So that's DVLA off the hook.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.
How about responding to Mrs Harris with the following:QuoteDear 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,
cancel Smart Parking Ltd's KADOE contractIn the first 3 quarters of the 23/24 financial year, Smart made 513,696 KADOE requests - DVLA charges £2.50 per request. That's not a money tap they'll be keen to turn off unfortunately. (Source - Excel spreadsheet (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65d71bfa2ab2b3e0f27595aa/kadoe-enquiries-q3-2023-24-v1.ods))
Can you please show us the wording of your complaint to the DVLA.
Unlawful Releasing of Data.
Good Afternoon,
I am writing in relation to your recent releasing of my personal data to “Smart Parking Ltd” under the terms of the KADOE contract, on issuance of a PCN to my registration XK69 XXX from the aforementioned company dated 19th August 2024. I bring to your attention the following points:
Lack of Reasonable Cause: The vehicle captured in the ANPR image sent to me has a registration number XC59 XXX and is of a completely different make and model than my vehicle. I have never owned or driven the vehicle in question, nor have I ever visited the location stated in the PCN. This clearly indicates an error on your part in assessment of reasonable cause to release my personal information to Smart Parking Ltd.
Unlawful Release of Personal Data: Given your failure to enforce your terms or to assess reasonable cause, my data was released unlawfully and a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 has occurred.
Misuse of Personal Data: As Smart Parking Ltd failed to Adhere to BPA Code of Practice, specifically section 21.5a(d), which mandates manual quality control checks of ANPR images, they have unlawfully processed my data and have sent me a predatory Parking Charge Notice due to your unlawful release of my personal data.
Distress and Anxiety: The actions of the DVLA have caused me significant distress and anxiety and I believe I am entitled to compensation for this.
I now demand that you:
- Immediately cease any further release of my personal data to any third parties, including but not limited to Smart Parking Ltd, as it is clear there is no enforcement of terms related to assessment of reasonable cause to release my data.
- Cancel Smart Parking Ltd’s KADOE contract due to their failure to adhere to BPA Code of Practice 21.5a(d).
- Compensate me for the distress and anxiety, specifically for damages under the Data Protection Act 2018.
Yours faithfully,
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,
cancel Smart Parking Ltd's KADOE contractIn the first 3 quarters of the 23/24 financial year, Smart made 513,696 KADOE requests - DVLA charges £2.50 per request. That's not a money tap they'll be keen to turn off unfortunately. (Source - Excel spreadsheet (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65d71bfa2ab2b3e0f27595aa/kadoe-enquiries-q3-2023-24-v1.ods))
You can attach it to an email as a pdf if you have a valid email address for service. Also, you could print it and sent it by post with a free "proof of posting" certificate from any post office.
If sent by email, it is deemed given the date it is sent. If it sent by first class post, it is deemed given on the second working say after posting.
If you send by email, make sure that you include in the body of the email an instruction to whoever reads the email first that it has attached a legal document that should be passed to the relevant person or legal advisor for the company. The subject should be "IMPORTANT - Letter of Claim".
As they have avoided or failed to respond to the third point about compensation in your original complaint and subsequent correspondence, you can now send them a Letter of Claim for compensation for breaching your GDPR under the Data Protection Act 2018. It will be interesting to see their response as, in the words of Lance Corporal Jack Jones (Clive Dunn) in Dad's Army... They don't like it up 'em!"
Something along these lines would do it:
Smart Parking Ltd
Unit 43, Elmdon Trading Estate
Bickenhill Lane
Birmingham, B37 7HE[Date of sending the letter]Letter of Claim
Re: Unlawful Acquisition of Personal Data and Compensation Demand
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to formally notify you of my intention to take legal action against Smart Parking Ltd, should this matter not be resolved within 14 days of the date of this letter.
As outlined in my previous correspondence dated [date of your initial letter], your company unlawfully obtained my personal data from the DVLA in connection with Parking Charge Notice (PCN) reference [PCN Reference Number]. The vehicle identified in your ANPR image (registration number XK69XXX) is not mine, and I have never owned or driven the vehicle in question.
You have acknowledged in writing that the PCN was issued in error and confirmed the cancellation of the charge, as well as the deletion of my personal data. However, you failed to address my request for compensation for the distress and anxiety caused by your unlawful actions.
Legal Basis for Claim
Under the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), individuals are entitled to compensation when their personal data is processed unlawfully and results in distress. By failing to perform the required manual quality control checks under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP), section 21.5a, your company had no lawful basis for requesting my personal data from the DVLA. This constitutes a breach of the KADOE contract and the Data Protection Act.
Your failure to comply with these legal obligations caused me significant distress and anxiety, for which I am entitled to compensation.
Demand for Compensation
In light of the distress and anxiety caused, I am seeking compensation in the amount of £300.
