Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: CEL cave in before we even get to POPLA - venue car park
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
publicenemyno1
Went to a dinner dance one evening (trust me, very much not my thing!) and was amazed to find out via a speculative invoice from CEL 1 month later that the empty, pitch black venue car park was under their 'control'.

CEL wrote to me as keeper, no mention of, nor (I think) date compliance with POFA, which I believe is their current MO.

The venue were of little help (I sent a polite email explaining we were paying guests for the evening, and they were getting huge annual repeat business from the organisers, who I know) but they just shrugged shoulders.

Sent a lightly modified template letter obtained from MSE forums to CEL asking for a cancellation or POPLA code.

Despite this being my first ever 'offence', I have always enjoyed blogs like Parking Prankster, so knew what this lot were like, and I was fully expecting the usual 'at court we will make you lose your job and your house' type threatogram reply.

To my utter amazement, a polite, but detail free letter arrived this week from CEL discontinuing the charge. In fact, it said it twice!

I immediately emailed the venue to ask if this was down to them, to be honest, I got a very non committal reply ('it's possible the last person who replied to your email passed it on to a manager who contacted CEL') - I'm sure they would love to take credit as it makes them look as if they are giving good customer service.

My next move is to do a SAR type request on them in a weeks time to see if that will turn up who it was that cancelled the charge?

Am I right in thinking that either way they have potentially obtained details from DVLA outside of the DPA regulations and it's worth investigating further??

Either way I post this as encouragement to ANYONE faced with a bill from CEL. The sad part is that most will just pay up these baseless charges. The law should be there to protect people, not encourage muppets like CEL.
peterguk
QUOTE (publicenemyno1 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 12:56) *
My next move is to do a SAR type request on them in a weeks time to see if that will turn up who it was that cancelled the charge?


Why would they bother replying?
Jlc
QUOTE (publicenemyno1 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 12:56) *
Am I right in thinking that either way they have potentially obtained details from DVLA outside of the DPA regulations and it's worth investigating further??

No - they are entitled to access the DVLA and use the keeper details to pursue the driver.

(A breach could occur if they continued to pursue the keeper if it is clear they were not driving)
Gan
For all their faults, I've found CEL to be one of the better companies for accepting first appeals and not wasting my time forcing POPLA appeals that won't be contested
hexaflexagon
Could there be a more prosaic reason for cancelling? For example was parking only controlled during the day and hence parking in the evening was permissible.
Glacier2
CEL will cancel where the keeper appeals and does not name the driver.

CEL have been attempting POFA compliance lately so you need to be careful. But their notices are woefully non compliant.
publicenemyno1
QUOTE (Jlc @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 13:11) *
QUOTE (publicenemyno1 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 12:56) *
Am I right in thinking that either way they have potentially obtained details from DVLA outside of the DPA regulations and it's worth investigating further??

No - they are entitled to access the DVLA and use the keeper details to pursue the driver.

(A breach could occur if they continued to pursue the keeper if it is clear they were not driving)


I thought this was the whole basis of (one aspect of) DPA claims.

QUOTE
Keeper liability – As discussed elsewhere on this site, keeper liability only exists under very specific circumstances (see POFA). The KADOE contract specifically states that the data can only be used to enforce the ticket using Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. Hence, if a parking company tries to claim liability against the keeper, with no evidence to suggest they were the driver, then the data would have been misused.


If not using POFA, they have no hope of using the details legitimately (yes, some may admit the driver) - hence inappropriate access of data??
Jlc
QUOTE (publicenemyno1 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 13:29) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 13:11) *
QUOTE (publicenemyno1 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 12:56) *
Am I right in thinking that either way they have potentially obtained details from DVLA outside of the DPA regulations and it's worth investigating further??

No - they are entitled to access the DVLA and use the keeper details to pursue the driver.

(A breach could occur if they continued to pursue the keeper if it is clear they were not driving)


I thought this was the whole basis of (one aspect of) DPA claims.

QUOTE
Keeper liability – As discussed elsewhere on this site, keeper liability only exists under very specific circumstances (see POFA). The KADOE contract specifically states that the data can only be used to enforce the ticket using Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. Hence, if a parking company tries to claim liability against the keeper, with no evidence to suggest they were the driver, then the data would have been misused.


If not using POFA, they have no hope of using the details legitimately (yes, some may admit the driver) - hence inappropriate access of data??

They don't have to use PoFA. If they don't then they can invite the keeper to pay or name the driver - there's no DPA claim in that.

Alternatively, if they claim the keeper is liable (and they haven't complied) then there's potential for misuse.
publicenemyno1
QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 13:18) *
Could there be a more prosaic reason for cancelling? For example was parking only controlled during the day and hence parking in the evening was permissible.


If that's the case (although my daylight investigations suggest otherwise), then another clear breach of DPA, since the alleged times were clearly printed on the speculative invoice.
Jlc
QUOTE (publicenemyno1 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 12:56) *
My next move is to do a SAR type request on them in a weeks time to see if that will turn up who it was that cancelled the charge?

That'll cost you £10 and may not unearth anything interesting.

QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 13:19) *
CEL have been attempting POFA compliance lately so you need to be careful. But their notices are woefully non compliant.

Have they? I haven't seen that yet. I know Excel/VCS are trying.
publicenemyno1
QUOTE (Jlc @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 13:32) *
QUOTE (publicenemyno1 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 13:29) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 13:11) *
QUOTE (publicenemyno1 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 12:56) *
Am I right in thinking that either way they have potentially obtained details from DVLA outside of the DPA regulations and it's worth investigating further??

No - they are entitled to access the DVLA and use the keeper details to pursue the driver.

(A breach could occur if they continued to pursue the keeper if it is clear they were not driving)


I thought this was the whole basis of (one aspect of) DPA claims.

QUOTE
Keeper liability – As discussed elsewhere on this site, keeper liability only exists under very specific circumstances (see POFA). The KADOE contract specifically states that the data can only be used to enforce the ticket using Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. Hence, if a parking company tries to claim liability against the keeper, with no evidence to suggest they were the driver, then the data would have been misused.


If not using POFA, they have no hope of using the details legitimately (yes, some may admit the driver) - hence inappropriate access of data??

They don't have to use PoFA. If they don't then they can invite the keeper to pay or name the driver - there's no DPA claim in that.

Alternatively, if they claim the keeper is liable (and they haven't complied) then there's potential for misuse.


What you've said seems to go against the quote (from Parking Cowboys) a little, but I am not wishing to start an argument knowing little about it myself.

The original speculative invoice has (very!) small print advising the keeper to 'name the driver and pass the PCN on to them'. It provides little detail of what will happen should you refuse; but the main body has all the usual threats about debt collectors etc... should you not pay.
Jlc
I'm saying exactly the same thing as that site.

You may have a claim if they are claiming keeper liability applies when it doesn't or if they process keeper information when it is clear that the keeper was not driving.

From what you've said thus far that doesn't appear to be the case here.
publicenemyno1
QUOTE (Jlc @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 13:42) *
I'm saying exactly the same thing as that site.

You may have a claim if they are claiming keeper liability applies when it doesn't or if they process keeper information when it is clear that the keeper was not driving.

From what you've said thus far that doesn't appear to be the case here.


Presumably the only way to test that would be to see what CELs reply was if your sole reply to the speculative invoice was along the lines of

'I am the keeper, not the driver. I therefore reject this invoice, and cannot name the driver' with no other reason(s) given, and see what the reaction was.

Jlc
Would they not have the right to test that in court? (On the balance of probabilities)
publicenemyno1
QUOTE (Jlc @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 13:51) *
Would they not have the right to test that in court? (On the balance of probabilities)


They would presumably have to offer POPLA first anyway? Which I believe will always reject non POFA NTKs, again, only from reading around.

Surely at this point they have arguably already caused 'undue distress' etc...
henrik777
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 13:02) *
QUOTE (publicenemyno1 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 12:56) *
My next move is to do a SAR type request on them in a weeks time to see if that will turn up who it was that cancelled the charge?


Why would they bother replying?


Because it's a legal requirement.
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 13:18) *
Could there be a more prosaic reason for cancelling? For example was parking only controlled during the day and hence parking in the evening was permissible.


No, I agree with Gan and Glacier2 in that experience tells us that CEL always cancel when they see a decent appeal from a keeper pointing out non-POFA stuff. CEL don't like the MSE template appeal and always cancel - have done for months if not years - and this OP says he used an adapted version of that.
publicenemyno1
QUOTE (henrik777 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 14:19) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 13:02) *
QUOTE (publicenemyno1 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 12:56) *
My next move is to do a SAR type request on them in a weeks time to see if that will turn up who it was that cancelled the charge?


Why would they bother replying?


Because it's a legal requirement.


Indeed smile.gif
peterguk
QUOTE (henrik777 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 14:19) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 13:02) *
QUOTE (publicenemyno1 @ Sat, 18 Mar 2017 - 12:56) *
My next move is to do a SAR type request on them in a weeks time to see if that will turn up who it was that cancelled the charge?


Why would they bother replying?


Because it's a legal requirement.


ISTBC, but i thought SARs are requests made by general public on businesses relating to information held under section 7 of the DPA 1998.

So what does the identity of an individual who made a business decision got to do with the DPA?
henrik777
QUOTE
So what does the identity of an individual who made a business decision got to do with the DPA?


A business decision that also contains personal data of the individual ?

Anyway, it's amazing what can be discovered by asking for information. Sure, some companies will mug you off but many companies have no idea and send all sorts of interesting stuff.
emanresu
QUOTE
Anyway, it's amazing what can be discovered by asking for information. Sure, some companies will mug you off but many companies have no idea and send all sorts of interesting stuff.


+1

QUOTE
For all their faults, I've found CEL to be one of the better companies for accepting first appeals and not wasting my time forcing POPLA appeals that won't be contested


It may be something to do with having their collars felt by the Boys-in-Blue a short while ago. "Better" companies don't employ a solicitor close to being struck off.
Ashira
Hi, Publicenemyno1 Ive received a parking charge notice from Civil Enforcement which sounds just like the one you recieved stating that i overstayed in a car park with a 4 hr limit by 19 minutes. They have used ANPR and have photos of my car entering and exiting. The incident occurred on 21.2.17 and i i received their letter a month later on 21.3.17. I am planning to appeal using the notice to keeper 14 day rule and was considering using the blue text on the MSE Forum site. Please could you let me have a copy of what you sent as you were successful in appealing your charge?

Thanks
nosferatu1001
Edit your post, never reveal the drivers identity.
Start your own thread.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.