Highview Parking breach of GDPR

[stu007]

This is just my opinion I think you would go after both Highview but also GroupNexus as Highview are now part of Group Nexus so IMO that makes GroupNexus also responsible for the actions of Highview.

 

[brassnecked]

Yes go for them both, however did the GDPR breach occur after the Nexus Group swallowed Highview?  Not that it should make much difference as they take on the liabilities as well as the assets.

[Tony P]

I may be incorrect.  I don't think the owner of shares of a company, who is not a Director, can be actioned against or responsible for the activities of that company. A company is a separate legal identity, ring fenced from its owner(s).

 

In which case an action against Nexus Group would fail - and open up the possibility of a claim for their costs.

[stu007]

No one has mention the owner of shares of a company but since you mention it if they are registered on Companies House as a Director of the Company then actually yes you can as well as naming the company you can also specifically add that Directors name as well.

 

In this case Highview is now part of GroupNexus and you need to look at GroupNexus properly as Highview are now following GroupNexus Policies & Procedures therefore although it was Highview that illegally processed the OPs Data following the Policies and Procedures of GroupNexus 'Privacy Policy' which is on GroupNexus website.

 

Privacy Policy - GroupNexus

GROUPNEXUS.CO.UK

 

So the OP would name in any claim both Highview (first) and addition of GroupNexus  in the same claim because Highview are following GroupNexus Privacy Policy for Processing Data

 

Also of interest in the above Privacy policy link above in this case is look to the right of the webpage and there are further links and the ones of interest in this case are:

 

Data security policy - GroupNexus

GROUPNEXUS.CO.UK

 

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Policy Statement - GroupNexus

GROUPNEXUS.CO.UK

 

Surveillance Camera Commissioner's Code of Practice - GroupNexus

GROUPNEXUS.CO.UK

 

 

 

 

[Tony P]

Sorry to go on, and at length!  I disagree but will prolong the topic as I strongly feel, and wish to emphasise, action against C P Plus Ltd, trading as Group Nexus, would fail due to no direct cause of action and could result in a costs order against the OP.

 

Group Nexus is not a legal entity but a brand name of CP Plus Ltd (as #25 FTMDave) but there is a company GroupNexus Ltd within the group, a dormant company - probably formed just to reserve the name (see #19 stu007) as well as purporting to be a registered trade mark (see their website). Therefore any proposed action against 'GroupNexus Ltd' should be against "CP Plus Ltd trading as Group Nexus".

 

Highview Parking Ltd is a separate legal entity, distinct from its owners. It is 'owned' within a group of 12 companies. It is a subsidiary company of CP Plus Ltd through two intermediate companies (with other parent  companies above). Each company is a legal entity separate from the other(s), albeit under common control, Registered Office addresses and possibly common Officers (I've not bothered looking).

 

Even if sharing addresses, officers, policies, etc I still think the OP's proposed action against other than Highview Parking Ltd would fail (and expose him to a costs claim) as the other companies were not involved and no cause of action, unless one or more permitted the obtaining of data, knowing it would be misused, through a collective KADOE licence - and here I am out of my depth!

 

To settle another point (#27 brassnecked), CP Plus Ltd acquired Highview Parking Ltd and 'Ranger' in 2015.

 

For any numbers geeks (Site Admin, please delete if an inappropriate distraction)  -

More than 75% of Highview Parking Ltd's shares are controlled by Ranger (Holdings) Ltd - actually 92.82% controlled within the group (Companies House)

More than 75% of Ranger (Holdings) Ltd's shares are controlled by Ranger Plus Ltd - actually 92.82% controlled within the group (CoHo)

More than 75% of Ranger Plus Ltd's shares are controlled by CP Plus Ltd - actually 97.71% controlled within the group (CoHo)

More than 75% of CP Plus Ltd's shares are controlled by  CP Plus (Trading) Ltd - actually 97.71% controlled within the group (CoHo).

More than 75% of CP Plus (Trading) Ltd's shares are controlled by Trade Topco Ltd - 100% controlled within the group (CoHo)

Trade Topco Ltd's shares are controlled from within a Trust or Trusts. Ultimate control is E A Green, S I Langdon and other related parties acting in concert (CoHo).

[FTMDave]

I've just come across a post made by, er, me, which I'd completely forgotten about, with links to previous GDPR victories:

 

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/08/cp-plus-lose-data-protection-claim.html

 

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/parking-awareness-services-to-pay-400.html

 

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/05/motorist-awarded-900-for-data.html

 

It seems pretty easy to bring a claim.

 

I don't see how they can have any defence at all for pursuing you for overstaying a one-hour limit when in reality the limit was longer and you hadn't overstayed.

[FTMDave]

I see the clock is ticking and nearly a month has passed.  Any reply from the fleecers?

[JackD13]

Apologies, I have been away with no access to emails. I haven't had any response from the fleecers but the DVLA responded with the following:

 

Thank you for your email of 21^st July about the release of information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) vehicle register.

