Parking ticket irregularities
Discussion
My son was given a ticket for parking over the line in a private car park space. £100 reduced to £60 if he pays within 14 days.
The ticket was issued by Park Watch Limited, and shows their registered address and company No. 08798058.
It bears the logo of the British Parking Association (BPA) and says they are a member of BPA.
Checking BPA's website, Park Watch Limited does not appear on their member list. There is however another company, Defence Systems Limited (company No. 08047971) T/A Park Watch which IS a BPA member.
Both Park Watch Limited and Defence Systems Limited T/A Park Watch have the same registered office address.
Park Watch Limited has obtained my son's details from DVLA but this company is not a member of BPA or IPC which are the trade associations a firm must belong to in order to get this info from DVLA, as stated here: https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla
DVLA answered a general question from someone about Park Watch Limited's authority to interrogate DVLA for information here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/proof_that_...
The questioner asks about Park Watch Limited but the reply relates to a completely different company, Defence Systems Limited.
I have notified DVLA of a potential data protection breach and they are investigating.
I asked BPA what right Park Watch Limited have to issue tickets and to use the BPA member logo. They told me via email "Defence Systems Limited t/a Park Watch are a member of the BPA and the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme, and have been since 01/02/2013. Therefore, they can use both the BPA standard logo and the BPA Approved Operator Scheme logo."
This misses the point that one company cannot be another. These two are entirely separate legal entities and cannot share memberships, registrations, rights to interrogate DVLA for keeper information, etc.
Just because one uses the name "Park Watch" as part of their limited company name and the other uses it as a trading name does not mean they are the same legal entity.
I phoned BPA in response to this email and Esme there explained that Park Watch are part of Defence Systems Limited which is a member. That's incorrect.
Helen at Park Watch claimed this morning that Park Watch Limited uses the same trading name as Defence Systems Limited. That's as maybe, but I allege Park Watch Limited issued the ticket with no jurisdiction to do so as they are not a member of suitable body, and obtained information from DVLA by deception.
The shopping centre has signage which reads that their car park is patrolled by Defence Systems Limited T/A Park Watch, and the centre manager is looking into my concerns that tickets are being handed out by a different company which is not a member of an accredited trade association for parking management as it has to be to issue tickets and collect DVLA info.
Am I correct, or is there something I'm missing?
The ticket was issued by Park Watch Limited, and shows their registered address and company No. 08798058.
It bears the logo of the British Parking Association (BPA) and says they are a member of BPA.
Checking BPA's website, Park Watch Limited does not appear on their member list. There is however another company, Defence Systems Limited (company No. 08047971) T/A Park Watch which IS a BPA member.
Both Park Watch Limited and Defence Systems Limited T/A Park Watch have the same registered office address.
Park Watch Limited has obtained my son's details from DVLA but this company is not a member of BPA or IPC which are the trade associations a firm must belong to in order to get this info from DVLA, as stated here: https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla
DVLA answered a general question from someone about Park Watch Limited's authority to interrogate DVLA for information here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/proof_that_...
The questioner asks about Park Watch Limited but the reply relates to a completely different company, Defence Systems Limited.
I have notified DVLA of a potential data protection breach and they are investigating.
I asked BPA what right Park Watch Limited have to issue tickets and to use the BPA member logo. They told me via email "Defence Systems Limited t/a Park Watch are a member of the BPA and the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme, and have been since 01/02/2013. Therefore, they can use both the BPA standard logo and the BPA Approved Operator Scheme logo."
This misses the point that one company cannot be another. These two are entirely separate legal entities and cannot share memberships, registrations, rights to interrogate DVLA for keeper information, etc.
Just because one uses the name "Park Watch" as part of their limited company name and the other uses it as a trading name does not mean they are the same legal entity.
I phoned BPA in response to this email and Esme there explained that Park Watch are part of Defence Systems Limited which is a member. That's incorrect.
