DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 62009--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: March 11, 2025, 6:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the draft letter. I have sent it and will update
you when I receive their response. Many thanks.
#Post#: 63113--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: March 18, 2025, 1:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello. This is the response I received from the BPA today……
They appear to have forwarded to Euro Car Parks rather than
ParkingEye!
“Dear ,
Thank you for your response.
I have forwarded your query to Euro Car Parks who will contact
you directly shortly.
Please be advised we deem it acceptable to allow 14 days for the
operator to make contact with you.
We did not include the sentences to mislead as I previously
advised – further to this, the Notes within the Code of Practice
are considered “best practice”
“Where “NOTES” within the Code purport to impose a standard on
an operator they are not mandatory. They are an indication of
best practice which should be aspired to by those managing land.
It is recognised, that for an operator, complying with the
“NOTE” is not always possible and there will be circumstances
where compliance is unachievable and sometimes unhelpful. Not
complying with a “NOTE” is not a breach of the Code. Parking
operators and motorists are reminded of the spirit of the Code
which is accountability and compliance”
Operators are not obliged to send letters via recordered
delivery, the Code of Practice does not cover this. When an
operator can provide a copy of the Parking Charge, we deem this
compliant with the Code of Practice.
Kind regards
Compliance Team
British Parking Association
#Post#: 63115--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: March 18, 2025, 2:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Where is this going?
You're rattling cages and at least it appears to be preventing
them from progressing their claim.
You were given the opportunity to appeal even though their
normal period had expired. But you've not taken this
opportunity.
In court, if they could not establish on the basis of balance of
probabilities that a NTK was sent, then as keeper you could not
be held liable.
Likelihood?
Or perhaps if you make enough noise with correspondence hither
and thither they'll just focus on less problematic targets. Who
knows?
#Post#: 63119--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: b789
Date: March 18, 2025, 3:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Write to your MP and show him/her this line of correspondence
and the BPAs shirking of their responsibilities. They try to
pass themselves of as a pseudo-regulator but manage only to
prove that their only interest is in actually protecting their
members when it can clearly be shown that they are abusing the
process.
Where has anyone mentioned “recorded delivery”. All that is
required to prove posting is a free certificate of posting from
any post office. Yet more obfuscation. The burden of proof is
still on the operator to prove it was posted, not on the
recipient to prove it wasn’t posted.
The BPA forwarding your personal complaint—including details of
your dispute with ParkingEye—to Euro Car Parks (ECP), a
completely unrelated entity, constitutes a clear breach of GDPR
under Article 5(1)(f) and Article 6 of the UK GDPR.
Why this is a GDPR Breach:
Unlawful Processing of Personal Data – Your complaint contained
personal data (name, case reference, PCN details, etc.), and ECP
has no lawful basis to receive this information because they are
not involved in your case.
Failure to Ensure Data Security – The BPA, as a data controller
for complaints, must take appropriate steps to ensure personal
data is only processed by the correct recipients. This careless
mishandling suggests a systemic failure in their
complaint-handling process.
Breach of Confidentiality – The fact that the BPA is incorrectly
sharing personal complaint data with third parties calls into
question whether other complaints have also been misdirected,
exposing a serious data governance issue.
Consequences of a GDPR Breach:
The BPA is obliged to report a personal data breach to the ICO
(Information Commissioner's Office) within 72 hours if the
breach is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms
of the individual. Given that your personal data was sent to the
wrong company without lawful justification, this is a reportable
incident.
Send the following response to the BPA:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: BPA’s Failure to Handle My Complaint Properly – GDPR
Breach & Continued Non-Compliance
>
> Dear BPA Compliance Team,
>
> I am writing to express my extreme concern over your handling
of my formal complaint regarding ParkingEye. Your response is
not only entirely inadequate in addressing the core issue but
has now escalated into a serious data protection breach under UK
GDPR.
>
> 1. Serious GDPR Breach – Unlawful Sharing of My Personal Data
>
> It has come to my attention that you have forwarded my
complaint to Euro Car Parks (ECP) instead of ParkingEye.This
constitutes a clear breach of UK GDPR under:
>
> - Article 5(1)(f) – Failure to ensure security and
confidentiality of personal data
> - Article 6 – Unlawful processing of personal data without a
valid legal basis
> Euro Car Parks has no involvement in this case, and there is
no lawful basis for you to have transferred my personal data to
them. This failure to handle personal data securely calls into
question the BPA’s entire complaint-handling process and whether
other complainants’ personal data has also been mishandled.
>
> Under UK GDPR, you are now legally required to:
>
> - Inform me of the full extent of the breach – What personal
data was sent to ECP? Was this only my complaint, or did it
include additional information?
> - Confirm whether you have reported this breach to the ICO –
Given that my data was shared with an unauthorised third party,
this is a reportable incident under GDPR rules.
> - Provide me with an immediate Data Breach Notification – You
must confirm in writing what steps you are taking to contain the
breach and prevent recurrence.
>
> Failure to act transparently on this matter will result in an
immediate escalation to the Information Commissioner’s Office
(ICO).
>
> As for the rest of your response, it remains wholly
inadequate, both in content and in addressing the fundamental
regulatory obligations of the BPA as an Accredited Trade
Association (ATA). Additionally, the fact that you have
incorrectly forwarded my complaint to Euro Car Parks instead of
ParkingEye, raises further concerns about the care and accuracy
with which complaints are handled.
>
> 1. Misrepresentation of “Recorded Delivery” vs. “Proof of
Posting”
>
> Your response references "Recorded Delivery", which is
entirely irrelevant to this matter. At no point was "Recorded
Delivery" suggested or required. This is a service that requires
a signature upon receipt and incurs a cost.
>
> What was actually requested—and what is relevant to both PoFA
and the PPSCoP—is "Proof of Posting", which is a free service
provided by Royal Mail in the form of a Certificate of Posting.
>
> The Interpretation Act 1978 states that where a document is
required to be "given" or "served," it is considered delivered
two working days after posting if using first class service, but
this presumption only applies if proof of posting exists.
Without such proof, an operator cannot rely on the presumption
of delivery under the Interpretation Act or PoFA.
>
> 2. BPA's Failure to Enforce a Fundamental Evidential
Requirement
>
> The BPA’s stance that operators are not required to provide
Proof of Posting when challenged is deeply flawed. Your response
states:
>
> “Operators are not obliged to send letters via recorded
delivery. The Code of Practice does not cover this. When an
operator can provide a copy of the Parking Charge, we deem this
compliant with the Code of Practice.”
>
> This statement is highly concerning for several reasons:
>
> - It misrepresents the actual complaint by falsely framing it
as a demand for "Recorded Delivery."
> - It fails to acknowledge that providing a copy of a letter is
NOT proof that it was ever posted. Anyone can generate a digital
or paper copy of a letter—this does not demonstrate it was sent.
> - It contradicts the purpose of the PPSCoP 8.1.2(e) Note 2,
which explicitly refers to the evidential requirement of proof
of posting when questioned.
>
> 3. BPA's Position on Enforcing PoFA Compliance
>
> Your response fails to clarify whether the BPA accepts that
PoFA compliance requires operators to prove they have issued a
Notice to Keeper within the statutory timeframe.
>
> As an ATA, the BPA has an obligation to ensure its members
comply with both PoFA and the PPSCoP. Your refusal to require
operators to provide proof of posting when challenged undermines
the entire legal framework on which private parking enforcement
is based.
>
> To clarify: the burden of proof is on the operator to show
compliance, not on the motorist to disprove it.
>
> 4. BPA’s Selective Quoting of the PPSCoP
>
> Your attempt to justify omitting key parts of PPSCoP 8.1.2(e)
Note 2 by referring to Section 1 ("Scope") is misleading. While
it is true that some Notes are considered "best practice," this
does not mean that they are entirely optional when they clarify
an evidential requirement.
>
> - The requirement to issue an NtK so that it is “given” to the
recipient within 14 days is mandatory if the operator is relying
on PoFA.
> - The evidential requirement for proving this issuance (proof
of posting) directly relates to whether an operator can meet
that mandatory requirement.
>
> By dismissing the necessity of Proof of Posting as merely
“best practice,” the BPA is allowing operators to claim PoFA
compliance without providing any actual proof. This is not just
a failure of oversight—it is an active facilitation of
non-compliance.
>
> 5. BPA’s Regulatory Obligations – Request for Clarification
>
> Given the above, please provide a clear and unambiguous
response to the following:
>
> - Does the BPA acknowledge that Proof of Posting (via a Royal
Mail Certificate of Posting) is the standard evidential
requirement for an operator to rely on the Interpretation Act
1978’s presumption of delivery? If not, what alternative proof
does the BPA require?
> - If an operator fails to provide Proof of Posting when
challenged, does the BPA accept that this means the operator
cannot demonstrate compliance with PoFA?
> - What specific regulatory action will the BPA take against
ParkingEye if they fail to provide tangible evidence of posting?
> - Does the BPA accept that merely providing a copy of an NtK
is not proof that it was ever sent?
>
> Conclusion
>
> The BPA’s actions so far have been wholly inadequate and now
include a serious data protection failure. I expect immediate
action and a full response without further delay.
>
> The BPA’s failure to enforce compliance on this matter is
unacceptable. Your current stance appears to be that operators
can state they posted a letter without ever being required to
prove it, and that if challenged, the burden shifts to the
recipient to disprove it. This completely undermines both PoFA
and the PPSCoP.
>
> I expect a direct, specific, and transparent response to the
above points. If the BPA continues to evade its regulatory
responsibility, I will escalate this matter to the DVLA and
relevant government authorities regarding your failure to ensure
accountability among your ATA members.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Your Reference/PCN Number]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 63128--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: March 18, 2025, 4:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for this. Should I be requesting that the BPA compliance
officer dealing with this complaint escalates it to a more
senior member of the team? She has had two opportunities to
address the issues raised but the failures you've highlighted
suggest she is out of her depth.
#Post#: 63158--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: b789
Date: March 18, 2025, 5:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes
#Post#: 63239--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: March 19, 2025, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The BPA have sent the following email today....
"Dear C
I apologise for the mistype in my previous email. I can confirm
no email was sent to Euro Car Parks. Please see the snippet
attached confirming your email was sent to Parkingeye.
As per your request, I have passed your correspondence to the
Senior Compliance Manager who will be in touch in due course."
The snippet shows:
FROM: AOS
SENT: 18 March 2025 11:44
TO: *******@parkingeye.co.uk
SUBJECT: FW:BPA *******
#Post#: 63350--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: March 20, 2025, 5:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have received another email from the BPA (AOS Investigations
Team) confirming that there has been no breach of GDPR. They
consider that aspect of the complaint closed and will be in
touch once the other items have been reviewed.
#Post#: 63351--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 20, 2025, 5:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If (as seems to be the case) it was an error in their response
to you and they didn't in fact send the details to the wrong
operator that seems fair enough - it's the other elements of the
complaint that will be interesting.
#Post#: 63383--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: b789
Date: March 20, 2025, 7:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You should SAR them anyway, just to confirm they are not telling
porkies.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page