 

The DVLA takes the protection and security of its data very seriously and has procedures in place to ensure data is disclosed only where it is lawful and fair to do so and where the provisions of the Data Protection Law are met. The Agency must strike a balance between ensuring the privacy of motorists is respected while enabling those who may have suffered loss or damage to seek redress.

 

I have investigated this matter with Ranger Services Ltd on behalf of Highview Parking Ltd who made the request to the DVLA for the registered keeper data for vehicle registration number xxxxxx. I have had sight of their evidence to show that at the time they had reasonable cause to make their request. I have also been advised that this matter remains outstanding and is in the hands of their Collection Agent.

 

While seeking to ensure that vehicle keeper data is released only in appropriate circumstances, it is not a matter for the Agency to decide on the merits of individual cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between motorists and private car park enforcement companies. The DVLA cannot regulate any aspect of a company’s business. Any representations should be made to the landowner or his agent. The DVLA releases information on the basis that reasonable cause is demonstrated.

 

To help ensure motorists are treated fairly when any private parking charge is pursued the DVLA discloses vehicle keeper information only to companies that are members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association (ATA). The purpose of requiring a company to be a member of an ATA is to ensure that those who request DVLA information are legitimate companies that operate within a code of practice that promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures that there is a clear set of standards for operators.

 

The company in question, Ranger Services Ltd on behalf of Highview Parking, are a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) which is an Accredited Trade Association for the parking industry. The BPA’s code of practice is published on its website at http://www.britishparking.co.uk  under the heading “Approved Operators Scheme”.  If a member of this scheme does not comply with the code of practice, it may be suspended or expelled, during which time no data will be provided to it by the DVLA. If you feel that any of the practices used by the company do not comply with the BPA’s code of practice, you may wish to contact the BPA via email at https://portal.britishparking.co.uk/compliance/LogComplaint or by post at Chelsea House, 8-14 The Broadway, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 3AH.

 

I trust I have explained matters but, if you remain unhappy with the service you have received, you can write to our Complaints Team and I have provided a link to our complaints procedure for your reference:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/driver-and-vehicle-licensing-agency/about/complaints-procedure

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Actually, just checked my junk folder and Nexus had replied requesting my registration 

 

I have sent them this so will wait for a reply

[stu007]

That is some response from DVLA

 

So DVLA investigate and get a response from Ranger Services on behalf of Highview the matter remains outstanding and is in the hands of a collection agent.

 

Really it is in the hand of a collection agent Highview are not doing themselves any favours as they must have stated that for DVLA to put that in their response to you so let them keep digging a bigger hole for themselves

[brassnecked]

They are definitely digging themselves deeper for DVLA to confirm Highview have further passed on the data to a third Party compounding their Breach and maybe allowing a GDPR against Ranger Services also.

[FTMDave]

You did send a SAR to Highview, right?

[JackD13]

No - it was explained to me that they had been absorbed by Nexus. I also explained the steps I had taken and it wasn't mentioned that I had to SAR Highview, unless I missed this?

[FTMDave]

On 14/07/2022 at 20:47, JackD13 said:

 

• Complain to the DVLA
• SAR Highview
• Once highview have replied to the SAR then send a letter before claim??

I think it was a mistake not to SAR Highview. 

 

However, I'm away from home until Monday and have little time to deal with this. I'll try to contribute tomorrow evening. 

[FTMDave]

There's nothing wrong with having a discussion on the forum, indeed I for one have been corrected on several occasions and have increased my knowledge as a result.

 

However, we need to reach a conclusion for the OP so I've flagged the thread up to the Site Team.

 

To me, the OP has been in dispute with Highfield Parking who still exist.  They have changed their address to GroupNexus' address, but they are still active  https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05541862

 

I see GroupNexus is a trading name of CP Plus Limited, bottom of page at  https://groupnexus.co.uk/  They are a completely different company.

 

It seems to me that Highview are the legal entity to pursue.

 

Similarly VCS and Excel share an office and are part of the Simple Simon Charlatan Group, but they are separate legal entities.  Indeed Caggers have won cases when Simon tried to sue as VCS for an Excel car park, for example.

 

Reading Fruitsalad's point about getting a move on, the OP could use Highview's disappearing website and the confusion thus caused as a genuine reason for delay.

[FTMDave]

From feedback I've had from other Site Team members, you need to SAR Highview Parking Ltd and while you're at it also Ranger Services Ltd.

 

Ranger's behaviour is not as bad as Highview's, as they didn't start a vexatious court claim, but they did apply for your details without doing any due diligence so you can go for them as well.  They are part of Group Nexus.

 

If you can, get that done today by 1st class post.  Get the usual free Certificates of Posting.  Stick in some I.D. otherwise they will use lack of I.D. as an excuse not to reply

 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

Any update?

[stu007]

Just bumping this to see if the OP can give us an update?