Helen at Park Watch claimed this morning that Park Watch Limited uses the same trading name as Defence Systems Limited. That's as maybe, but I allege Park Watch Limited issued the ticket with no jurisdiction to do so as they are not a member of suitable body, and obtained information from DVLA by deception.
The shopping centre has signage which reads that their car park is patrolled by Defence Systems Limited T/A Park Watch, and the centre manager is looking into my concerns that tickets are being handed out by a different company which is not a member of an accredited trade association for parking management as it has to be to issue tickets and collect DVLA info.
Am I correct, or is there something I'm missing?
Just posted on MSE: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php...
I'll have a look at the others, thanks.
I'll have a look at the others, thanks.
It sounds like you are onto something. The responses from the companies are the usual handwaving you'd expect, either the person on the phone doesn't understand how contracts and company names/structures work, or they are hoping it will all go away.
I imagine the DVLA will take some interest but might end up accepting it as an administrative error and alter the permissions. It might be worth enquiring which company employed the staff that were accessing the data.
I imagine the DVLA will take some interest but might end up accepting it as an administrative error and alter the permissions. It might be worth enquiring which company employed the staff that were accessing the data.
DJMC said:
Just posted on MSE: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php...
I'll have a look at the others, thanks.
Hope you read the various tread before posting. If not prepare to be flamed. I'll have a look at the others, thanks.
Do be prepared to do some research.
It’s interesting that they may have accessed DVLA without authority. It they did look on the parking prankster this is a data protection breach and you can claim damages normally about 250.
With regard to the notice if it came from Park Watch Limited, then as you say it came from Park Watch Limited. Defence Systems Limited can trade as Park Watch, but they cannot trade as Park Watch Limited. Under the Companies Acts “Limited” only be used by a Limited company.
Even if the notice was from Defence Systems Limited T/A Park Watch the notice must under the Companies Act contain both the legal name of the issuer registered office and company number.
Sounds as if you do not have a valid notice and the issuer had no right to access DVLA so maybe a nice 250 Christmas present as well.
MrJingles705 said:
Wonder if it matters than one company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the other.....
I run the check on Companies House (cost me £1) - Defence Systems owns the single share issued on Park Watch.
Could have saved yourself a pound:I run the check on Companies House (cost me £1) - Defence Systems owns the single share issued on Park Watch.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/0879805...
Top entry.
Your Dad said:
MrJingles705 said:
Wonder if it matters than one company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the other.....
I run the check on Companies House (cost me £1) - Defence Systems owns the single share issued on Park Watch.
Could have saved yourself a pound:I run the check on Companies House (cost me £1) - Defence Systems owns the single share issued on Park Watch.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/0879805...
Top entry.
(More to the point though, OP, given information, should probably have spotted this or considered it?)
MrJingles705 said:
Wonder if it matters than one company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the other.....
I run the check on Companies House (cost me £1) - Defence Systems owns the single share issued on Park Watch.
Yes it does matter.I run the check on Companies House (cost me £1) - Defence Systems owns the single share issued on Park Watch.
Both are separate legal entities even if one owns the other.
PurpleMoonlight said:
MrJingles705 said:
Wonder if it matters than one company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the other.....
I run the check on Companies House (cost me £1) - Defence Systems owns the single share issued on Park Watch.
Yes it does matter.I run the check on Companies House (cost me £1) - Defence Systems owns the single share issued on Park Watch.
Both are separate legal entities even if one owns the other.
Cause them as much grief as you can. If you can get a National or Local paper interested in the story there might be an opportunity to have them pay back all the illegally collected charges.
elanfan said:
I should take great notice of this one. PM is normally the great defender of the parking sharks so if he suggests there's something not right here you are onto a winner here!
Oops, my bad.Lest we forget, all this grief is solely because the OP's son couldn't manage to park properly.
PurpleMoonlight said:
MrJingles705 said:
Wonder if it matters than one company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the other.....
I run the check on Companies House (cost me £1) - Defence Systems owns the single share issued on Park Watch.