If I do not receive a satisfactory response, including the compensation sought, within 14 days, I will issue proceedings against Smart Parking Ltd in the County Court for damages under the Data Protection Act 2018.
This letter serves as a formal Letter of Claim. Please be advised that should you fail to respond or resolve this matter within the specified timeframe, I will take legal action without further notice.
Yours faithfully,
Article 5(1)(d) of the UK GDPR legally requires data controllers to store and process personal data accurately. If a data controller, such as a private parking company, unlawfully obtains the keeper's data from the DVLA and issues an invoice based on inaccurate information, claiming you parked in breach of an alleged contract with the landowner (or their agent), this constitutes processing your personal data inaccurately and unlawfully under the UK GDPR.
The precedents for claiming damages and compensation for such unlawful processing of personal data can be found in cases like Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333, where the court awarded compensation for distress caused by the inaccurate processing of personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998. Although this case was decided under the old law, similar principles apply under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Under Article 82 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018, individuals have the right to compensation if they suffer material or non-material damage because of a breach of data protection laws.
Additionally, the case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311 confirmed that claimants could recover compensation for distress alone under the Data Protection Act 1998, a principle now similarly recognised under the GDPR. This means that even if you have not suffered tangible financial loss, you may still be entitled to compensation for distress caused by the unlawful processing of your data.
Moreover, in Tetragon Financial Group Limited v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2020] UKUT 0305 (TCC), the court reiterated the importance of accurate data handling by public bodies. This principle can be applied here, as the DVLA, a public body, must ensure that any data it provides to third parties, such as private parking companies, is used lawfully and accurately. If a private parking company unlawfully obtained your data from the DVLA and processed it inaccurately, you have grounds to seek compensation.
To seek compensation for the unlawful processing of your personal data, you should provide 21 days’ notice (the pre-action protocol typically requires 14 days, but a longer notice can show goodwill) to the data controller, in this case, the private parking company, of your intention to claim damages. You might claim up to £300 for nominal damages under Article 82 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018. This notice should clearly state that you will file a claim with the County Court if they do not confirm in writing that all references to this alleged debt have been deleted within 14 days. Be sure to mark your letter as a "Letter before County Court proceedings."
As a litigant-in-person, you can file your claim under Part 27 proceedings in the County Court (often referred to as the "Small Claims Court"). Each party is responsible for their own legal costs, regardless of the outcome, and the claim can be filed online for a fee of £35 (for a claim up to £300) via the Money Claim Online service (moneyclaimonline.gov.uk (https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome)). The successful party can recover their court fees, making the total claim amount £335.
Good afternoon
Thankyou for your recent communication.
We would like to apologise for the error, and I can confirm the PCN has been cancelled. A letter stating so will be sent to you in due course.
I can also confirm deletion of your data.
Kind Regards,
Where you receive a complaint that you consider to
be or include an appeal against the validity of a parking
charge notice, you must also treat it as an appeal for the
purposes of applying the timescales in Clause 23.8, and
should inform the complainant as such unless and until it
is clear that the complaint is not relevant to an appeal or
the complainant informs you that they do not wish it to
be so handled.
It might not be immediately apparent that a complaint
served as such relates to one or more specific parking
charge notices, possibly by way of a clarification that
reveals that an appeal would be worthwhile, hence you
are advised to record and handle complaints as appeals
until they are found conclusively not to be so or patently
refer to matters not relevant to the validity of a parking
charge notice.
Any complaint must be looked at as an appeal according to their CoP, so no need to appeal separately.Whilst this is true, if I were erring on the side of caution, I would submit an appeal as well via their portal, just so that the charge is cancelled and the OP can then focus on any complaints they wish to pursue without the actual charge still being in play.
It’s not an appeal. You’ve nothing to appeal. They have obtained your personal data illegally.
Complain by email to their complaints email address. Warn them that they have breached your GDPR and if they refuse to cancel the PCN, you reserve the right to sue them for compensation under the Data Protection Act 2018 for any distress and anxiety this has caused you.
Tell them that you are making a complaint to the ICO and do so.
If they do not cancel, you report them to their ATA, the BPA.
I really don’t understand why you should have to spend time writing to these vermin and, as some have suggested, go out and find a post office so you can see them a complaint. You have nothing to appeal. Your personal data has been obtained illegally.
I suggest you email them a letter along the following lines as a pdf:QuoteUnlawful Obtaining of Personal Data and Incorrect Issuance of Parking Charge Notice
Dear Sirs,
I am writing in relation to Parking Charge Notice (PCN) reference [PCN Reference Number], issued to my vehicle registration number XK59XXX. I bring to your attention the following points:1. Incorrect Issuance of PCN: The vehicle captured in your ANPR image has a registration number XK69XXX and is of a completely different make and model than my vehicle. I have never owned or driven the vehicle in question, nor have I ever visited the location stated in the PCN. This clearly indicates an error on your part in reading the ANPR image.
2. Failure to Adhere to BPA Code of Practice: As a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), you are required to comply with the BPA Code of Practice, specifically section 21.5a(d), which mandates manual quality control checks of ANPR images. It is apparent that you failed to perform these checks, leading to the incorrect issuance of the PCN.
3. Unlawful Acquisition of Personal Data: Given your failure to comply with the BPA Code of Practice, you were not entitled to obtain my personal data from the DVLA under the terms of the KADOE contract. Consequently, my personal data has been obtained unlawfully.
4. Distress and Anxiety: The actions of your company have caused me significant distress and anxiety and I believe I am entitled to compensation for this.
I now demand that you:- Immediately cancel the PCN and confirm in writing that this has been done.
- Delete all personal data you have obtained unlawfully and confirm in writing that this has been done.
- Compensate me for the distress and anxiety caused by your unlawful actions.
If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, in addition to the formal complaint I have filed with the Information Commissioner's Office, I intend to take legal action in the County Court for damages under the Data Protection Act 2018.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours faithfully,
Additionally, you must inform the DVLA of Smart Parking's conduct and their misuse of your personal data. The DVLA has a responsibility to ensure that the data they provide is used lawfully and appropriately.
The DVLA is jointly and severally liable for the misuse of your personal data.
So, you are not appealing. You are complaining and are entitled to compensation. Send the suggested letter and see what they come back with.
Unlawful Obtaining of Personal Data and Incorrect Issuance of Parking Charge Notice
Dear Sirs,
I am writing in relation to Parking Charge Notice (PCN) reference [PCN Reference Number], issued to my vehicle registration number XK59XXX. I bring to your attention the following points:1. Incorrect Issuance of PCN: The vehicle captured in your ANPR image has a registration number XK69XXX and is of a completely different make and model than my vehicle. I have never owned or driven the vehicle in question, nor have I ever visited the location stated in the PCN. This clearly indicates an error on your part in reading the ANPR image.
2. Failure to Adhere to BPA Code of Practice: As a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), you are required to comply with the BPA Code of Practice, specifically section 21.5a(d), which mandates manual quality control checks of ANPR images. It is apparent that you failed to perform these checks, leading to the incorrect issuance of the PCN.
3. Unlawful Acquisition of Personal Data: Given your failure to comply with the BPA Code of Practice, you were not entitled to obtain my personal data from the DVLA under the terms of the KADOE contract. Consequently, my personal data has been obtained unlawfully.
4. Distress and Anxiety: The actions of your company have caused me significant distress and anxiety and I believe I am entitled to compensation for this.
I now demand that you:- Immediately cancel the PCN and confirm in writing that this has been done.
- Delete all personal data you have obtained unlawfully and confirm in writing that this has been done.
- Compensate me for the distress and anxiety caused by your unlawful actions.
If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, in addition to the formal complaint I have filed with the Information Commissioner's Office, I intend to take legal action in the County Court for damages under the Data Protection Act 2018.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours faithfully,
Don’t post. Use email.
You write to them separately with a complaint about yourGDPR data breach. If they don’t respond, you can send them a Letter or Claim. Give them a tease of their own medicine.
You might want to write to them with your proposed resolution before leaping straight in to a Letter before County Court proceedings. The courts expect you to treat court as a last resort, not the first thing you do when you have a dispute.
Letter before County Court proceedings
Dear Sirs,
I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: XXXXXXXXX) for vehicle registration mark XXXX XXX, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"). You have chosen not to issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Act, and it is now too late for you to do so.
There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.
Furthermore, you have unlawfully obtained my personal data from The DVLA which, as a start, is in breach of your KADOE contract. I have never entered your car park and by failing to perform a manual quality control check on the ANPR photographic evidence, you are in breach of their AOS Code of Practice 22.2 which nullifies your KADOE contract. I intend to submit a record of this incident to the Information Commissioner's Office, DVLA and KADOE, as you have threatened a parking charge to the incorrect address and vehicle, failing to review that the car in your photo has the registration mark “XXXX XXX”, a BLUE FORD and you have sent your parking charge letter using the personal details unlawfully obtained for the registered keeper of the mark “XXXX XXX”, a BLACK AUDI, myself.
I am seeking £250 nominal damages and compensation under Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for your unlawful processing of my personal data. I am willing to accept a payment of £100 if a) the amount is settled within 14 days of the receipt of this letter and b) all of personal data and any copies are swiftly and permanently removed from your systems within the next 14 days. Please make a valid, current cheque payable to [my name] for the above amount. I intend to start County Court proceedings if this request is ignored, and you may be further liable to Court costs.
Yours,
[my name]
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Smart Parking has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Smart have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Notice looks as expected.
Whether you decide to sue them or not is your call, it's your personal data and your time.
Out of interest, how clear are the images of the plate on the notice? I'm asking to rule out the possibility that your plates have been cloned, which is rare but does happen.
You can also threaten them with a lawsuit for damages as they have illegally obtained your personal data in breach of the KADOE contract. By failing to perform a manual quality control check on the ANPR photographic evidence, they are in breach of their AOS Code of Practice which nullifies their KADOE contract.
Threaten to sue them for £250 for breaching your GDPR and tell them you’ll accept £100 if they are prepared to settle within 14 days of receipt of the letter.QuoteArticle 12 of the UK GDPR legally requires data controllers to store and process personal data accurately: clearly, any data controller issuing an invoice to you because it has wrongly recorded that you parked in breach of the alleged contract between you and the landowner (or, as in this case, an agent of the landowner) is processing your personal data unlawfully.
The precedents for claiming damages and compensation for such unlawful processing are the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Zeta Jones & Douglas v Hello! Magazine [2003] EWHC 786 and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd (CCF) [2013] EWCA Civ 333, both being binding on all County Courts in England and Wales. In the latter claim, Mr Halliday was awarded compensation of £750 at what the Court regarded was the lowest level of award, and although this was a claim under Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, similar provisions - amended to take account of a decision by the EU Grand Chamber that the 1998 Act did not properly implement EU law into UK domestic legislation - replaced the old Section 13 provisions with Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
In short, you ought to give 21 days notice (the pre-action protocol only really requires 14 days but hey, you can be charitable!) to the data controller of your intention to seek (say) £100 nominal damages and compensation under Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for their unlawful processing of your personal data: you could say that you will not file your claim with the County Court if they confirm in writing that all references to this alleged debt have been deleted within (say) 14 days. Clearly mark your letter as a "Letter before County Court proceedings".
Anyone who is fairly confident can claim as a litigant-in-person in Part 27 proceedings in the County Court (commonly but wrongly described as "the Small Claims Court"). Each party is responsible for their own legal costs whether they win or lose and the claim for £100 can be issued online for a fee of £35 at moneyclaimonline.gov.uk which also gives useful advice if you want to have a look at what is involved. Your claim will automatically be listed as being for a total of £135, i.e. the successful party gets their Court fees back.
As a general rule, where there is a dispute over money, corresponding in writing is generally preferable to by phone, as you have a record of exactly what has been discussed.
I would ordinarily recommend pointing the misread out but as this is Smart Parking, the quickest way is probably a template appeal. Can you show us the notice you have received?
It will almost certainly not meet the requirements to hold the registered keeper liable, and if you appeal as the registered keeper with the below, they will almost certainly cancel the charge.Dear Sirs,
I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"). You have chosen not to issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Act, and it is now too late for you to do so.
There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.
Yours,
Do please show us the notice before you appeal, I don't like recommending an appeal without double checking it is appropriate. You'll need to use a third party site like Imgur to upload the notice.
You could if you wish add a line into that appeal before the main point, pointing out that it is not your vehicle and their faulty ANPR has led to them accessing your details without reasonable cause.
Article 12 of the UK GDPR legally requires data controllers to store and process personal data accurately: clearly, any data controller issuing an invoice to you because it has wrongly recorded that you parked in breach of the alleged contract between you and the landowner (or, as in this case, an agent of the landowner) is processing your personal data unlawfully.
The precedents for claiming damages and compensation for such unlawful processing are the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Zeta Jones & Douglas v Hello! Magazine [2003] EWHC 786 and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd (CCF) [2013] EWCA Civ 333, both being binding on all County Courts in England and Wales. In the latter claim, Mr Halliday was awarded compensation of £750 at what the Court regarded was the lowest level of award, and although this was a claim under Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, similar provisions - amended to take account of a decision by the EU Grand Chamber that the 1998 Act did not properly implement EU law into UK domestic legislation - replaced the old Section 13 provisions with Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
In short, you ought to give 21 days notice (the pre-action protocol only really requires 14 days but hey, you can be charitable!) to the data controller of your intention to seek (say) £100 nominal damages and compensation under Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for their unlawful processing of your personal data: you could say that you will not file your claim with the County Court if they confirm in writing that all references to this alleged debt have been deleted within (say) 14 days. Clearly mark your letter as a "Letter before County Court proceedings".
Anyone who is fairly confident can claim as a litigant-in-person in Part 27 proceedings in the County Court (commonly but wrongly described as "the Small Claims Court"). Each party is responsible for their own legal costs whether they win or lose and the claim for £100 can be issued online for a fee of £35 at moneyclaimonline.gov.uk which also gives useful advice if you want to have a look at what is involved. Your claim will automatically be listed as being for a total of £135, i.e. the successful party gets their Court fees back.