PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Another PCN received with insufficient evidence
jagoico2000
post Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 20:08
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,391



The driver of my car studies at a college during the week and pays for parking on a pay and display basis. Today I received the following PCN. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle so they are chasing me. However, the driver asserts that he/she has always paid and displayed. He/she doesn't keep the stubs indefinitely.

The PCN shows CCTV footage of the car entering and leaving but not of parking. Nor does it show any evidence of the car being parked without a pay and display ticket.

Is there a recommended template for an appeal? I can't understand how this is meant to work. What's to stop them sending one of these for every day and putting the burden of proof on me?

I should add there was no sticky parking "ticket" put on the windscreen. The driver has seen them doing this for other cars. This was purely a retrospective PCN issued.




How about this:

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car. I was not the driver of the car at the times specified in the "PCN" and you have not provided any evidence that the vehicle was parked without a valid permit. The driver has confirmed separately that they did indeed have a valid permit at the time.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

This post has been edited by jagoico2000: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 20:08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 20:08
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 12:50
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Both.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:49
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



No.

POPLA codes last for 30 days or so.

First, and no delaying it at all, you email CEL's Data Protection Officer (see their privacy page and no saying they don't have a DPO email - they do). Tell them that the appeals team have lied about the DPA to refuse to provide the VRN list from the parking machine showing your VRN or a close match. Since it is a fact that the ICO has already ruled that a VRN is 'personal data' then you have a legal right to the VRN list with your VRN or close match (e.g. if the keypad was faulty and misrecorded it, as you expect). Any other VRNS around the same time can be partly redacted, as any other parking firm does when complying with GDPR and supplying a VRN list, adn you require CEL to do the same immediately.

Show a copy of your V5C as proof of ID and that you are the data subject with the right to enquire about that personal data/VRN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jagoico2000
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 14:40
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,391



Already done the POPLA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jagoico2000
post Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 10:28
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,391



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:49) *
No.

POPLA codes last for 30 days or so.

First, and no delaying it at all, you email CEL's Data Protection Officer (see their privacy page and no saying they don't have a DPO email - they do). Tell them that the appeals team have lied about the DPA to refuse to provide the VRN list from the parking machine showing your VRN or a close match. Since it is a fact that the ICO has already ruled that a VRN is 'personal data' then you have a legal right to the VRN list with your VRN or close match (e.g. if the keypad was faulty and misrecorded it, as you expect). Any other VRNS around the same time can be partly redacted, as any other parking firm does when complying with GDPR and supplying a VRN list, adn you require CEL to do the same immediately.

Show a copy of your V5C as proof of ID and that you are the data subject with the right to enquire about that personal data/VRN.



It seems CEL doesn't have an email address...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ollyfrog
post Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 12:22
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,530



Found within 3 minutes

dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk

Here's the full paragraph on their privacy page

Your information

You have the right to make the following requests about personal data we may hold:
To inform you how and why it is processed; to give you access to it; rectify and incorrect information; to delete it; to restrict our use of it; to ask us to transfer a copy to a third party and object to our use of it.
Data protection law requires us to verify your identity before providing information, respond to your request and tell you why, if we do not agree with it.

If we hold any information about you which is incorrect or if there are any changes to your details please let us know so that we can keep our records accurate and up to date. If you would like to update your records or see a copy of the information that we hold about you, you can contact us at Data Protection Officer, Civil Enforcement Ltd, Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool, L2 3PF or by email at dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk. If you request a copy of your information you will not need to pay any fee.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 14:28
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



You will need to do more than just skim read if you are to succeed with this. The idea is to understand the process that you are in. To do that, you will need to read in detail.


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jagoico2000
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 11:25
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,391



I sent an DSAR request by email.

I got a letter through the post from CEL:

"RESPONSE FROM REPRESENTATIONS TEAM

We refer to your recent correspondence.

Please be advised as the appeal has been referred to POPLA we are unable to deal with any further communications until POPLA has reached a decision on the Parking Contravention Notice"


I can only assume by "recent correspondence" they are referring to the Subject Access Request. I can't see they have any grounds for delaying my right to access to the data.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 12:21
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



Then you email back...to the data protection officer.

