of DVLA that the information should be furnished on receipt of £2.50. I received no satisfactory response to this question.

 

The letter I did receive agrees that 'Reasonable cause' is not defined in legislation and requests are considered on their merits. However, I have learned that no cross-reference is made between the details on the V888/3 to ensure that they tally with the details held on your data system. How then can a matter be considered on its merits?The website Directgov.org states “The Agency has to evaluate very carefully the reasons for the request as well as the way in which the information will be used before releasing the information .”

 

Your letter also states that “New measures for all those making manual enquiries were introduced from 1 November 2006.” “Full details on the release of information, what constitutes 'reasonable cause', the complaints procedure and the new process for making enquiries are available at http://www.direct.gov.uk/Motoring/Owning AVehicle/Advice On Keeping A vehicle.”

That web-page has shown an error page for the entire period I have sought to access it!!!

 

I would like you to fully investigate this matter and provide me with assurances that safeguards are in place and will be applied to protect the personal data held in respect of registered keepers of motor vehicles.

 

It has been pointed out to me that “Vehicle keepers are advised that their details may be released in a number of lawful circumstances on the front of the V5C and in more detail in the INS 160 leaflet that accompanies each V5C.”

 

However the Data Protection Act also makes provision for the withdrawal of consent

6. - (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

 

The Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

© falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

 

I have been so harassed and have been in receipt of false and misleading documents.

 

Section 10 Data Protection Act

Under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act I am entitled to object to my personal data being processed in a particular way. In the circumstances outlined above the particular processing has taken place without justification and has caused upset and anguish over and above annoyance levels. The processing and disclosure of my personal data has caused me to suffer unwarranted distress and I request that you cease processing/providing my data in such circumstances within 21 days. I also require that you respond to this letter which you should regard as notice under S.10 Data Protection Act within the same 21day period. The continued processing of the said data in the manner referred to in this notice would violate the fourth, first and sixth principles of The Data Protection Act 1998. You may however,continue to process such data as is necessary for the administration of justice; for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person under any enactment; for the exercise of any functions of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department; or for the exercise of any other functions of a public nature exercised in the public interest by any person (Police, Revenue & Customs etc)but NOT to assist a private parking company in the making of unwarranted demands.

 

 

Respectfully yours,

Fletch

[221b]

Hi there

 

Initial query before I post fuller details.

 

Is it only Local Authority PCNs that can be challenged? I had one in a railway station car park recently (from a private firm called Meteor Parking Services) under (possibly) dubious circumstances...

 

Thanks all!

 

221b

[demon_x_slash]

No, private firms, read here.

[Howard0181]

I would like clarification please

 

1. If a local authority PCN has a Date of Notice and gives a time and date where the car was left and refers to this time and date as the contravention. Is this PCN lawful? There is no reference on the PCN or the payment slip to a Date of Issue.

 

 

 

2. If a section of Single Yellow has no TBar at both ends (there is one at one end) is this lawful?

 

Also, the section of Single Yellow is about 30 yards. About 8 yards of the 30 there is no yellow line. Another 5 yards has yellow lines (faint) going towards the centre of the road. and the remaining 17 yards has normal single yellow. Does this render the PCN invalid?

[Howard0181]

Also, is there any time limits on when a car can be clamped. I was given a PCN and was clamped about 2/3 minutes later (the above alleged contravention).

[221b]

No, private firms, read here.

 

Thanks Demon_x_slash!

 

Have now posted on PePiPoo under their private parking tickets thread...

 

221b

[patdavies]

I would like clarification please

 

1. If a local authority PCN has a Date of Notice and gives a time and date where the car was left and refers to this time and date as the contravention. Is this PCN lawful? There is no reference on the PCN or the payment slip to a Date of Issue.

 

 

 

2. If a section of Single Yellow has no TBar at both ends (there is one at one end) is this lawful?

 

Also, the section of Single Yellow is about 30 yards. About 8 yards of the 30 there is no yellow line. Another 5 yards has yellow lines (faint) going towards the centre of the road. and the remaining 17 yards has normal single yellow. Does this render the PCN invalid?

 

 

No

 

No

 

Yes

[Howard0181]

Pat

 

Thanks for answers. Much appreciated. I was ticketed and then clamped about 2/3 minutes later.

 

As I had to pay the circa £200 charge to the local authority the way forward for me is to make a "Clamp/Removal Representation" to the local authority. I have the form. I have to make the representation within 28 days. They have to respond within 56 days. They can accept or reject. If they reject it goes to PATAS.

 

My question is should I give all the legal evidence and photos at this stage?

 

Regards

Howard

[patdavies]

Howard, in your own thread you have typed out the details of the PCN. From what you have typed, this would appear to be a lawful PCN

[Howard0181]

Pat

 

Thanks for reply. So what you are saying is that the PCN does not have to have a "date of issue" as opposed to a "Date of Notice".

 

I am confused with your answer above which says the PCN was not lawful.

 

Regards

Howard

[Guest xipetotec46]

A date of issue can also be called a date of notice, if the PCN has 2 dates it is valid the date can also be referred to as "SEEN ON" which would be the contravention date, it appears the details you gave in the other post are valid and that you should challenge the PCN on the Lines and signs issue i.e only 1 T bar... line missing... etc. pats post was correct she was mislead into thinking there was only one date but there were in fact 2 dates they are named different than what you think they should be but still valid therfore enforceable. go down the lines and signs route

[Howard0181]

Thanks for your reply. Much appreciated.

 

I did not realised that a Date of Notice is the same as a Date of Issue.

 

I will therefore make represenations to council for

 

a) no T Bar

and

b) incomplete Single Yellow Lines.

 

What case law and regulations should I use.

[patdavies]

Pat

 

Thanks for reply. So what you are saying is that the PCN does not have to have a "date of issue" as opposed to a "Date of Notice".

 

I am confused with your answer above which says the PCN was not lawful.

 

Regards

Howard

 

I was confused by the way that you had worded it. I apologise if I misled you.

 

A PCN has to have two dates in the main body of the ticket (ie the tear-off payment slip doesn't count as part of the PCN for this purpose)

 

One date is the date of notice or date of issue.

 

The other is date seen or date of contravention.

 

When I mis-read you post above, it appeared to me that the PCN had a single date. It was only when I saw what you had typed out on the other thread that I realised that it did, in fact, have two dates.

[patdavies]

Thanks for your reply. Much appreciated.

 

I did not realised that a Date of Notice is the same as a Date of Issue.

 

I will therefore make represenations to council for

 

a) no T Bar

and

b) incomplete Single Yellow Lines.

 

What case law and regulations should I use.

 

The regulations are the TSRDG 2002 (Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions). These describe the appearance of single and double yellow lines and specifically state that there can be no variations.

 

Case law is Davis v Heatley (1971) Because by s.642 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind.”

[Howard0181]

Pat

 

Thank you so much for your reply. Much appreciated.

 

I will attach the photos and mention the case law and regs in my representations to Waltham Forest.

 

Regards

Howard

[Guest xipetotec46]

So go get your money back Howard, and keep us posted at every step.

[Fletch]

How do I scan in a document?

[Fletch]

Dear Mr Fletcher,

Re: PCN 30524 Vehicle Reg No. XXXXXXXXX

 

Thank you for your letter dated 21/04/07.

 

 

Lidl UK GmbH 19 Worple Road Wimbledon London SW19 4JS

Telephone: 0208971 4812 Facsimile: 0208971 4703

Date: 2 May, 2007

 

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your loyalty as a customer and to apologise for any inconvenience the parking charge notice may have caused.

 

Lidl values your custom and we are constantly working to provide the best possible service to our customers, both inside and outside of our stores.

In order to ensure that adequate parking spaces are available at all times to all of our customers, Lidl has employed a third-party contractor (Athena) to monitor and control our car parks. Thus far, this service has proved reliable and effective in reducing car park abuse and in freeing up parking spaces for our customers.

 

As you are aware, your name and address was furnished by the DVLA and they will only issue registered keeper details to approved companies. They also carry out periodic audits on these companies.

 

Although not explicitly stated in the Code of-Practice, the DVLA is aware that companies use the camera technology to enforce parking restrictions and issue tickets through the post rather than placing on the vehicles.

The car park is a private property hence the restrictions in place are legally enforceable. We have ensured that sufficient signage is displayed throughout the car park clearly stating the conditions of use.

 

Nevertheless, we have addressed your issue with Athena and as a gesture of goodwill, instructed them to cancel the charges.

We look forward to seeing you again in our stores.

 

 

Registered Office: 19 Worple Road, London SW19 4JS, Registered in England No.FC017929. VAT No. GB 614 798 608

[Fletch]

Mr Templin

Lidl (UK)

19 Worple Road

London

SW19 4JS

 

Dear Sir :

Complaint re Athena ANPR Parking

Vista Centre, 50 Salisbury Rd, Hounslow, Middlesex, TW4 6JD

 

I refer to my earlier letter, dated Saturday, 21 April 2007, concerning this matter.

 

Thank you very much for your response letter dated 2 May, copy enclosed.

 

Unfortunately this explanation does not go nearly far enough to address the very serious issues raised. As stated the actions of Athena ANPR, your agents, have caused me considerable harassment, alarm and distress. They may also have committed offences under the Data Protection Acts. You have not issued a statement disassociating your company from the actions of this firm. Nor have you offered any form of restitution for the harassment, alarm and distress caused.

 

 

The Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

© falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

 

It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

 

I have been so harassed and have been in receipt of false and misleading documents, intended to cause harassment, alarm and distress. Lidl UK may be jointly liable for the unlawful actions of Athena ANPR.

 

Please respond to my complaint stating what actions you intend to take to remedy this situation no later than May 11th.

 

I reserve the right to report this matter to The Metropolitan Police, Croydon Trading Standards and/or The Office of Fair Trading or to take civil action against Athena/Lidl.

 

I understand from reading local press and literature that problems have existed for some time in respect of Lidl’s contracts with private parking companies. It is common ground that these tickets are a huge [problem]. They are unlawful, unenforceable and collected by lies on the back of lies and perpetuated by deception and malpractice.

 

Dealing with the points you raised in your letter:

1. “Your name and address was furnished by the DVLA.” The information given to DVLA was incorrect. The name and address. furnished by DVLA was in respect of a Silver Renault Scenic not a White Nissan.

2. “They carry out periodic audits on these companies.” I will request an audit of Athena.

3. Although not explicitly stated in the Code of Practice, DVLA is aware that cameras use the camera technology to enforce parking restrictions and issue tickets through the post rather than placing on their vehicles.” I have asked what ‘parking restrictions’ apply to the car park in question. Neither you nor Athena has clarified this point.

4. “The car park is a private property hence the restrictions in place are legally enforceable.” Again, what ‘restrictions’ ? Are you talking about a civil tort of trespass or a civil contract between the driver of the vehicle and the owner of the private property or his agent?

5. Your reference to “conditions of use” seems to imply a civil contract. When a driver of a vehicle drives into a car park and parks his/her car he/she is implied to accept the offer for parking on the terms of the parking company or land owner. A contract is formed and therefore the contract can be broken (or breached). In either of these cases identifying the keeper of the vehicle will not advance the landowner’s cause. They need to prove who was driving the vehicle at the time, not who the keeper was! I understand that parking at this particular car park is free. If an individual overstays and occupies a space that could be used by another vehicle there is no consequential loss to the landowner. Thus if parking is £1 an hour and you overstay by an hour then the damage is £1. For damages to be justifiable and enforceable by the courts they must be a reflection of actual loss. A demand for £170 which is what I received is no more than an attempted extortion. The unjustifiable means used to attempt to distort this demand constitute an offence under the Administration of Justice Act.

 

 

On Thursday, 22 March 2007 I wrote to Athena ANPR requesting the following information:

 

1. Please provide me with a copy of the regulations pertaining to the car park. –Not Supplied.

2. Can you tell me if your company has signed up to the DVLA’s Voluntary Code of Practice for Private Car Parking Enforcement? Now answered.

3. Can you please supply me with a copy of the V888/3 form you sent to DVLA in respect of my vehicle. Now supplied via DVLA.

4. Can you tell me if you are a Member of the British Parking Association? Not answered.

5. Please supply me with the name and address of your solicitor and the County Court at which you intend to take out the action. Please provide me with sufficient time in which to lodge a counter claim. Not supplied.

Other than to cancel the “PCN” on your instructions I have received no response from Athena ANPR- which seems to suggest that they know they have been caught out employing sharp practices. I intend to pursue this matter. I would like you to bring what pressure you can to bear to ensure that they respond to my reasonable requests.

 

I do not consider you have addressed my issue with Athena as your letter suggests and I see no ‘goodwill’ in cancelling an unenforceable demand. Once again I invite you to disassociate your company from the actions complained of and offer restitution for the severe inconvenience and distress caused.

 

 

Yours Sincerely

Fletch

[yilly911]

Hello all,

 

Can anyone spot anything wrong with this ticket? Any help would be greatly appreciated. The date of issue notice date of contravention part seems to be ok.

 

[Guest xipetotec46]

Can anyone spot anything wrong with this ticket?

 

The dates are compliant, but the "YOU ARE THERFORE" is non compliant although it has not been tested yet, the YOU bit is aimed at the driver but the act is directed at the Reg keeper or the owner who may be the same person, also it should say "Within 14 days begining with the date of this notice", or "28 days beginning with the date of this notice", otherwise you could look at it every day and still have 14 days or 28 days, despite having the dates there.

Contest it all the way and your council will have to pay back all the money taken from PCN's since the type of PCN was first issued. I myself am contesting a PCN's validity on the "YOU" wording but my PCN as the "Within 14 days begining with the date of this notice", and "28 days beginning with the date of this notice", although the nearly correct wording is on the back of the PCN it should be on the front of the PCN and not mixed up with all the unimportant wording, if parliament felt that section 66 3 of the 1991 RTA wasn't important then they would have said it can go on the back of the PCN, however it is extremely important enough to warrant a front cover standing on every PCN in every borough.

 

Perhaps someday can point you some past case which describes this better than what I can, however. Good luck