1
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN addressed to me for somewhere I have never been, car in images is not mine - Smart Parking Ltd
« on: September 18, 2024, 06:28:43 pm »
Thank you for this, I'll send a step 2 complaint with this wording.
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,