DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 85296--------------------------------------------------
Double dip - Tescos Bishops Cleeve. Breach of GDPR??
DIR By: disgruntchelt
Date: August 12, 2025, 6:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
On 2nd August the driver visited Tesco in the morning. Arrived
home (which is captured on Ring doorbell camera) then visited
Tesco again in the afternoon.
The registered keeper has today received a PCN for “exceeding
maximum stay period ANPR”
Is there a way the registered keeper can claim against Horizon
for processing their data unfairly and causing distress etc?
#Post#: 85390--------------------------------------------------
Re: Double dip - Tescos Bishops Cleeve. Breach of GDPR??
DIR By: b789
Date: August 12, 2025, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there is a route to claim against Horizon, but you should
follow the correct order of steps before going anywhere near a
court. First, appeal the PCN and make no admission as to who was
driving.
Please post up the Notice to Keeper (NtK) with all dates and
times visible so we can check for compliance with the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
This is a textbook “double dip”. The ANPR system recorded four
events (Entry 1 → Exit 1 → Entry 2 → Exit 2)
but Horizon incorrectly paired Entry 1 with Exit 2 to fabricate
a single long stay. The intermediate Exit 1 and Entry 2 images
are orphaned (recorded but not assigned).
The mandatory manual quality control check in PPSCoP 7.3(d) &
Note 1 exists to detect exactly this and correctly pair the
orphan images into two short visits. Horizon’s failure to do so
means they lacked reasonable cause to obtain the keeper’s data
from the DVLA, amounting to unlawful processing under the UK
GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018.
The PPSCoP is explicit about this in Section 7.3(d) and Note 1:
[indent]Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking
operator as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless:
images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual
quality control check, including the accuracy of the timestamp
and the risk of keying errors.
[i]NOTE 1: The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and
CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such
as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have
failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters
and leaves controlled land.[/I][/indent]
By failing to pair the “orphan” entry/exit images from each
visit, Horizon did not perform the mandatory manual quality
control check. That means they had no “reasonable cause” to
request your keeper data from the DVLA.
That is a breach of the UK GDPR / Data Protection Act 2018, and
you are entitled to claim compensation for misuse of personal
data and the distress caused. The normal process would be:
[indent]1. Appeal the PCN as keeper (don’t name the driver).
2. Once Horizon cancels or rejects, send a formal complaint to
Horizon’s Data Protection Officer (DPO) alleging unlawful data
processing.
3. If unresolved, escalate to the Information Commissioner’s
Office (ICO).
4. If still unresolved, issue a Letter Before Claim seeking
damages (often £100–£250 for distress, though higher amounts can
be claimed in serious cases).
5. If they don’t settle, file a small claim under the Data
Protection Act 2018.[/indent]
If you have Ring doorbell footage showing the vehicle at home
between visits, keep that safe — it’s key evidence that Horizon
failed to carry out the required PPSCoP checks before making the
DVLA request.
You should send the following appeal and at the same time submit
a complaint to the DPO of Horizon. Here is the appeal:
--- Quote ---
> PCN Appeal (to Horizon Parking)
>
> Subject: Appeal – PCN [insert number] – Vehicle Registration
[insert VRM]
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle. I dispute
your parking charge and require you to cancel it immediately.
>
> This is a case of “double dip” ANPR error. On 2 August 2025,
the vehicle visited the site twice: once in the morning, and
again in the afternoon. The ANPR system recorded four events
(Entry 1 → Exit 1 → Entry 2 → Exit 2).
>
> You have incorrectly paired Entry 1 with Exit 2, creating the
false impression of one continuous stay. The intermediate Exit 1
and Entry 2 images are “orphan” images that were recorded by
your system but not assigned.
>
> Section 7.3(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
requires:
>
> [indent]“Photographic evidence must not be used… unless images
generated by ANPR… have been subject to a manual quality control
check…”[/indent]
>
> Note 1 makes it explicit that this check is particularly
important to detect double-dip scenarios and to pair orphan
images with the correct vehicle.
>
> Your failure to perform this mandatory check means you had no
reasonable cause to request my details from the DVLA. This is a
breach of the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
>
> I require you to:
>
> [indent]• Cancel the PCN immediately.
> • Erase my personal data from your systems, except for a
record of this request.
> • Confirm in writing within 14 days that you have done
so.[/indent]
>
> If you reject this appeal, you must provide a POPLA code so
that I can escalate the matter.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
GDPR / Data Protection Complaint (to Horizon DPO)
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Data Protection Complaint – Unlawful Processing of
Keeper Data – PCN [insert number]
>
> Dear Data Protection Officer,
>
> I am the registered keeper of vehicle [insert VRM]. I am
making a formal complaint regarding your unlawful processing of
my personal data in connection with PCN [insert number].
>
> On 2 August 2025, your ANPR system recorded four images:
>
> [indent]Entry 1 → Exit 1 → Entry 2 → Exit
2.[/indent]
>
> You incorrectly paired Entry 1 with Exit 2, fabricating a
single long stay. The intermediate Exit 1 and Entry 2 images are
“orphaned” and should have been identified and correctly
assigned as part of the mandatory manual quality control check
required by Section 7.3(d) and Note 1 of the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice.
>
> Had you performed that check, the orphan images would have
been correctly paired to show two short visits, and no PCN would
have been issued. This means you had no reasonable cause to
request my keeper details from the DVLA.
>
> Your DVLA request was therefore unlawful and in breach of:
>
> [indent]• UK GDPR Article 5(1)(a) – Lawfulness, fairness,
transparency.
> • UK GDPR Article 6(1)(f) – No legitimate interest when the
data request was based on an ANPR error that should have been
eliminated by quality control.
> • Data Protection Act 2018 – Section 171 (unlawful obtaining
of personal data).[/indent]
>
> This unlawful processing has caused me distress and wasted my
time in dealing with a baseless parking charge. I require:
>
> [indent]• Immediate cancellation of the PCN.
> • Written confirmation that you have erased my personal data
from your systems, except for a record of this complaint.
> • A full written apology.
> • Compensation for the distress caused by your breach, in
accordance with s.168 Data Protection Act 2018.[/indent]
>
> If you fail to resolve this within 30 days, I will escalate my
complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and
reserve my right to pursue a claim in the County Court for
damages.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 85391--------------------------------------------------
Re: Double dip - Tescos Bishops Cleeve. Breach of GDPR??
DIR By: b789
Date: August 12, 2025, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I nearly forgot... you should also make a DVLA complaint as they
are the ultimate data controller. Email them with the following
and also CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> To: datarelease@dvla.gov.uk
>
> Subject: Formal Complaint – Unlawful KADOE Request – Horizon
Parking Ltd – PCN [insert number]
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I am the registered keeper of vehicle [VRM] and I am making a
formal complaint about Horizon Parking Ltd’s unlawful access to
my keeper data via the DVLA’s KADOE service in relation to PCN
[insert number].
>
> Summary of the issue
> On 2 August 2025, my vehicle made two separate short visits to
the Tesco car park monitored by Horizon Parking’s ANPR system.
The ANPR system recorded four events:
>
> [indent]• Entry 1 → Exit 1 → Entry 2 → Exit
2[/indent]
>
> Horizon Parking incorrectly paired Entry 1 with Exit 2 to
fabricate one long stay, leaving the intermediate Exit 1 and
Entry 2 images as “orphan” images — recorded but unassigned.
>
> Why there was no “reasonable cause”
> The DVLA’s position in past complaints has been to state that
an operator had “reasonable cause” simply because a vehicle is
shown as being on site between a single entry and exit. That
approach fails entirely here because it ignores the operator’s
own obligations under the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice.
>
> Section 7.3(d) of the PPSCoP requires:
>
> [indent]“Photographic evidence must not be used… unless images
generated by ANPR… have been subject to a manual quality control
check…”[/indent]
>
> Note 1 makes clear that this is particularly important for
detecting “double dipping” and for pairing orphan images. If
Horizon Parking had performed this mandatory manual quality
control check before making their DVLA request, they would have
identified and paired the orphan images, proving two separate
short visits and no breach.
>
> Therefore:
>
> [indent]• At the point they made their KADOE request, they
already had in their possession evidence disproving any
contravention.
> • They could not possibly have had “reasonable cause” once
PPSCoP 7.3(d) & Note 1 were correctly applied.
> • Their request therefore breached both the KADOE contract and
UK GDPR Article 5(1)(a) (lawfulness) and Article 6(1)(f)
(legitimate interests).[/indent]
>
> Complaint requests
> I request that the DVLA:
>
> [indent]1. Confirm the date/time of the KADOE request made by
Horizon Parking Ltd for this PCN.
> 2. Investigate Horizon Parking’s failure to perform the
mandatory quality control check.
> 3. Confirm what enforcement action will be taken for this
breach of the KADOE contract.
> 4. Require Horizon Parking to erase my personal data from
their systems.[/indent]
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a dispute about
“whether the vehicle was parked in breach of terms.” This is
about the lawfulness of DVLA releasing keeper data in the face
of an operator’s clear failure to follow the PPSCoP, which would
have shown no contravention before any DVLA request was made.
>
> If you reject this complaint, please ensure your response
addresses this specific point — namely that reasonable cause
cannot exist where the operator’s own mandatory checks would
have disproved any breach before the KADOE request.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 85445--------------------------------------------------
Re: Double dip - Tescos Bishops Cleeve. Breach of GDPR??
DIR By: disgruntchelt
Date: August 12, 2025, 6:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for this.
I’m an optimistic soul but even I think they’ll reject my
appeal.
I’ll report back when they do.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1