DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 37417--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN addressed to me for somewhere I have never been, car in
images is not mine - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: strawberrydoll
Date: September 18, 2024, 12:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for this, I'll send a step 2 complaint with this
wording.
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> How about responding to Mrs Harris with the following:
>
> [quote]Dear Mrs Harris,
>
> Re: Response to Your Letter Dated 16 September 2024 – Unlawful
Acquisition of Personal Data by Smart Parking Ltd
>
> Thank you for your letter dated 16 September 2024, regarding
my complaint about the unlawful acquisition of my personal data
by Smart Parking Ltd under the KADOE contract. While I
appreciate your review of the matter, several critical issues
remain unaddressed, and I would like to clarify the core
concerns.
>
> 1. The Core Issue – Failure in Post-DVLA Data Processing by
Smart Parking
>
> The key issue here is not the initial request by Smart Parking
for my personal data but their failure to verify that data once
they received it from the DVLA. While Smart Parking may have had
reasonable cause to request the data due to a misread of the
vehicle registration number (VRM) by their ANPR system, the
breach and unlawful use of my data occurred when they failed to
compare the data they received with the actual vehicle captured
in their ANPR images.
>
> After receiving my details, Smart Parking had an obligation
under section 21.5a(d) of the British Parking Association (BPA)
Code of Practice (CoP) to check that the make, model, and colour
of the vehicle in the DVLA data matched the vehicle identified
in the ANPR image. This simple, compulsory check would have
immediately revealed the mismatch, as the vehicle associated
with my personal data was not the vehicle in the ANPR image.
Smart Parking's failure to perform this check resulted in the
wrongful issuance of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to me, of a
vehicle I am not the registered keeper of and have never owned
or driven.
>
> This failure constitutes a breach of the BPA CoP and the KADOE
contract. Had Smart Parking performed the required check, no PCN
would have been issued, and I would not have been subjected to
the distress and anxiety caused by their unlawful actions.
>
> 2. Concerns Over DVLA’s Revenue and Conflict of Interest
>
> Another critical concern is the financial relationship between
the DVLA and private parking companies like Smart Parking. In
the financial year 2023/2024 alone, Smart Parking submitted
513,696 KADOE requests at £2.50 per request, generating
significant revenue for the DVLA. Given this substantial income
(from this relatively minor player), there is a concern that the
DVLA may be prioritising revenue over its duty to safeguard
individuals' personal data and ensure that private parking
companies comply with their legal and contractual obligations.
>
> This situation raises the question: Is the DVLA more concerned
with protecting its income stream than upholding individuals'
rights to privacy and ensuring that their data is only used
lawfully? The fact that Smart Parking clearly failed to verify
the data they received before issuing the PCN represents a
serious breach of the KADOE contract and the BPA Code of
Practice.
>
> I would like to know what sanctions the DVLA intends to impose
on Smart Parking for this failure. If no meaningful action is
taken, this suggests a worrying lack of oversight and protection
for the public in favour of protecting the DVLA's revenue
sources.
>
> 3. Misrepresentation of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as a
"Penalty"
>
> Finally, I would like to correct an inaccuracy in your
response. You referred to the charge issued by Smart Parking Ltd
as a "penalty charge notice." This is incorrect. The notice I
received was a Parking Charge Notice issued by an unregulated
private parking company, not a statutory penalty issued by a
public authority. Parking Charge Notices from private parking
companies do not carry the same legal weight as penalties issued
by local councils or government bodies. This misrepresentation
is important and should be corrected in any future
correspondence.
>
> Conclusion
>
> While the DVLA may have had reasonable cause to release my
data to Smart Parking in the first instance, the key issue here
is Smart Parking’s failure to verify that data after receiving
it and then unlawfully using it. The DVLA now has a
responsibility to investigate this breach of the KADOE contract
and impose appropriate sanctions on Smart Parking for their
failure to comply with the requirements for processing the data.
>
> I look forward to your response and confirmation that the DVLA
will take appropriate action to address this issue and prevent
future breaches.
>
> Yours sincerely,
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
#Post#: 37470--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN addressed to me for somewhere I have never been, car in
images is not mine - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 19, 2024, 2:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's not a Stage 2 Complaint IMO.
You acknowledge the following:
While the DVLA may have had reasonable cause to release my data
to Smart Parking in the first instance, the key issue here is
Smart Parking’s failure to verify that data after receiving it
and then unlawfully using it.
So that's DVLA off the hook. How would you expect DVLA to
oversee an Approved Operator's subsequent use of data? IMO, this
is for their ATA, in this case BPA.
You then demand that DVLA change the law and impose unspecified
sanctions on Smart Parking.
The DVLA now has a responsibility to investigate this breach of
the KADOE contract and impose appropriate sanctions on Smart
Parking for their failure to comply with the requirements for
processing the data.
IMO, this responsibility lies with the BPA.
What is it you're trying to achieve..you've written to Smart
demanding compensation and ultimately could take them to court
therefore, other than venting your spleen at DVLA, what would
you hope to achieve at this stage with them?
If you feel you must write to them, then I suggest you wait
until you've concluded your dealings with Smart and then, armed
with this info, for example a court judgment, then go back to
DVLA.
#Post#: 37476--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN addressed to me for somewhere I have never been, car in
images is not mine - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 19, 2024, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> So that's DVLA off the hook.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would suggest that if an organisation is handing out 1,400
sets of keeper data each day to a single operator, they ought to
properly look into any examples of that data being subsequently
misused, once they are brought to DVLA's attention.
That said, I can see the value in your point that an escalated
complaint might have more 'teeth' if it can be demonstrated that
the matter has been taken up by the BPA, and of course if the OP
successfully sues Smart.
#Post#: 37485--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN addressed to me for somewhere I have never been, car in
images is not mine - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: b789
Date: September 19, 2024, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sigh...
KADOE contract
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81a0c7e5274a2e8ab55036/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf
Just a few clauses that do not let the DVLA "off the hook". The
response from the DVLA dismissed the complaint as a minot
"misread" by the ANPR and has filed to address the actual
failure by Smart to manually check ANPR images against the DVLA
supplied data. Smart have misused the data they purchased from
the DVLA and appropriate measures should be taken to sanction
them, as we know this is not an isolated incident, and also to
make sure it can't happen again, preferably by removing Smart's
ability to use DVLA data in future.
1. Clause D10.1 (Incidents):
This clause places a clear obligation on the customer (the
operator) to notify the DVLA immediately about any data misuse.
Why has no action been taken by the DVLA after being informed of
the misuse of data supplied by them?
Relevant quote: [indent]The Customer shall notify the DVLA
immediately of any losses or misuse of the Data and keep the
DVLA informed of any communications about that breach with: the
individuals whose Personal Data is affected; the Information
Commissioner’s Office; or the media.[/indent]
2. Clause D9.1 (Audits, Reviews, etc.):
This clause obliges the customer to share with the DVLA the
results of audits or reviews concerning data processing
activities, ensuring compliance with the contract. Why hasn't
the DVLA pursued an audit or review in light of the data misuse
by Smart Parking?
Relevant quote: [indent]The Customer shall share with the DVLA
the outcome of any other checks, audits or reviews that have
been carried out on its activities as a Data Controller that are
relevant to the Processing of the Data.[/indent]
3. Clause D12.1 (Action on Complaint):Why have no steps been
taken to address the misuse of data?
Relevant quote: [indent]Where a complaint is received about the
Customer or the manner in which its services have been supplied
or work has been performed or procedures used or about any other
matter connected with the performance of the Customer’s
obligations under the Contract or the use of Data, the DVLA may
notify the Customer, and where considered appropriate by the
DVLA, investigate the complaint.[/indent]
4. Clause D11.1 (Inspection by the DVLA):
This clause reinforces the DVLA’s right to inspect the Smart’s
operations if there are concerns about contract compliance. Why
has the DVLA not exercised its right to inspect in light of the
complaint about misuse?
Relevant quote: [indent]The DVLA reserves the right to carry out
an inspection at any time of the Customer’s compliance with the
terms of this Contract.[/indent]
5. Clause A6.2 (Accredited Trade Association Compliance):
This clause mandates the customer to notify the DVLA about any
non-compliance issues or sanctions from the ATA. This one is for
after a complaint to the BPA has been filed.
Relevant quote: [indent]The Customer shall notify the DVLA
immediately if the Accredited Trade Association finds any
non-compliance issues, if any sanctions are applied or points
placed on the Customer’s membership licence, or if its
membership or Approved Operator status is suspended or
ended.[/indent]
#Post#: 37519--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN addressed to me for somewhere I have never been, car in
images is not mine - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 19, 2024, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It seems as if the obligations fall to the 'customer' (the
operator). I cannot see that DVLA have any supervisory or
inquisitorial role. In any event, IMO their route would be via
ATAs i.e. potential withdrawal of KADOE rights would follow an
operator's expulsion from ATA membership.
#Post#: 37539--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN addressed to me for somewhere I have never been, car in
images is not mine - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: b789
Date: September 19, 2024, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's all a means to an end. The response to the DVLA is to point
out that they ignored the operators unlawful use of the data
provided by them. Once the DVLA has been notified of a misuse of
data provided by them, simply brushing it off as a "simple ANPR
misread" is not satisfactory.
Hopefully, this will result in a complaint to the BPA and
perhaps a follow up to see what, if any, sanctions were applied
and whether those sanctions were transmitted to the DVLA as
required by the KADOE.
#Post#: 41907--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN addressed to me for somewhere I have never been, car in
images is not mine - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: strawberrydoll
Date: October 22, 2024, 2:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just providing an update with this- Smart Parking have not
responded but unfortunately I had a family emergency at the end
of September which I'm only just getting back from. I would like
to continue and I should be back home around the beginning of
November. Sorry for the silence and thank you!
#Post#: 44246--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN addressed to me for somewhere I have never been, car in
images is not mine - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: strawberrydoll
Date: November 6, 2024, 10:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to provide an update to my letter of claim- Smart Parking
have sent me a response, but only reiterating that my data was
deleted.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/bzj087H.png
#Post#: 46374--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN addressed to me for somewhere I have never been, car in
images is not mine - Smart Parking Ltd
DIR By: strawberrydoll
Date: November 20, 2024, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry this took so long- I lost multiple family members in a
short period of time in between all of this, but I am home now.
I'm really sorry for the long period of absence.
I am happy to continue on to MCOL and submit a claim if you're
all still willing to help, and then move onto the complaint to
the DVLA.
Thank you.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page