I am <name> and am wwriting in relation to my Subject Access request made on <date>

I have been advised that I must wait for an appeals process to be completed before your company will deal with any further communication.

I remind you of your obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018 in regard to Subject Access requests. They should be processed "promptly" and in any case MUST be processed within one month of the request being received, starting from the day after the request.

Take note that if you refuse to process this request promptly and fail to deliver the information within the time required a complaint will be raised with the Information Commissioner which may be done without further warnings to yourself.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jagoico2000
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 13:15
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,391



They have now uploaded their evidence to POPLA.

A lengthy letter that looks like standard stuff they say about clear signage and this constitutes entering a contract with legal precendent etc., but the key thing is they have included what looks like a printout of the times at which the payments were made at the pay machine. So they admit that a ticket was purchased but that it was more than 10mins after entering the lot. They also say that shows other vehicles that have complied (although you cannot infer from this), and therefore the machine was in good working order.

However, according to the list they gave the ticket was purchased at 12:31:27 and the photo of the car entering the premises is timestamped at 12:10.

The next person purchased their ticked at 12:31:28 which is just 1 second for the driver to collect the ticket, step out of the way, the next person to approach, key in their licence number and enter payment which is not possible. Hence, the timings cannot be accurate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 13:18
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Email the DPA regardleess
Ensure it is direct to DPO, headed as such in the body etc so they cannot claim they thought it was somehow an appeal.

Yep, you point that out! State it is NOT CREDIBLE that the machine took less than one secfond to complete all states, so either the log is inaccurate, it has been edited by the operator to mislead POPLA,e tc
Also point out that there is no proof that the ticket machine timing is DIRECTLY LINKED to the ANPR timing. They must PROVE they are from teh same time source.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jagoico2000
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 13:22
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,391



The signage does say "Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival" but doesn't say what "arrival" means. It takes time to enter the premises and find a parking space. Does it mean entering the lot or actually parking and stopping the engine?

In the T&C it also says "If you do not obtain a valid ticket, you must (a) pay within 10 minutes of arrival...". So does that mean this doesn't apply if you did pay for the parking and get a valid ticket?

QUOTE (bearclaw @ Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 12:21) *
Then you email back...to the data protection officer.

I am <name> and am wwriting in relation to my Subject Access request made on <date>

I have been advised that I must wait for an appeals process to be completed before your company will deal with any further communication.

I remind you of your obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018 in regard to Subject Access requests. They should be processed "promptly" and in any case MUST be processed within one month of the request being received, starting from the day after the request.

Take note that if you refuse to process this request promptly and fail to deliver the information within the time required a complaint will be raised with the Information Commissioner which may be done without further warnings to yourself.



The email I sent was indeed to the DPO.

This post has been edited by jagoico2000: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 13:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jagoico2000
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 13:48
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,391



This is the key evidence. Looks like anyone could have typed this up:

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 14:03
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



QUOTE (jagoico2000 @ Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 13:22) *
The signage does say "Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival" but doesn't say what "arrival" means. It takes time to enter the premises and find a parking space. Does it mean entering the lot or actually parking and stopping the engine?

In the T&C it also says "If you do not obtain a valid ticket, you must (a) pay within 10 minutes of arrival...". So does that mean this doesn't apply if you did pay for the parking and get a valid ticket?

QUOTE (bearclaw @ Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 12:21) *
Then you email back...to the data protection officer.

I am <name> and am wwriting in relation to my Subject Access request made on <date>

I have been advised that I must wait for an appeals process to be completed before your company will deal with any further communication.

I remind you of your obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018 in regard to Subject Access requests. They should be processed "promptly" and in any case MUST be processed within one month of the request being received, starting from the day after the request.

Take note that if you refuse to process this request promptly and fail to deliver the information within the time required a complaint will be raised with the Information Commissioner which may be done without further warnings to yourself.



The email I sent was indeed to the DPO.


Thats really silly of them then isnt it. Dont lose that email - I'd print it out and file it with a note of when you did written on it.