Yes it does matter.I run the check on Companies House (cost me £1) - Defence Systems owns the single share issued on Park Watch.
Both are separate legal entities even if one owns the other.
The only issue is the discrepancy between whats listed on the Ticket and what has been listed on the parking sign.. and I'm not sure that it amounts to much more than a technicality?
EDIT: And as PM just noted.... there is no dispute being made that, other than this, the ticket is valid.
MrJingles705 said:
Yes but if BPA - at their discretion - decide to automatically grant all subsidiaries of membership companies the same rights and obligations of their parent company (which is entirely within their remit to do as an organisation) then the DVLA/DPA issue is mute surely? Park Watch would be a BPA member and hence able to query into the DVLA.
The only issue is the discrepancy between whats listed on the Ticket and what has been listed on the parking sign.. and I'm not sure that it amounts to much more than a technicality?
EDIT: And as PM just noted.... there is no dispute being made that, other than this, the ticket is valid.
MootThe only issue is the discrepancy between whats listed on the Ticket and what has been listed on the parking sign.. and I'm not sure that it amounts to much more than a technicality?
EDIT: And as PM just noted.... there is no dispute being made that, other than this, the ticket is valid.
elanfan said:
MrJingles705 said:
Yes but if BPA - at their discretion - decide to automatically grant all subsidiaries of membership companies the same rights and obligations of their parent company (which is entirely within their remit to do as an organisation) then the DVLA/DPA issue is mute surely? Park Watch would be a BPA member and hence able to query into the DVLA.
The only issue is the discrepancy between whats listed on the Ticket and what has been listed on the parking sign.. and I'm not sure that it amounts to much more than a technicality?
EDIT: And as PM just noted.... there is no dispute being made that, other than this, the ticket is valid.
MootThe only issue is the discrepancy between whats listed on the Ticket and what has been listed on the parking sign.. and I'm not sure that it amounts to much more than a technicality?
EDIT: And as PM just noted.... there is no dispute being made that, other than this, the ticket is valid.
MrJingles705 said:
Yes but if BPA - at their discretion - decide to automatically grant all subsidiaries of membership companies the same rights and obligations of their parent company (which is entirely within their remit to do as an organisation) then the DVLA/DPA issue is mute surely? Park Watch would be a BPA member and hence able to query into the DVLA.
The only issue is the discrepancy between whats listed on the Ticket and what has been listed on the parking sign.. and I'm not sure that it amounts to much more than a technicality?
EDIT: And as PM just noted.... there is no dispute being made that, other than this, the ticket is valid.
You'd think that Park Watch Limited would be listed as a BPA member in their own right if the subsidiary thing applies, even if just to avoid being accused like this?The only issue is the discrepancy between whats listed on the Ticket and what has been listed on the parking sign.. and I'm not sure that it amounts to much more than a technicality?
EDIT: And as PM just noted.... there is no dispute being made that, other than this, the ticket is valid.
By the way, I may well feel that my son was an inconsiderate oaf by parking in the middle of two bays! I told him to pay it and get on with his life until I spotted the omission on BPA's member list whilst trying to contact them to check PW Ltd were a bona fide member.
Try adapting this and sending it to the shopping centre, works for me I got a £15 voucher out of one of these letters as well as my ticket long before the CPP could even read my appeal.
Dear Sirs,
Regarding a parking charge issued by your agents CP Plus (Hereafter CPP) Ref ********
Our vehicle made two visits to your site on 18: 57- 27/11/16 & 08:17 -29/11/2016, however your agents CPP have decided to show these two visits as one. I believe that these failures stem from the use of automatic number plate recognition in use by your agents, and these shortcomings of ANPR systems are well known, and widely reported. This has been confirmed using the tracking/recording equipment on the vehicle, neither time did it stay for anything near your two hour free parking time.
Your agents, CPP have clearly failed to act in a professional manner, and have shown a scant disregard for my personal data in processing it in this way.
Please note that your agents claim the vehicle was onsite parked for 13 Hours and 20 minutes, however the dates and times from ANPR camera do not tally and would equate to 37 Hours and 20 Minutes. It would therefore appear their ANPR system can’t even accurately report time between two cameras ‘ANPR hits’, further suggesting the system is inaccurate and not fit for purpose. Again you and CPP have failed in your duty of care to ensure this was accurate and true prior to making the application to the DVLA.
Another point is the Roadchef Website Parking Information which states that as of June 2015 (Figure i) the parking charge is £90, however CPP are claiming its £100. What do your onsite signs display? What is the charge? We would argue that this is further proof that accurate data production and capture is not something either organisation is good at.
Figure i
I would at this point like to remind you that you are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agents, CPP.
You have obtained our details from the DVLA when you have no right to do so.
I am of the opinion that you don't care if you have rights and perhaps rely on your victims believing that some contract with the Parking Management of the premises or even the landowner, allows you to apply parking terms on the car parking spaces at the premises.
Your involvement in your supposed parking management arrangements place on you an obligation to ensure that proper consideration is given to all the facts. Lax contractual assessment is not an excuse for a derogation of your duty.
It is widely known that managing agents often get a kick-back in commission for allowing predatory parking companies to take control of land. They have no other real interest otherwise.
Mere supposition is insufficient as to how you arrange these matters with the landowner's agent. Careful scrutiny of an actual lease would be required to confirm or refute your legitimacy in even taking on a contract for parking management, or as it turns out, mismanagement. You have therefore failed in the duty of care necessary in your collection and processing of my personal details.
Access to the DVLA database for my personal details was unwarranted and unlawful due to the fact that you had no rights to operate on the land without the appropriate authority and subsequently access my data.
I am therefore submitting a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office about your misuse of personal data and now make a claim against you for punitive damages to the extent of £750 for the wrongful application for, and misuse of my information from the DVLA. This is a serious matter and one which is both stressful and degrading.
Separate to that complaint to the ICO another complaint will be submitted to the DVLA about your conduct.
An amount of £750 for the damages is also claimed for wrongful application of, and misuse of the data from the DVLA. This is already adjudicated on as being reasonable as evidenced by the case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199.
To prevent this matter being taken to court I require payment within 14 working days from 2 days of the date of this letter. Failure of this will result in a court claim being instigated and consequential separate costs being added for the added expense.
Yours sincerely
Dear Sirs,
Regarding a parking charge issued by your agents CP Plus (Hereafter CPP) Ref ********
Our vehicle made two visits to your site on 18: 57- 27/11/16 & 08:17 -29/11/2016, however your agents CPP have decided to show these two visits as one. I believe that these failures stem from the use of automatic number plate recognition in use by your agents, and these shortcomings of ANPR systems are well known, and widely reported. This has been confirmed using the tracking/recording equipment on the vehicle, neither time did it stay for anything near your two hour free parking time.
Your agents, CPP have clearly failed to act in a professional manner, and have shown a scant disregard for my personal data in processing it in this way.
Please note that your agents claim the vehicle was onsite parked for 13 Hours and 20 minutes, however the dates and times from ANPR camera do not tally and would equate to 37 Hours and 20 Minutes. It would therefore appear their ANPR system can’t even accurately report time between two cameras ‘ANPR hits’, further suggesting the system is inaccurate and not fit for purpose. Again you and CPP have failed in your duty of care to ensure this was accurate and true prior to making the application to the DVLA.
Another point is the Roadchef Website Parking Information which states that as of June 2015 (Figure i) the parking charge is £90, however CPP are claiming its £100. What do your onsite signs display? What is the charge? We would argue that this is further proof that accurate data production and capture is not something either organisation is good at.
Figure i
I would at this point like to remind you that you are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agents, CPP.
You have obtained our details from the DVLA when you have no right to do so.
I am of the opinion that you don't care if you have rights and perhaps rely on your victims believing that some contract with the Parking Management of the premises or even the landowner, allows you to apply parking terms on the car parking spaces at the premises.
Your involvement in your supposed parking management arrangements place on you an obligation to ensure that proper consideration is given to all the facts. Lax contractual assessment is not an excuse for a derogation of your duty.
It is widely known that managing agents often get a kick-back in commission for allowing predatory parking companies to take control of land. They have no other real interest otherwise.
Mere supposition is insufficient as to how you arrange these matters with the landowner's agent. Careful scrutiny of an actual lease would be required to confirm or refute your legitimacy in even taking on a contract for parking management, or as it turns out, mismanagement. You have therefore failed in the duty of care necessary in your collection and processing of my personal details.
Access to the DVLA database for my personal details was unwarranted and unlawful due to the fact that you had no rights to operate on the land without the appropriate authority and subsequently access my data.
I am therefore submitting a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office about your misuse of personal data and now make a claim against you for punitive damages to the extent of £750 for the wrongful application for, and misuse of my information from the DVLA. This is a serious matter and one which is both stressful and degrading.
Separate to that complaint to the ICO another complaint will be submitted to the DVLA about your conduct.
An amount of £750 for the damages is also claimed for wrongful application of, and misuse of the data from the DVLA. This is already adjudicated on as being reasonable as evidenced by the case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199.
To prevent this matter being taken to court I require payment within 14 working days from 2 days of the date of this letter. Failure of this will result in a court claim being instigated and consequential separate costs being added for the added expense.
Yours sincerely
surveyor_101 said:
Try adapting this and sending it to the shopping centre, works for me I got a £15 voucher out of one of these letters as well as my ticket long before the CPP could even read my appeal.
Dear Sirs,
Regarding a parking charge issued by your agents CP Plus (Hereafter CPP) Ref ********
Our vehicle made two visits to your site on 18: 57- 27/11/16 & 08:17 -29/11/2016, however your agents CPP have decided to show these two visits as one. I believe that these failures stem from the use of automatic number plate recognition in use by your agents, and these shortcomings of ANPR systems are well known, and widely reported. This has been confirmed using the tracking/recording equipment on the vehicle, neither time did it stay for anything near your two hour free parking time.
Your agents, CPP have clearly failed to act in a professional manner, and have shown a scant disregard for my personal data in processing it in this way.
Please note that your agents claim the vehicle was onsite parked for 13 Hours and 20 minutes, however the dates and times from ANPR camera do not tally and would equate to 37 Hours and 20 Minutes. It would therefore appear their ANPR system can’t even accurately report time between two cameras ‘ANPR hits’, further suggesting the system is inaccurate and not fit for purpose. Again you and CPP have failed in your duty of care to ensure this was accurate and true prior to making the application to the DVLA.
Another point is the Roadchef Website Parking Information which states that as of June 2015 (Figure i) the parking charge is £90, however CPP are claiming its £100. What do your onsite signs display? What is the charge? We would argue that this is further proof that accurate data production and capture is not something either organisation is good at.
Figure i
I would at this point like to remind you that you are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agents, CPP.
You have obtained our details from the DVLA when you have no right to do so.
I am of the opinion that you don't care if you have rights and perhaps rely on your victims believing that some contract with the Parking Management of the premises or even the landowner, allows you to apply parking terms on the car parking spaces at the premises.
Your involvement in your supposed parking management arrangements place on you an obligation to ensure that proper consideration is given to all the facts. Lax contractual assessment is not an excuse for a derogation of your duty.
It is widely known that managing agents often get a kick-back in commission for allowing predatory parking companies to take control of land. They have no other real interest otherwise.
Mere supposition is insufficient as to how you arrange these matters with the landowner's agent. Careful scrutiny of an actual lease would be required to confirm or refute your legitimacy in even taking on a contract for parking management, or as it turns out, mismanagement. You have therefore failed in the duty of care necessary in your collection and processing of my personal details.
Access to the DVLA database for my personal details was unwarranted and unlawful due to the fact that you had no rights to operate on the land without the appropriate authority and subsequently access my data.
I am therefore submitting a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office about your misuse of personal data and now make a claim against you for punitive damages to the extent of £750 for the wrongful application for, and misuse of my information from the DVLA. This is a serious matter and one which is both stressful and degrading.
Separate to that complaint to the ICO another complaint will be submitted to the DVLA about your conduct.
An amount of £750 for the damages is also claimed for wrongful application of, and misuse of the data from the DVLA. This is already adjudicated on as being reasonable as evidenced by the case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199.
To prevent this matter being taken to court I require payment within 14 working days from 2 days of the date of this letter. Failure of this will result in a court claim being instigated and consequential separate costs being added for the added expense.
Yours sincerely
You accepted a £15 voucher on a £750 claim?Dear Sirs,
Regarding a parking charge issued by your agents CP Plus (Hereafter CPP) Ref ********
Our vehicle made two visits to your site on 18: 57- 27/11/16 & 08:17 -29/11/2016, however your agents CPP have decided to show these two visits as one. I believe that these failures stem from the use of automatic number plate recognition in use by your agents, and these shortcomings of ANPR systems are well known, and widely reported. This has been confirmed using the tracking/recording equipment on the vehicle, neither time did it stay for anything near your two hour free parking time.
Your agents, CPP have clearly failed to act in a professional manner, and have shown a scant disregard for my personal data in processing it in this way.
Please note that your agents claim the vehicle was onsite parked for 13 Hours and 20 minutes, however the dates and times from ANPR camera do not tally and would equate to 37 Hours and 20 Minutes. It would therefore appear their ANPR system can’t even accurately report time between two cameras ‘ANPR hits’, further suggesting the system is inaccurate and not fit for purpose. Again you and CPP have failed in your duty of care to ensure this was accurate and true prior to making the application to the DVLA.
Another point is the Roadchef Website Parking Information which states that as of June 2015 (Figure i) the parking charge is £90, however CPP are claiming its £100. What do your onsite signs display? What is the charge? We would argue that this is further proof that accurate data production and capture is not something either organisation is good at.
Figure i
I would at this point like to remind you that you are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agents, CPP.
You have obtained our details from the DVLA when you have no right to do so.
I am of the opinion that you don't care if you have rights and perhaps rely on your victims believing that some contract with the Parking Management of the premises or even the landowner, allows you to apply parking terms on the car parking spaces at the premises.
Your involvement in your supposed parking management arrangements place on you an obligation to ensure that proper consideration is given to all the facts. Lax contractual assessment is not an excuse for a derogation of your duty.
It is widely known that managing agents often get a kick-back in commission for allowing predatory parking companies to take control of land. They have no other real interest otherwise.
Mere supposition is insufficient as to how you arrange these matters with the landowner's agent. Careful scrutiny of an actual lease would be required to confirm or refute your legitimacy in even taking on a contract for parking management, or as it turns out, mismanagement. You have therefore failed in the duty of care necessary in your collection and processing of my personal details.
Access to the DVLA database for my personal details was unwarranted and unlawful due to the fact that you had no rights to operate on the land without the appropriate authority and subsequently access my data.
I am therefore submitting a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office about your misuse of personal data and now make a claim against you for punitive damages to the extent of £750 for the wrongful application for, and misuse of my information from the DVLA. This is a serious matter and one which is both stressful and degrading.
Separate to that complaint to the ICO another complaint will be submitted to the DVLA about your conduct.
An amount of £750 for the damages is also claimed for wrongful application of, and misuse of the data from the DVLA. This is already adjudicated on as being reasonable as evidenced by the case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199.
To prevent this matter being taken to court I require payment within 14 working days from 2 days of the date of this letter. Failure of this will result in a court claim being instigated and consequential separate costs being added for the added expense.
Yours sincerely
I do like your letter - it would be nice to see the reply you got directly and following the other complaints you made (if you indeed proceeded)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff