Smart Parking - stupid copper nanotubes
Discussion
Without going into too much detail all of which is in the letter below, the stupid copper nanotubess at Smart Parking have just sent me a parking charge notice for overstaying my welcome at the Kingsthorpe Shopping Centre car park when I can prove that it's due to double dipping. What does the panel think of the letter below as my response to them?
My letter said:
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number TC46291413
I have received the above numbered Parking Charge Notice on 9th September 2017 for an alleged contravention at Kingsthorpe Shopping Centre (the Site) on 2nd September 2017. The allegation is that the [MAKE and MODEL] with the registration number XXXXX (the Vehicle), which is registered to me, was parked at the Site from 12:17:04 until 19:24:36. This allegation is completely wrong and is due to an error on the part of your systems which are obviously incapable of monitoring the rules set out at the Site and the Vehicle being a victim of the well-known “double dipping” phenomenon.
The information at the site says that a car can be parked for a maximum of 2 hours and then cannot return for a period of 2 further hours. The initial entry time of the Vehicle to the Site at 12:17 is correct as shown on your pictures as the first entry of the Vehicle to the Site. However, your system has not recorded its first exit at approximately 13:10 which is well within the initial 2 hour period. Approximate time of exit can be found on a time stamped cash withdrawal from the cashpoint inside the Waitrose store upon exit from the café at the same Waitrose.
The car was then driven to two further locations in Northampton and the driver has a time stamped receipt from the second, Pinnacle Climbing Centre at a distance of 3 miles from the Site, for a payment at 14:09. Even this time stamp from several miles away is within the allowed 2 hours of stay at the Site. The driver has further receipts from the Pinnacle Climbing Centre for additional expenditure there with the last receipt being time stamped at 17:49, significantly later than the 2 hour exclusion time after the first exit of the Vehicle from the Site. In fact, even if it had stayed the maximum 2 hours from 12:17, the 17:49 time stamp is still significantly later than would have been its 2 hour exclusion time from the Site. In addition to the time stamped receipts, there are two members of staff at the Pinnacle Climbing Centre who are happy to confirm that the driver of the Vehicle was at the Centre for nearly 4 hours between the times the car is alleged to have been at the Site.
The second entry of the Vehicle to the Site is estimated to be between 18:05 and 18:20. Following a further visit to the Waitrose store, the driver has a further time stamped till receipt at 19:20, followed by its exit as per your second picture of the Vehicle departing at 9:24.
If you still have the complete day’s recordings from 2nd September 2017, you should then check the images within a few minutes on either side of the estimated times as set out above. These will prove the facts as laid out. If you do not have the complete day’s recordings, then your systems are clearly deficient and cannot enforce the rules displayed at the site. The driver can clearly prove that they were not at the between the times the alleged contravention has taken place.
The bank and shopping receipts contain personal information which are not pertinent to the case. Consequently, copies will only be provided to a court of law and to no others unless legally required. Adequate information for you to be able to check your own systems have been provided in this letter. These will demonstrate that no contravention of any rules has taken place and there is no legally enforceable charge between any party in this case. Any further correspondence received at this address on this matter will be classified as harassment and legal proceeding will be initiated against Smart Parking Ltd.
Yours faithfully,
etc.
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number TC46291413
I have received the above numbered Parking Charge Notice on 9th September 2017 for an alleged contravention at Kingsthorpe Shopping Centre (the Site) on 2nd September 2017. The allegation is that the [MAKE and MODEL] with the registration number XXXXX (the Vehicle), which is registered to me, was parked at the Site from 12:17:04 until 19:24:36. This allegation is completely wrong and is due to an error on the part of your systems which are obviously incapable of monitoring the rules set out at the Site and the Vehicle being a victim of the well-known “double dipping” phenomenon.
The information at the site says that a car can be parked for a maximum of 2 hours and then cannot return for a period of 2 further hours. The initial entry time of the Vehicle to the Site at 12:17 is correct as shown on your pictures as the first entry of the Vehicle to the Site. However, your system has not recorded its first exit at approximately 13:10 which is well within the initial 2 hour period. Approximate time of exit can be found on a time stamped cash withdrawal from the cashpoint inside the Waitrose store upon exit from the café at the same Waitrose.
The car was then driven to two further locations in Northampton and the driver has a time stamped receipt from the second, Pinnacle Climbing Centre at a distance of 3 miles from the Site, for a payment at 14:09. Even this time stamp from several miles away is within the allowed 2 hours of stay at the Site. The driver has further receipts from the Pinnacle Climbing Centre for additional expenditure there with the last receipt being time stamped at 17:49, significantly later than the 2 hour exclusion time after the first exit of the Vehicle from the Site. In fact, even if it had stayed the maximum 2 hours from 12:17, the 17:49 time stamp is still significantly later than would have been its 2 hour exclusion time from the Site. In addition to the time stamped receipts, there are two members of staff at the Pinnacle Climbing Centre who are happy to confirm that the driver of the Vehicle was at the Centre for nearly 4 hours between the times the car is alleged to have been at the Site.
The second entry of the Vehicle to the Site is estimated to be between 18:05 and 18:20. Following a further visit to the Waitrose store, the driver has a further time stamped till receipt at 19:20, followed by its exit as per your second picture of the Vehicle departing at 9:24.
If you still have the complete day’s recordings from 2nd September 2017, you should then check the images within a few minutes on either side of the estimated times as set out above. These will prove the facts as laid out. If you do not have the complete day’s recordings, then your systems are clearly deficient and cannot enforce the rules displayed at the site. The driver can clearly prove that they were not at the between the times the alleged contravention has taken place.
The bank and shopping receipts contain personal information which are not pertinent to the case. Consequently, copies will only be provided to a court of law and to no others unless legally required. Adequate information for you to be able to check your own systems have been provided in this letter. These will demonstrate that no contravention of any rules has taken place and there is no legally enforceable charge between any party in this case. Any further correspondence received at this address on this matter will be classified as harassment and legal proceeding will be initiated against Smart Parking Ltd.
Yours faithfully,
etc.
Yes, all receipts are card receipts with dates and times; cash withdrawal is a Visa debit and the others are MasterCard credit cards and all are in the name of the driver. However, I do not want to send any receipts or copies to them because it feels like admitting that they have some special powers to demand these when they don't. I will happily provide them to a court as as part of pre-hearing documents, but not under any other circumstances. I'm giving them enough enformation that they should be able to check their systems to see everything themselves. The big question is, can I send the letter I have drafted above, send it recorded and then ignore anything else (except a court summons of course) without worry and if it gets to a court hearing, can I claim that I gave them adequate information such that I cannot be held liable for any charges?
colin_p said:
Is doubling dipping something to do with teabagging, whatever that is?
Ha ha, no it's quite innocent compared to the usual stuff one sees on PH and fears to google. It's when a camera system record the first entry of a vehicle into a car park, ignores the exit and the legitimate re-entry, then assumes that the second exit is the first and only exit thereby trying to hold the driver liable for any charges for the entire time between the first entry and the second exit.If it has another meaning which would boggle one's mind, I'm not aware of it.
Thank you very much eveyone. I don't want to quote acres of stuff so will try to cover everything which has been raised.
I have written the text to cover all details so that if things did get to a court hearing, Smart Parking cannot possibly accuse me of not giving them enough details to check so I'm covering myself really. I would like to make sure that the magistrate looks favourably on me and I can demonstrate that I have tried to resolve my case with full transparency and in good time. I think providing Smart Parking with all the possible details needed to resolve the matter would look better in court than not giving them enough and asking them to sue me. I have corrected the time in the paragraph mentioned by Red Devil, thank you very much.
I have referred only to the driver in my letter and haven't confirmed who they were. Once I as the registered keeper disclose who the driver is, surely the fact has to be accepted, no? Especially if the movements are corroborated with credit card receipts of cards registered to their name? I don't think that the driver being seen several miles away with a 5 year old in tow isn't circumstantial evidence but I'll be going to the climbing centre again today so will ask if they have CCTV. Also, the first location the driver-and-5-year-old-in-tow combination went to were a fabric shop where they picked up a huge roll of fabric that would be impossible to cart around for 4 miles, and a member of staff there is also happy to confirm the driver's location. This another point where things get interesting. The driver used 2 separate cards and the other cardholder on the same accounts was elsewhere in the country using their card throughout the day. Further, one of the accounts is slightly odd in that the two cards on the account have different numbers and individual cards can be identified. It was this particularly odd card which was used at Waitrose on both occasions, and the receipts contain the last 4 digits of the card so the driver can positively identify that it was their personal card being used at Waitrose cafe in the morning and then later in the day in the store. Combined with the second card's use, the driver was either 3-4 miles or 90 miles away in the middle of the day. In any case, not anywhere near the particular car park in question.
I've had a look at that link Red Devil, thank you very much. It seems that the driver in that case had a lot less than me as evidence so I think I'm quite safe. I will be printing it and taking it to Waitrose with me today along with a copy of the letter from Smart Parking and my letter and let's see how they resond.
I'm not making an empty threat to Smart Parking in my letter though. If I do end up sending the letter and they reply to say they've dropped it, then I'll obviously use my judgement not not take it further but anything else and I will. In fact, I'll modify the letter to that effect and add "save for an acknowledgement that you a're withdawing your allegations" at the approprtiate place. I'm in the lucky position to be able to chuck some money at this just for the satisfaction of getting one over the buggers. We do have our tame family solicitors who deal with all of our affairs from wills, inheritance tax planing, properties here and abroad etc. etc. I'd far rather spend a few hundred pounds with them and annoy Smart Parking than give Smart Parking the £60 they're asking for.
I've registered with PePiPoo.com and posted for help there, thanks to all who mentioned it, even if slightly misspelt
Here's the topic I started http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1156...
I have written the text to cover all details so that if things did get to a court hearing, Smart Parking cannot possibly accuse me of not giving them enough details to check so I'm covering myself really. I would like to make sure that the magistrate looks favourably on me and I can demonstrate that I have tried to resolve my case with full transparency and in good time. I think providing Smart Parking with all the possible details needed to resolve the matter would look better in court than not giving them enough and asking them to sue me. I have corrected the time in the paragraph mentioned by Red Devil, thank you very much.
I have referred only to the driver in my letter and haven't confirmed who they were. Once I as the registered keeper disclose who the driver is, surely the fact has to be accepted, no? Especially if the movements are corroborated with credit card receipts of cards registered to their name? I don't think that the driver being seen several miles away with a 5 year old in tow isn't circumstantial evidence but I'll be going to the climbing centre again today so will ask if they have CCTV. Also, the first location the driver-and-5-year-old-in-tow combination went to were a fabric shop where they picked up a huge roll of fabric that would be impossible to cart around for 4 miles, and a member of staff there is also happy to confirm the driver's location. This another point where things get interesting. The driver used 2 separate cards and the other cardholder on the same accounts was elsewhere in the country using their card throughout the day. Further, one of the accounts is slightly odd in that the two cards on the account have different numbers and individual cards can be identified. It was this particularly odd card which was used at Waitrose on both occasions, and the receipts contain the last 4 digits of the card so the driver can positively identify that it was their personal card being used at Waitrose cafe in the morning and then later in the day in the store. Combined with the second card's use, the driver was either 3-4 miles or 90 miles away in the middle of the day. In any case, not anywhere near the particular car park in question.
I've had a look at that link Red Devil, thank you very much. It seems that the driver in that case had a lot less than me as evidence so I think I'm quite safe.
I will be printing it and taking it to Waitrose with me today along with a copy of the letter from Smart Parking and my letter and let's see how they resond. I'm not making an empty threat to Smart Parking in my letter though. If I do end up sending the letter and they reply to say they've dropped it, then I'll obviously use my judgement not not take it further but anything else and I will. In fact, I'll modify the letter to that effect and add "save for an acknowledgement that you a're withdawing your allegations" at the approprtiate place. I'm in the lucky position to be able to chuck some money at this just for the satisfaction of getting one over the buggers. We do have our tame family solicitors who deal with all of our affairs from wills, inheritance tax planing, properties here and abroad etc. etc. I'd far rather spend a few hundred pounds with them and annoy Smart Parking than give Smart Parking the £60 they're asking for.
I've registered with PePiPoo.com and posted for help there, thanks to all who mentioned it, even if slightly misspelt
Here's the topic I started http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1156...Thanks again everyone, especially Silverfoxcc.
I have made sure that my letter does not admit to driving the car or identify the driver; I have not withheld any information or lied here or on PePiPoo.com; and I have done as suggested and went to Waitrose which has revealed further interesting information. I was very lucky and got to speak to the Deputy Branch Manager who happened to be on duty. He confirmed that he had customers complaining about exactly the same problem at least 3 times in the past 12 months and he had informed Smart Parking on all occasions. He mentioned that these were only the ones which had been brought to his attention and that there could be more. He also said that both the landowner and Smart Parking had been singularly unhelpful in resolving the matter and had not cancelled the tickets despite requests from him. He has promised to help as much as he can and he will confirm these in an email to me soon.
PePiPoo users have been quite helpful and they liked my letter as amended in my post earlier today. There have been a couple of additional suggestions, firstly as also suggested by Red Devil to add that there can be no keeper liability in this case because the PCN is trying to cover TWO parking events, and the POFA Schedule 4 is strict in that it MUST only relate to one; and secondly to threaten action under the DPA section 10 for the misuse of my personal data in that they used my data knowing full well that a defect in their system incorrectly issued a claim. That last bit was suggested before my visit to Waitrose this afternoon but the information from the manager there confirms that they're aware of this and have been so for months. I will further amend my letter to demand a response within 28 calendar days specifically about the breach of DPA.
PS No, I don't read Chem. Comm. however I do read other scientific journals and I have published a number of scientific papers on cardiac surgery and cardiac biochemistry.
I have made sure that my letter does not admit to driving the car or identify the driver; I have not withheld any information or lied here or on PePiPoo.com; and I have done as suggested and went to Waitrose which has revealed further interesting information. I was very lucky and got to speak to the Deputy Branch Manager who happened to be on duty. He confirmed that he had customers complaining about exactly the same problem at least 3 times in the past 12 months and he had informed Smart Parking on all occasions. He mentioned that these were only the ones which had been brought to his attention and that there could be more. He also said that both the landowner and Smart Parking had been singularly unhelpful in resolving the matter and had not cancelled the tickets despite requests from him. He has promised to help as much as he can and he will confirm these in an email to me soon.
PePiPoo users have been quite helpful and they liked my letter as amended in my post earlier today. There have been a couple of additional suggestions, firstly as also suggested by Red Devil to add that there can be no keeper liability in this case because the PCN is trying to cover TWO parking events, and the POFA Schedule 4 is strict in that it MUST only relate to one; and secondly to threaten action under the DPA section 10 for the misuse of my personal data in that they used my data knowing full well that a defect in their system incorrectly issued a claim. That last bit was suggested before my visit to Waitrose this afternoon but the information from the manager there confirms that they're aware of this and have been so for months. I will further amend my letter to demand a response within 28 calendar days specifically about the breach of DPA.
PS No, I don't read Chem. Comm. however I do read other scientific journals and I have published a number of scientific papers on cardiac surgery and cardiac biochemistry.
Edited by QuickQuack on Sunday 10th September 23:52
Well, I have now amended, and significantly lenghtened (sorry!), my original letter in the light of the feedback from PePiPoo chaps. As they seemed to like the original, I suspect they will not mind the additinal sections as I think they like seeing the full picture. To make it easier to read, imagine the solitary neurones of the barstewards running Smart Parking panicking and losing control of their bowel function as their heads explode...
My amended letter said:
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number TC46291413
I have received the above numbered Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on 9th September 2017 for an alleged contravention at Kingsthorpe Shopping Centre (the Site) on 2nd September 2017. The allegation is that the [make and model] with the registration number [reg no] (the Vehicle), which is registered to me, was parked at the Site from 12:17:04 until 19:24:36. This allegation is completely wrong and is due to an error on the part of your systems which are obviously incapable of monitoring the rules set out at the Site and the Vehicle being a victim of the well-known “double dipping” phenomenon.
The information at the site says that a car can be parked for a maximum of 2 hours and then cannot return for a period of 2 further hours. The initial entry time of the Vehicle to the Site at 12:17 is correct as shown on your pictures as the first entry of the Vehicle to the Site. However, your system has not recorded its first exit at approximately 13:10 which is well within the initial 2 hour period. Approximate time of exit can be found on a time stamped cash withdrawal from the cashpoint inside the Waitrose store upon exit from the café at the same Waitrose.
The car was then driven to two further locations in Northampton and the driver has a time stamped receipt from the second, Pinnacle Climbing Centre at a distance of 3 miles from the Site, for a payment at 14:09. Even this time stamp from several miles away is within the allowed 2 hours of stay at the Site. The driver has further receipts from the Pinnacle Climbing Centre for additional expenditure and time spent there with the last receipt being time stamped at 17:49, significantly later than the 2 hour exclusion time after the first exit of the Vehicle from the Site. In fact, even if it had stayed the maximum 2 hours from 12:17, the 17:49 time stamp is still significantly later than would have been its 2 hour exclusion time from the Site. In addition to the time stamped receipts, there are two members of staff at the Pinnacle Climbing Centre who are happy to confirm that the driver of the Vehicle was at the Centre for nearly 4 hours between the times the car is alleged to have been at the Site.
The second entry of the Vehicle to the Site is estimated to be between 18:05 and 18:20. Following a further visit to the Waitrose store, the driver has a further time stamped till receipt at 19:20, followed by its exit as per your second picture of the Vehicle departing at 19:24.
If you still have the complete day’s recordings from 2nd September 2017, you should then check the images within a few minutes on either side of the estimated times as set out above. These will prove the facts as laid out. If you do not have the complete day’s recordings, then your systems are clearly deficient and cannot enforce the rules displayed at the site. The driver can clearly prove that they were not at the between the times the alleged contravention has taken place. As a further point, please remember that there can be no keeper liability in this case because your PCN is trying to cover two separate parking events, and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) Schedule 4 is strict in that it must only relate to a single one. I will therefore not be divulging the driver’s identity except by a court order.
The bank and shopping receipts contain personal information which are not pertinent to the case. Consequently, copies will only be provided to a court of law and to no others unless legally required. Adequate information for you to be able to check your own systems have been provided in this letter. These will demonstrate that no contravention of any rules has taken place and there is no legally enforceable charge between any party in this case.
In addition to the above, I am concerned that you have not handled my personal information properly. I understand that before reporting my concern to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) I should give you the chance to deal with it. Please consider this as an official notification of my complaint under Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).
I have been in contact with the aforementioned Waitrose store and the Deputy Branch Manager has confirmed that he has contacted Smart Parking Ltd. as a result of Waitrose customers experiencing exactly the same problem on at least 3 occasions in the past 12 months adding that these were only the ones which had been brought to his attention and that there could be more. It is beyond any doubt that Smart Parking Ltd. has been aware of this technical problem with their software, which itself is not fit for the purpose of enforcing the rules at the Site as laid out in the signage, for the past year. The company has been manifestly negligent in not rectifying the fault which has been brought to their attention numerous times. Consequently, Smart Parking Ltd. has committed breaches of the DPA first by acquiring my personal data from DVLA under false pretences knowing full well that your system is defective, and having thus acquired my personal data in breach of DPA, by misusing my personal data to send me an invoice without just cause. Indeed, given the layout and the threatening nature of your communication, it is a highly distressing demand with menaces. At this juncture, I would like to remind you that in 2015 the Court of Appeal ruled, in the case of Vidal-Hall v Google, that compensation under the DPA could be awarded for distress alone.
As a data subject under DPA, I would like to know and receive a copy of all the information you hold on me and my aforementioned vehicle. I further would like to know why Smart Parking Ltd. has not amended its defective systems which it was informed were incapable of functioning as required on multiple occasions over the past 12 months, and having not corrected the defect, why it continues to issue PCNs to registered keepers of vehicles which were parked at the Site without contravening the rules. Finally, I would like to know what corrective action Smart Parking Ltd. will undertake so that the company can demonstrate that they will not continue to breach the DPA regularly by obtaining registered keeper details from DVLA without justification and then misuse the data thus obtained.
You can find guidance on your obligations under information rights legislation on the ICO’s website (www.ico.org.uk) as well as information on their regulatory powers and the action they can take. If I have not received a full response within 28 calendar days on the points I have raised above regarding the breaches of the DPA, I will escalate this matter by making a complaint to the ICO about Smart Parking Ltd. and will initiate legal proceedings for distress, time spent dealing with this matter and all costs incurred. Again, I draw your attention to the 2015 Court of Appeal ruling, in the case of Vidal-Hall v Google, that compensation under the DPA could be awarded for distress alone. If, when I receive your response, I am not satisfied and would still like to report my concern to the ICO, I will give them a copy of it to consider along with copies of this letter and the original PCN.
I expect to receive an acknowledgement that you have received my letter and that you are withdrawing your allegations within 14 calendar days. Any further correspondence received at this address or via email, or any telephone calls for a further demand to pay the original PCN will be classified as harassment and legal proceeding will be initiated against Smart Parking Ltd.
Yours faithfully,
etc.
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number TC46291413
I have received the above numbered Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on 9th September 2017 for an alleged contravention at Kingsthorpe Shopping Centre (the Site) on 2nd September 2017. The allegation is that the [make and model] with the registration number [reg no] (the Vehicle), which is registered to me, was parked at the Site from 12:17:04 until 19:24:36. This allegation is completely wrong and is due to an error on the part of your systems which are obviously incapable of monitoring the rules set out at the Site and the Vehicle being a victim of the well-known “double dipping” phenomenon.
The information at the site says that a car can be parked for a maximum of 2 hours and then cannot return for a period of 2 further hours. The initial entry time of the Vehicle to the Site at 12:17 is correct as shown on your pictures as the first entry of the Vehicle to the Site. However, your system has not recorded its first exit at approximately 13:10 which is well within the initial 2 hour period. Approximate time of exit can be found on a time stamped cash withdrawal from the cashpoint inside the Waitrose store upon exit from the café at the same Waitrose.
The car was then driven to two further locations in Northampton and the driver has a time stamped receipt from the second, Pinnacle Climbing Centre at a distance of 3 miles from the Site, for a payment at 14:09. Even this time stamp from several miles away is within the allowed 2 hours of stay at the Site. The driver has further receipts from the Pinnacle Climbing Centre for additional expenditure and time spent there with the last receipt being time stamped at 17:49, significantly later than the 2 hour exclusion time after the first exit of the Vehicle from the Site. In fact, even if it had stayed the maximum 2 hours from 12:17, the 17:49 time stamp is still significantly later than would have been its 2 hour exclusion time from the Site. In addition to the time stamped receipts, there are two members of staff at the Pinnacle Climbing Centre who are happy to confirm that the driver of the Vehicle was at the Centre for nearly 4 hours between the times the car is alleged to have been at the Site.
The second entry of the Vehicle to the Site is estimated to be between 18:05 and 18:20. Following a further visit to the Waitrose store, the driver has a further time stamped till receipt at 19:20, followed by its exit as per your second picture of the Vehicle departing at 19:24.
If you still have the complete day’s recordings from 2nd September 2017, you should then check the images within a few minutes on either side of the estimated times as set out above. These will prove the facts as laid out. If you do not have the complete day’s recordings, then your systems are clearly deficient and cannot enforce the rules displayed at the site. The driver can clearly prove that they were not at the between the times the alleged contravention has taken place. As a further point, please remember that there can be no keeper liability in this case because your PCN is trying to cover two separate parking events, and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) Schedule 4 is strict in that it must only relate to a single one. I will therefore not be divulging the driver’s identity except by a court order.
The bank and shopping receipts contain personal information which are not pertinent to the case. Consequently, copies will only be provided to a court of law and to no others unless legally required. Adequate information for you to be able to check your own systems have been provided in this letter. These will demonstrate that no contravention of any rules has taken place and there is no legally enforceable charge between any party in this case.
In addition to the above, I am concerned that you have not handled my personal information properly. I understand that before reporting my concern to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) I should give you the chance to deal with it. Please consider this as an official notification of my complaint under Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).
I have been in contact with the aforementioned Waitrose store and the Deputy Branch Manager has confirmed that he has contacted Smart Parking Ltd. as a result of Waitrose customers experiencing exactly the same problem on at least 3 occasions in the past 12 months adding that these were only the ones which had been brought to his attention and that there could be more. It is beyond any doubt that Smart Parking Ltd. has been aware of this technical problem with their software, which itself is not fit for the purpose of enforcing the rules at the Site as laid out in the signage, for the past year. The company has been manifestly negligent in not rectifying the fault which has been brought to their attention numerous times. Consequently, Smart Parking Ltd. has committed breaches of the DPA first by acquiring my personal data from DVLA under false pretences knowing full well that your system is defective, and having thus acquired my personal data in breach of DPA, by misusing my personal data to send me an invoice without just cause. Indeed, given the layout and the threatening nature of your communication, it is a highly distressing demand with menaces. At this juncture, I would like to remind you that in 2015 the Court of Appeal ruled, in the case of Vidal-Hall v Google, that compensation under the DPA could be awarded for distress alone.
As a data subject under DPA, I would like to know and receive a copy of all the information you hold on me and my aforementioned vehicle. I further would like to know why Smart Parking Ltd. has not amended its defective systems which it was informed were incapable of functioning as required on multiple occasions over the past 12 months, and having not corrected the defect, why it continues to issue PCNs to registered keepers of vehicles which were parked at the Site without contravening the rules. Finally, I would like to know what corrective action Smart Parking Ltd. will undertake so that the company can demonstrate that they will not continue to breach the DPA regularly by obtaining registered keeper details from DVLA without justification and then misuse the data thus obtained.
You can find guidance on your obligations under information rights legislation on the ICO’s website (www.ico.org.uk) as well as information on their regulatory powers and the action they can take. If I have not received a full response within 28 calendar days on the points I have raised above regarding the breaches of the DPA, I will escalate this matter by making a complaint to the ICO about Smart Parking Ltd. and will initiate legal proceedings for distress, time spent dealing with this matter and all costs incurred. Again, I draw your attention to the 2015 Court of Appeal ruling, in the case of Vidal-Hall v Google, that compensation under the DPA could be awarded for distress alone. If, when I receive your response, I am not satisfied and would still like to report my concern to the ICO, I will give them a copy of it to consider along with copies of this letter and the original PCN.
I expect to receive an acknowledgement that you have received my letter and that you are withdrawing your allegations within 14 calendar days. Any further correspondence received at this address or via email, or any telephone calls for a further demand to pay the original PCN will be classified as harassment and legal proceeding will be initiated against Smart Parking Ltd.
Yours faithfully,
etc.
Well, even better news. I got an email from Waitrose this afternoon which confirms what the manager had told me but the best part is that he's been through their CCTV, he has found my car leaving within a few minutes of my estimated exit time, and sent me some images. Bingo! The only downside is that having been up most of the night for the last couple of nights thinking about this s
t, I've had a pretty awful migraine today 
That's just made me even more determined to take them on though. I don't want a simple cancellation of the PCN now, I want DVLA and ICO causing them maximum hassle. Smart Parking losing their licence to look up registered keeper details from the DVLA database would be the ultimate victory but I know that's not easy so I'll satisfy myself with lobbing an arsey letter their way, demand a plan to rectify their systems and unless they provide me with both details of the plan and proof that it has been implemented, I will make a complaint to ICO and to DVLA. I will redact some personal stuff in the letters but I'll try to update the thread with the letter I finally end up sending and any further developments, unless you'd like me to leave it here...
t, I've had a pretty awful migraine today That's just made me even more determined to take them on though. I don't want a simple cancellation of the PCN now, I want DVLA and ICO causing them maximum hassle. Smart Parking losing their licence to look up registered keeper details from the DVLA database would be the ultimate victory but I know that's not easy so I'll satisfy myself with lobbing an arsey letter their way, demand a plan to rectify their systems and unless they provide me with both details of the plan and proof that it has been implemented, I will make a complaint to ICO and to DVLA. I will redact some personal stuff in the letters but I'll try to update the thread with the letter I finally end up sending and any further developments, unless you'd like me to leave it here...Well, I have re-jigged the letter a bit, but to save you trudging through several pages of stuff, here's a summary.
I have set out the evidence I have and refuted their claim. To that end, I have demanded an acknowledgement that they have received my letter, a full apology, and confirmation that they are withdrawing their allegations within 14 calendar days.
I have outlined breaches of the Data Protection Act and as a data subject, I have requested a copy of all the information they hold on me and my vehicle, the reasons why Smart Parking Ltd. has not amended its defective systems which it was informed were incapable of functioning as required on multiple occasions over the past 12 months, and having not corrected the defect, why it continues to issue PCNs to registered keepers of vehicles which were parked at the Site without contravening the rules, and what corrective and preventive action Smart Parking Ltd. will undertake so that the company can demonstrate that they will not continue to breach the DPA regularly by obtaining registered keeper details from DVLA without justification and then misuse the data. I reserved the right to inform the ICO and DVLA if I am not satisfied with their response to this section. As suggested by the ICO, I have given them 28 calendar days to respond to these.
Let's see how they respond...
I have set out the evidence I have and refuted their claim. To that end, I have demanded an acknowledgement that they have received my letter, a full apology, and confirmation that they are withdrawing their allegations within 14 calendar days.
I have outlined breaches of the Data Protection Act and as a data subject, I have requested a copy of all the information they hold on me and my vehicle, the reasons why Smart Parking Ltd. has not amended its defective systems which it was informed were incapable of functioning as required on multiple occasions over the past 12 months, and having not corrected the defect, why it continues to issue PCNs to registered keepers of vehicles which were parked at the Site without contravening the rules, and what corrective and preventive action Smart Parking Ltd. will undertake so that the company can demonstrate that they will not continue to breach the DPA regularly by obtaining registered keeper details from DVLA without justification and then misuse the data. I reserved the right to inform the ICO and DVLA if I am not satisfied with their response to this section. As suggested by the ICO, I have given them 28 calendar days to respond to these.
Let's see how they respond...
speedking31 said:
Red Devil said:
How do the time stamped receipts prove the driver's identity? If any of them are for parking and contain your vehicle's VRM then you've got them over a barrel. If not, then assuming you are both the RK and the driver I reckon your best card will be the testimony of the employees of the climbing centre.
Sorry RD, don't doubt the OP. But often people know the truth and then find it difficult to see from he other party's point of view. Agree with what you say here, and maybe the employees at the climbing centre can place the driver, but the chance of them knowing that that vehicle was in the car park is probably zero, unless they have good CCTV coverage.Red Devil said:
speedking31 said:
You need to prove that the car was elsewhere. CCTV of the car at another location in the alleged timeframe is the evidence you need. All the stuff about receipts and card numbers means nothing.
Do try to keep up. I already mentioned this on page 1. Furthermore you don't seem to have read this which the OP posted before you did: it should be quite suffcient to kick this into touch..QuickQuack said:
I got an email from Waitrose this afternoon which confirms what the manager had told me but the best part is that he's been through their CCTV, he has found my car leaving within a few minutes of my estimated exit time, and sent me some images.
Aside from that, I have sent the final version of the letter by recorded delivery, emailed it to them on their contact us details, and also uploaded it via their online appeals process. They've emailed me back with this:
Smart Parking said:
We can confirm an appeal has been logged onto the system for you and it is in the process of being reviewed by our appeals team, once they have done so they will contact you via email or post. In the meantime the PCN has been frozen at the discounted amount until it has been reviewed and responded to by our appeals team. The appeals team have 35 days to review your appeal however we can confirm they are working on them at a much quicker time frame.
Although I had given them 14 days for an apology and withdrawal of their allegation, I might just give them a bit of extra time. However, the 28 calendar days for the DPA complaint before I get the ICO involved stands... Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff