PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Private parking Euro Car Parks, DRP and Zenith, When is enough - how can 2 companies chase fine See pics?
Law Wannabe
post Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 21:59
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,851



Hi

This will probably make most laugh but when is enough, how many letter and calls, and text messages until it stops.
Total of 18 letters, 4 text messages and 4 received calls (4 calls made to DRP) icon_hang.gif

Zenith said they are responsible for the recovery of the outstanding fine in March 2018 however, DRP say they are collecting the outstanding fine and in a
letter on 26th June DRP stated they had recommended to their client that they appoint their solicitor to start court action. The RK is not bothered by court action
as no reply to appeal, they ignored appeal as it had a temporary address to send letters to, as RK sold house in October 2017.

My question is around data protection and the RK details.
Let me try and explain:
PCN October 2017 at address A = RK details at address A
Copy of appeal sent to DRP giving address B 9th January 2018
RK details changed with DVLA (V5) 3rd January 2018 with address C
Euro car parks letters ( Oct x 2) to address A
Recovery letter from DRP ( 1 x Dec, 4 x Jan) to address A
more recovery letters from DRP ( feb x 2) to address A
Zenith recovery letter ( 1 x March) to address A

No correspondence ever to address B the temporary home

Stupidly RK got another PCN same car park on 29th January 2018 and forgot to pay so received letter from Euro car parks to address C

The RK received numerous text messages 29th June, 3rd July, 10th July and spoke on the telephone to DRP 2nd January, 23rd January, 11th June and 4th July

On 25th May 2018 the DRP letters started coming to address C (1 x May, 3 x June) even though the RK details they had for the PCN in 2017 was address A

Zenith are now using address C as RK address (1 x July, 1 x August) The 1st letter to address A stating on behalf of Euro carparks so where did they get address C unless
it was from DRP.

There is one strange difference and that is that on the January PCN euro car parks used the address C as it is registered with the DVLA on the V5 and driving licence, but the letters from DRP and Zenith
are missing the first line of the RK address which is just 3 words but it's still part of the address. It's how the address appears if you use a drop down!!! It is not how the local authority address information.

There is no reason for them to have used a tracing agency I am sure they are using the data received from PCN Jan 2018 which means DRP have breeched the new rules that came into force 25th May
by using personal data without consent and passed it to a third party. Even though we know DRP and Zenith are the same, they are acting as 2 different companies as they use
different bank accounts, telephone numbers and addresses.

Both DRP and Zenith had received communication before May 2018 and RK had not divulged the new address.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...5514&page=5

I also found this piece on LinkedIn
For example, one can see the differences most clearly when analysing the need for consent by the data subject to process their information. At the present, private parking
companies rely on the relevant contract that is deemed to exist between a parking company and a motorist under the Protection of Freedoms Act. A motorist is perceived to have accepted the processing
of their personal data for the purposes of issuing parking charges, if they have chosen to park on private land in breach of the terms displayed in the signage on that site.
However, this will no longer be considered acceptable under the GDPR as it obligates the processor to have auditable evidence of a driver having given their express consent
for the processing of their information in this manner, removing the ability to rely on consent given by silence or a pre-ticked boxed. Furthermore, this consent must be a
clear and genuine decision made by the individual and may also be withdrawn at any time, meaning that even if consent were to be given at the time of the contravention, a
motorist may withdraw it after the event. Thus demonstrating that, although minimal on first glance, GDPR could pose far more significant issues for any business that relies
on the utilisation and processing of personal data.
Building on from this point, it is also worth noting that even if another option seems at first glance to be a logical redirection for the business;
GDPR is still likely to pose a problem. Reverting to the example of parking, it would seem that to legitimise their processing of motorist’s details, it would seem that the
new reliance would be on the fact that the information was collected and processed for a legitimate interest. Nonetheless, this is not as simple as it may appear as despite
the protection of the Freedoms Act seeming to offer support for the assertion that car park management is a legitimate public interest, GDPR may still cause issues for these
companies. GDPR offers the data subject the right to object to the processing of their information on the basis of legitimate interest and places an obligation on the processor
to prove that they have compelling grounds to continue processing the data. Should the grounds not be considered sufficient then it may lead to the subject’s exercising of
their rights to restrict and erase the data in question and thereby preventing the potential issuing and enforcement of parking charges. Furthermore, GDPR also requires
that any decisions made in relation to the balance between the interests of the controller (or relevant third party) and the rights of data subjects is documented; meaning that
not only will a company have to prove their grounds for processing the data, but they will also have to demonstrate how their conclusions were drawn. Thus demonstrating the
onerous nature of GDPR as it requires a company to be able to explain exactly how every decision was made in relation to data processing and leaves these decisions open to
questioning by a number of parties.


Thank you

Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 1)
Advertisement
post Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 21:59
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 00:35
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



DRP sends letters under the Zenith trading name to make you believe you're dealing with a new debt collector
Most people don't read the small print at the bottom of the Zenith letters

Parking charges don't fall under any regulatory authority and debt collectors can do anything they like
The DVLA has even told parking companies that their debt collectors don't have to follow the OFT (now FCA) fair collection procedures

GDPR will go nowhere
The ICO always supports parking companies and debt collectors

The standard advice is always to ignore debt collectors

Never talk to them
Tell them not to call you; end the call; block the number and report them to OFCOM if they continue

This post has been edited by Redivi: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 00:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Thursday, 16th August 2018 - 17:32
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.