Still send the above though - and get ready to make a complaint to the ICO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 14:45
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You absolutely do tell the DPO that theyre mistaken if they think they can delay their obligations, and yuo will complain tot eh ICO if you do not get your data within the time period required.

"Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival"

CRA2015 (look it up) - if a term is ambiguous it MUST be interpreted in favour of the CONSUMER. THis COULD mean that it is within ten minutes of arriving at a parking space - because you cannot know what time you entered an unkown permieetn, you CAN take note of when you arrived at a space, so its even more reasonable to tajke this interpretation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jagoico2000
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 15:47
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,391



Also, if they are counting it from the time you enter the gates, this is no longer a "parking charge". It is a "toll fee" which must come under a completely different set of rules

QUOTE (bearclaw @ Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 12:21) *
Then you email back...to the data protection officer.

I am <name> and am wwriting in relation to my Subject Access request made on <date>

I have been advised that I must wait for an appeals process to be completed before your company will deal with any further communication.

I remind you of your obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018 in regard to Subject Access requests. They should be processed "promptly" and in any case MUST be processed within one month of the request being received, starting from the day after the request.

Take note that if you refuse to process this request promptly and fail to deliver the information within the time required a complaint will be raised with the Information Commissioner which may be done without further warnings to yourself.


I sent the email
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 17:57
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Be aware that the deadline for rebuttal at POPLA is only 7 days. I am not sure if it is from the date that you are notified or the date that POPLA receive it, so you may well already be under time pressures for this.

Try to respond as quickly as possible, while being diligent in ensuring a full rebuttal.


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jagoico2000
post Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 18:03
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,391



Please can you review. This is what I have drafted for my POPLA response to the operator's evidence:

------------------------------------------

I have viewed the Operator's "evidence" and provide the following response.

• The Operator has now effectively admitted that a permit was indeed paid for on the day in question by providing what they claim is an extract from the ticketing machine evidencing this. This clearly shows an entry for the vehicle in question
• The Operator claims (point 6 of their response) that the report shows those vehicles that did purchase a parking session on the day in question. They also claim that this shows that the payment machine was in good working order on the date. There are some issues with these claims:
○ The evidence they have provided shows that payment for the vehicle in question was made at 12:31:27 and that payment for the next vehicle was made at 12:31:28. This is a difference of 1 second. This proves that this data is not reliable. In order to purchase the ticket, the driver must:
- wait for the previous person to collect their ticket and make way for the next person to get access to the machine
- Read and understand what needs to be done
- Enter the vehicle registration number into the machine
- Decide on and count out the appropriate money to pay
- Insert the appropriate payment into the machine
- Wait for the ticket to be printed

It is beyond all reasonable doubt that the above steps will take a lot longer than 1 second.

○ The time-stamp on the photo of the vehicle entering the premises is 12:10:40. The time stated for payment of the ticket on the report is 12:31:27. This is a difference of circa 21 minutes. It does not take 21 minutes to park the car and pay for the ticket particularly under the time constraints of having to sit a test at the educational establishment. The driver confirmed it took about 5 minutes to complete this process. Whilst the Operator has stated (point 19 in their response) that the ANPR cameras are calibrated and updated to be inline with GMT, the Operator has not provided any evidence that the system clocks on the ANPR cameras and the system clocks on the payment machines were synchronised on that day. The evidence indicates that they are not synchronised nor are the timestamps in the payment machine accurate.

○ The report of payments from the machine does not prove that other vehicles were parked correctly as claimed by the operator. If it did, then it would also prove that the vehicle in question was also parked correctly by virtue of the fact that it is listed in the report from the payment machine.

○ The Operator has provided photographs to show other cars parked correctly. These were taken on 19th October 2017 as shown in the timestamps and do not prove anything in relation to this claim.

• The Operator is now focussing their argument on the 10 minute condition. There are significant problems with this claim:
○ There is signage that states "Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival". It does not define what is meant by "arrival". As this charge relates to a parking charge and not a toll gate, then the timing should relate to when the car was parked. As stated before, the operator has repeatedly failed to provide any evidence relating to this. The only photographic evidence provided is that of the vehicle entering and leaving the premises which would only be relevant to a toll charge and not a parking charge.
○ The Operator has cited (point 20 in their response) that the grace period was taken into consideration before issuing the Notice in accordance with the British Parking Association in their Code of Practice. The BPA states:

"Clause 13.2 and 30.2 - If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes."

This clearly states that the grace period must be applied to the "parking event" and not the time of entry to the premises.

○ In accordance with CRA2015, if a term is ambiguous it MUST be interpreted in favour of the CONSUMER. The term "arrival" could mean that it is within ten minutes of arriving at a parking space.

"Consumer Rights Act 2015 Chapter 15
Section 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings
331.Contract terms can be ambiguous and capable of being interpreted in different ways, especially if they are not in writing or in an accessible format. In these cases, this section ensures that the interpretation that is most beneficial to the consumer, rather than the trader, is the interpretation that is used.
"

○ The Operator has failed to provide the requested evidence to support their claim. The Operator has not provided any evidence that more than 10 minutes expired from the time at which the car was parked to when the payment was made. They have not provided any evidence of the vehicle parked at a particular time without a valid permit. They have only provided photos of the vehicle entering and leaving the premises which is not relevant to this claim

○ The Operator has admitted (point 19 in their response) "The high-tech cameras are not designed to monitor movements within the car park and we do not operate Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras.". In stating this, the Operator has admitted that they do not have evidence of the car parking event.


• A Data Subject Access Request was raised with the Data Protection Officer for the parking Operator to gain access to my personal data under the General Data Protection Regulation. The Operator misrepresented the Data Protection Act to refuse to provide this information (as can be seen in page 18 of the evidence provided by the Operator). They then sent a letter citing that because a POPLA appeal was under way, they are unable to deal with any further communication until the POPLA has reached a decision. This is in direct violation of my rights under the General Data Protection Regulation and a formal complaint will be made to the Information Commissioners Office. If the Operator had complied with my rights the first stage of the POPLA appeals process would have had all the relevant information proving the points above. Hence, one could argue that this was an attempt by the Operator to compromise the POPLA appeals process by deliberately withholding information from the Data Subject.

The educational establishment at which the parking "incident" occurred is for adult education and is frequented by people for whom there are language barriers and/or may lack the confidence to challenge PCNs. There is an abundance of such incidents where people have paid for parking at this location only to receive a PCN by post.

All things considered, there is clear evidence that the behaviour of the operator is predatory in nature and they are not administering in good faith a contract for parking on private land.

In view of the above points I request you reject the parking operator's claim.

Many thanks,

------------------------------------------

This post has been edited by jagoico2000: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 19:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 22:18
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



You have only 2,000 characters (not words) to respond. The above runs to 6,945. You'll need to replace a scalpel with a chain saw. Cut out the waffle, use bulletpoints rather than full blown sentences. Don't even think of trying to scrape through with just a few more than the maximum - it won't work, then you're on the back foot with little time to further modify.

I haven't checked whether you have or not, but be aware that you are responding precisely to what the PPC has submitted in their evidence pack - you cannot add new evidence of your own not previously alluded to in your own POPLA appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jagoico2000
post Sat, 26 Jan 2019 - 01:43
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 3 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,391



QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 22:18) *
You have only 2,000 characters (not words) to respond. The above runs to 6,945. You'll need to replace a scalpel with a chain saw. Cut out the waffle, use bulletpoints rather than full blown sentences. Don't even think of trying to scrape through with just a few more than the maximum - it won't work, then you're on the back foot with little time to further modify.

I haven't checked whether you have or not, but be aware that you are responding precisely to what the PPC has submitted in their evidence pack - you cannot add new evidence of your own not previously alluded to in your own POPLA appeal.



I see that there is an option to respond by email instead which would not be limited to 2000 characters. Anyone else done this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sat, 26 Jan 2019 - 02:34
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Several times

The acknowledgements say that the rebuttals have been passed to the assessor but their content is never mentioned in the assessor's report

I don't therefore believe that emailed rebuttals are looked at, although I have doubts that the online rebuttals are properly considered either
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:04
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here