Zenith Collections - Intention to Commence Legal....
Discussion
Moonhawk said:
The thing that gets me about these double dip cases is the ANPR system would have to miss both the first exit and the second entry. Seems rather implausible....
No it doesn't, it just has to misread the first exit.We parked at Liverpool Airport where the ANPR reader is about 0.5 m above the ground and 1 m in front of your stationary car. It still misread DG as DU, possibly due to fog. When we came to leave we weren't registered as having parked. However, it was fairly simple for them to see that DG had prepaid and not turned up to use its space. The systems are nowhere near infallible, and that potential for error must be many times greater when the camera is further away and the vehicle is moving.
speedking31 said:
o it doesn't, it just has to misread the first exit.
We parked at Liverpool Airport where the ANPR reader is about 0.5 m above the ground and 1 m in front of your stationary car. It still misread DG as DU, possibly due to fog. When we came to leave we weren't registered as having parked. However, it was fairly simple for them to see that DG had prepaid and not turned up to use its space. The systems are nowhere near infallible, and that potential for error must be many times greater when the camera is further away and the vehicle is moving.
it doesnt help that some special folk won't have a legal plate and want german fonts and such like.....We parked at Liverpool Airport where the ANPR reader is about 0.5 m above the ground and 1 m in front of your stationary car. It still misread DG as DU, possibly due to fog. When we came to leave we weren't registered as having parked. However, it was fairly simple for them to see that DG had prepaid and not turned up to use its space. The systems are nowhere near infallible, and that potential for error must be many times greater when the camera is further away and the vehicle is moving.
speedking31 said:
Moonhawk said:
The thing that gets me about these double dip cases is the ANPR system would have to miss both the first exit and the second entry. Seems rather implausible....
No it doesn't, it just has to misread the first exit.We parked at Liverpool Airport where the ANPR reader is about 0.5 m above the ground and 1 m in front of your stationary car. It still misread DG as DU, possibly due to fog. When we came to leave we weren't registered as having parked. However, it was fairly simple for them to see that DG had prepaid and not turned up to use its space. The systems are nowhere near infallible, and that potential for error must be many times greater when the camera is further away and the vehicle is moving.
This means that they are not 'relevant land' under PoFA 2012. If so, RK liability doesn't apply.
The situation at JLA in particular is an unholy mess. The operator is contending the 1982 byelaws are no longer in force.
This proved rather unfortunate for them - http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/wri...
The document in question - http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DE...
The more so when it was followed by confirmation by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State responsible for airports Robert Goodwill MP in response to an enquiry.
"Please find enclosed a copy of the Byelaws that are currently in force at Liverpool John Lennon Airport which date from 1982"
The DfT has been wriggling like a fish on a hook to deflect FoI requests which might uncover further embarrassing information about the shambles.
It's a similar situation to car parks under Railway Byelaw 14 which would require a prosecution in a magistrates court.
I can't see a PPC getting involved with that. It would need to be the railway company (or airport operator in this case) taking such action.
This suggests that work is ongoing to replace the 1982 set of byelaws with new ones - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/285794/resp...
Cliftonite said:
surveyor_101 said:
it doesnt help that some special folk won't have a legal plate and want german fonts and such like.....
But then they deserve all the aggro it may cause them!
Re the OP, double dip with ANPR and records going back to June, it is quite likely that all other data has already been deleted. Data from ANPR cameras come under Data Protection Act as well Protection of Freedoms Act. The Information Commissioner's Office has provided the following booklet:
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documen...
The italicised text at the bottom is from page 20. If Asda of Smart keep the data for any longer than necessary to monitor the 2 hour parking limit or any other condition, then they would be in breach of DPA if they keep it for any longer than necessary; ergo they would have deleted all other data including the first exit and the second entry.
If communication fails to resolve this and the case goes to court, if the OP could prove that the car was elsewhere at any point in the intervening period, even for one second, that would screw the PPC's case as their data would be unreliable. If this cannot be proven, I would ask for the details of the software used to monitor and enforce the limitations on parking to demonstrate that the ANPR system becomes unreliable in this circumstance.
IANAL so would defer to BV72 et al. should they comment on this.
5.2.5
Retention
The DPA does not prescribe any specific minimum or maximum retention periods which apply to all systems or footage. Rather, retention should reflect the organisation’s purposes for recording information. The retention period should be informed by the purpose for which the information is collected and how long it is needed to achieve this purpose. It should not be kept for longer than is necessary, and should be the shortest period necessary to serve your own purpose. This should not be determined simply by the storage capacity of a system.
Example:
Footage from a surveillance system shouldn’t be kept for five weeks merely because the manufacturer’s settings on the surveillance system allow retention for this length of time.
Where it is not necessary to retain information, for example, it does not achieve the purpose for which you are collecting and retaining information, then it should be deleted.
Example:
If a supermarket uses an ANPR system to monitor use of its car park when there is a two hour free parking limit and retains the details gathered from the ANPR system for those cars that have not exceeded the parking limit, then this is unnecessary and excessive and unlikely to comply with the data protection principles. In this example, the VRM would be the individual’s personal data.
I had a PCN from Smart Parking Ltd claiming I overstayed the allowed time at an Asda. I didn't, it was a double dip error on their part. I missed the first letter so had already embarked on the ignore route when I became aware of it.
The Intention to Commence Legal Proceedings turned out to be a bluff.
The Intention to Commence Legal Proceedings turned out to be a bluff.
Doesnt the OPs case prove why one needs to keep the data? To enable the coverage to be reviewed to identify whether the OPs car left the car park and re-entered?
Potentially the data needs to be kept until all those thought to have exceeded the limits have either paid, or the ticket withdrawn.
Potentially the data needs to be kept until all those thought to have exceeded the limits have either paid, or the ticket withdrawn.
blondini said:
I had a PCN from Smart Parking Ltd claiming I overstayed the allowed time at an Asda. I didn't, it was a double dip error on their part. I missed the first letter so had already embarked on the ignore route when I became aware of it.
The Intention to Commence Legal Proceedings turned out to be a bluff.
I suspected it would be a bluff, and I fell for it!The Intention to Commence Legal Proceedings turned out to be a bluff.
Damn!
Had 10 letters drop through the parents door this morning from Debt Recovery Plus siting the (Beavis?) case and now demanding £140 a pop for speculative parking invoices going back to 2013/2014...
I had sent them a letter at the time (2013-ish) disputing the first charge and requesting a POPLA code to which I just received a standard automated reply of rejection - any others went in the bin given they never addressed any of the points raised - Not properly signed (only 1 sign in the place was covered with graffiti and illegible, coupled with an inoperative parking meter).
I guess these will go the same way - are they likely to actually commence court proceedings or is it just more bluster?
Is it worth contacting them siting the previous request for a POPLA code and defective signage which was ignored or to just continue binning the things?
I had sent them a letter at the time (2013-ish) disputing the first charge and requesting a POPLA code to which I just received a standard automated reply of rejection - any others went in the bin given they never addressed any of the points raised - Not properly signed (only 1 sign in the place was covered with graffiti and illegible, coupled with an inoperative parking meter).
I guess these will go the same way - are they likely to actually commence court proceedings or is it just more bluster?
Is it worth contacting them siting the previous request for a POPLA code and defective signage which was ignored or to just continue binning the things?
kiethton said:
Had 10 letters drop through the parents door this morning from Debt Recovery Plus siting the (Beavis?) case and now demanding £140 a pop for speculative parking invoices going back to 2013/2014...
I had sent them a letter at the time (2013-ish) disputing the first charge and requesting a POPLA code to which I just received a standard automated reply of rejection - any others went in the bin given they never addressed any of the points raised - Not properly signed (only 1 sign in the place was covered with graffiti and illegible, coupled with an inoperative parking meter).
I guess these will go the same way - are they likely to actually commence court proceedings or is it just more bluster?
Is it worth contacting them siting the previous request for a POPLA code and defective signage which was ignored or to just continue binning the things?
A DCA can collect nothing without a court judgement. If you are going to communicate write back saying the alleged debt is in dispute and should referred back to the creditor. Which PPC was it? There is one in particular which likes dredging up old claims and has been roundly trounced in almost every case which has been to court. The fact that no POPLA code was provided is a very strong indicator.I had sent them a letter at the time (2013-ish) disputing the first charge and requesting a POPLA code to which I just received a standard automated reply of rejection - any others went in the bin given they never addressed any of the points raised - Not properly signed (only 1 sign in the place was covered with graffiti and illegible, coupled with an inoperative parking meter).
I guess these will go the same way - are they likely to actually commence court proceedings or is it just more bluster?
Is it worth contacting them siting the previous request for a POPLA code and defective signage which was ignored or to just continue binning the things?
Red Devil said:
kiethton said:
Had 10 letters drop through the parents door this morning from Debt Recovery Plus siting the (Beavis?) case and now demanding £140 a pop for speculative parking invoices going back to 2013/2014...
I had sent them a letter at the time (2013-ish) disputing the first charge and requesting a POPLA code to which I just received a standard automated reply of rejection - any others went in the bin given they never addressed any of the points raised - Not properly signed (only 1 sign in the place was covered with graffiti and illegible, coupled with an inoperative parking meter).
I guess these will go the same way - are they likely to actually commence court proceedings or is it just more bluster?
Is it worth contacting them siting the previous request for a POPLA code and defective signage which was ignored or to just continue binning the things?
A DCA can collect nothing without a court judgement. If you are going to communicate write back saying the alleged debt is in dispute and should referred back to the creditor. Which PPC was it? There is one in particular which likes dredging up old claims and has been roundly trounced in almost every case which has been to court. The fact that no POPLA code was provided is a very strong indicator.I had sent them a letter at the time (2013-ish) disputing the first charge and requesting a POPLA code to which I just received a standard automated reply of rejection - any others went in the bin given they never addressed any of the points raised - Not properly signed (only 1 sign in the place was covered with graffiti and illegible, coupled with an inoperative parking meter).
I guess these will go the same way - are they likely to actually commence court proceedings or is it just more bluster?
Is it worth contacting them siting the previous request for a POPLA code and defective signage which was ignored or to just continue binning the things?
Probably in haste, I did call Debt Recovery plus earlier from the work line as my parents were getting a little stressed (line recorded), when asked if they received my appeal letters siting signage issues and requesting a POPLA code their "Customer Services" guy did confirm that my appeal letters were received but refused to answer when I then asked why I never received an official appeal code in return. He then said that he wasn't going to help me with any appeal, asked finally whether I would be paying, I repeated myself and cut him off after saying that if they wanted to recover they'd have to take me though the courts and that any further letters are deemed harassment...
We'll see if anything happens but after a little further reading I think that I'll be ok...hopefully
I'm puzzled how a guy at a DCA would know whether you appealed and what the outcome was. I reckon he wouldn't discuss the POPLA code aspect because he simply didn't have the necessary information. How would he know? One thing he WILL know though is who the PPC is because it will have notified the DCA to start hassling you. A DCA has no standing to start a claim. That will be the PPC. If it were me I would write to (NOT phone) the DCA to tell them that all the PCNs are in dispute (list their reference numbers) and to refer the matter back to the PPC. It will form part of your audit trail/evidence bundle should you end up in court.
If he DOES have the relevant details he has no incentive to help you. A DCA is ONLY interested in extracting money from you. He also may or may not be aware that failure to issue a POPLA code is a breach of the ATA Code of Practice. If it came to a court case a judge would take a very dim view of a PPC refusing to allow a motorist to participate in the ADR appeal process.
It also doesn't help that POPLA moved from London Councils to The Ombudsdman Service last year.
Tell your parents not to get stressed/panic. That's what PPcs rely on: the fear factor. Only cross bridges as and when they need to be.
If he DOES have the relevant details he has no incentive to help you. A DCA is ONLY interested in extracting money from you. He also may or may not be aware that failure to issue a POPLA code is a breach of the ATA Code of Practice. If it came to a court case a judge would take a very dim view of a PPC refusing to allow a motorist to participate in the ADR appeal process.
It also doesn't help that POPLA moved from London Councils to The Ombudsdman Service last year.
Tell your parents not to get stressed/panic. That's what PPcs rely on: the fear factor. Only cross bridges as and when they need to be.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff