Author Topic: G24 Limited PCN - The Hough Retail Park, Stafford - Exceeded maximum duration  (Read 232 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

dynamo77

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
The driver visited this car park twice in one day.  Once around 8.22am after dropping a child off at school before driving home to work for the day, and another time around 7.11pm after driving back from a social run. 

The parking took place on the 30th September 24, the ticket is dated 10th October 24 and it was received on the 16th october 24

Note that in the 2nd photo of the car the number plate has not been "blocked out" as that is the photo they have provided.

https://ibb.co/7JmN5jV
https://ibb.co/hX1XgqY
https://ibb.co/XskgP5X

« Last Edit: October 16, 2024, 09:55:18 pm by dynamo77 »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Karma: +107/-4
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Please don't redact any dates or times on the NtK.

However… this is a classic double-dip and the operator has breached the Code of Practice (CoP) because they have failed to do a manual quality control check on the ANPR images. Had they done so, they would have found the missing “orphan” images. So, breach of the IPC CoP which in turn is a breach of the KADOE contract and they have unlawfully requested the Keepers data from the DVLA.

By unlawfully requesting your DVLA data they have breached your GDPR and you could sue them under the Data Protection Act 2018.

Also, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA and so the Keeper cannot be liable for the charge. Only the driver can be liable and the operator would only know who the driver was is if the Keeper blabs it to them. There is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver and they should decline to do so.

You will need to appeal only as the Keeper. You will also make a formal complaint to the operator about the breach of your GDPR. You should also make a formal complaint to the DVLA about this operator breaching your GDPR as the DVLA are the data controller that provided your data based on an unlawful request which breached the KADOE contract.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2024, 01:24:19 am by b789 »
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List

dynamo77

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thank you for this it's much appreciated.
I'm guessing the formal complaint to the operator regarding the GDPR should be done direct to their Data Protection team ? (dataprotection@G24.co.uk) ?

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Karma: +107/-4
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Use the following for the appeal, only as the Keeper:

Quote
Registered Keeper Appeal – PCN Reference [Insert PCN Reference]

As the Keeper of the vehicle, I am appealing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) reference [Insert PCN reference], issued on 10th October 2024. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and will not be providing any such details.

This PCN pertains to an alleged contravention on 30th September 2024 at [Insert Car Park Location]. However, this is a case of a "double-dip" error, where your Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system has failed to accurately log the vehicle's first exit and second entry.

On the day in question, the vehicle made two separate visits to the car park:

• First visit: approximately 8:22am
• Second visit: approximately 7:11pm

Your system has erroneously treated these two distinctly separate visits as a single continuous stay, leading to the issuance of this PCN. Your failure to properly check the ANPR data for "orphan images"—that is, missing entry or exit records—demonstrates a lack of the necessary manual quality control.

Failure to Comply with IPC Code of Practice

According to Section 14.5 of the IPC Code of Practice (v9, January 2024), operators using ANPR technology must conduct appropriate checks to ensure that Parking Charges are only issued when there is Reasonable Cause to believe a charge is due. This includes performing manual checks to ensure that ANPR data is accurate and that errors, such as "double-dip" events, are identified and corrected.

In this instance, it is clear that such checks were either not performed or were inadequate. As required by the IPC Code of Practice, you must keep a record identifying the individual who completed the quality check before the PCN was issued. Should this PCN not be cancelled, I will be requiring that you provide evidence of this quality check, including the name of the person responsible for conducting it.

Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012

In addition, your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA):

Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NtK fails to specify the required "period of parking." Relying solely on ANPR timestamps of entry and exit does not meet the requirement of providing a clear and defined period of parking.

Paragraph 9(2)(f): Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with Paragraph 9(2)(f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Specifically, the NtK states:

"We may assume you to be the driver and you may incur further charges."

This is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA. According to Paragraph 9(2)(f), the NtK must inform the registered keeper that they will be held liable for the unpaid parking charge if the charge is not paid and if the operator does not know the name and address of the driver. PoFA does not allow the assumption that the keeper is the driver, nor does it mention further charges in this context.

The correct wording required by PoFA 9(2)(f) is that the operator will have the right to recover the unpaid parking charge from the keeper, not that the keeper will be assumed to be the driver. This misstatement renders the NtK non-compliant with PoFA and invalid for holding the keeper liable.

Unlawful Use of My DVLA Data

As a result of these failures, I will be making a formal complaint to the DVLA regarding this breach of the IPC Code of Practice. Since there was no Reasonable Cause for you to request my personal data from the DVLA, this also constitutes a breach of the KADOE contract, and my data was therefore obtained unlawfully.

Additionally, I reserve the right to take action for the breach of my GDPR rights under the Data Protection Act 2018 due to the unlawful request and use of my personal data.

Conclusion

Given the double-dip error, the lack of proper manual checks, the non-compliance with both the IPC Code of Practice and PoFA, and the unlawful request for my data, this Parking Charge Notice should be cancelled immediately.

Should you choose to reject this appeal, I will not hesitate escalate this matter.

I look forward to your confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled.

A formal complaint to G24 (not an appeal) should also be made.

Quote
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]

G24 Ltd
[Their Address]

Subject: Formal Complaint – Unlawful DVLA Data Request and Breach of GDPR and KADOE Contract

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) [Insert PCN reference], issued to me as the registered keeper of a vehicle in relation to an alleged contravention on 30th September 2024 at [Insert Car Park Location].

This PCN was issued based on ANPR evidence that misrepresents the facts due to a "double-dip" error. The driver made two separate visits to the location on the day in question: one at 8:22am and another at 7:11pm. Your system erroneously treated these two separate visits as a single continuous stay.

Failure to Comply with IPC Code of Practice

Under Section 14.5 of the IPC Code of Practice (v9, January 2024), operators using ANPR technology must carry out appropriate checks before issuing a Parking Charge Notice, ensuring that charges are issued only where there is Reasonable Cause to believe a contravention has occurred. This includes performing checks for "orphan images", where entry or exit data might not be correctly attributed to a vehicle due to system errors.

In this case, the required manual quality control checks were not performed. The ANPR system has recorded the images of the vehicle's first exit and second entry, but your operator has failed to apply these "orphan images" to the vehicle's registration, resulting in a misleading assumption of continuous parking. This failure to perform the necessary manual checks violates the IPC Code of Practice.

As the IPC Code requires, I request you provide evidence of the quality check performed before issuing the PCN, including the name of the individual responsible for verifying the ANPR data. The absence of proper checks means you did not have Reasonable Cause to issue the PCN.

Unlawful Request for Keeper Data

Because of these failures, you did not have Reasonable Cause to request my data from the DVLA, constituting a breach of the KADOE contract. You accessed my personal information unlawfully, and I will be making a formal complaint to the DVLA.

Furthermore, I reserve the right to take action for this GDPR breach under the Data Protection Act 2018, as the unlawful request for my personal data was not justified.

Conclusion

Please confirm that this Parking Charge Notice will be cancelled, and provide a formal response to this complaint, detailing how the double-dip error occurred and how your team will rectify such failures in the future. This formal response is essential as I will also be escalating the matter to the ICO.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
Registered Keeper of the Vehicle
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List

dynamo77

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thank you so much for that reply 👏
I'll keep you updated

dynamo77

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Before I send everything off can you satisfy my curiosity about this ?


Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012

In addition, your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA):

Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NtK fails to specify the required "period of parking." Relying solely on ANPR timestamps of entry and exit does not meet the requirement of providing a clear and defined period of parking.


Has the parking company covered this by their claim that the driver was parked for 649 mins (shown on the notice) ?  Thanks in advance

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2055
  • Karma: +61/-0
    • View Profile
If this wasn't a double dip, providing an entrance time, exit time, and showing the number of minutes, in my view that would meet the requirements of 9(2)(a) to the satisfaction of most judges. The more important point here is that the alleged period of parking is entirely inaccurate, due to the double dip issue discussed.

dynamo77

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Good evening, following on from what @b789 said about a complaint to the DVLA can someone point me to the Section on the DVLA where I can make a complaint. I've seen the general complaints section bit can't see anything specific about complaints regarding to registered keeper days disclosure.
Also at what point should I complain to the ICO?
Thanks all in advance

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2055
  • Karma: +61/-0
    • View Profile
I would just use whatever complaints process the DVLA offers. They are probably unlikely to have separate contact details for different types of complaint. I wouldn't complain to the ICO until you hear back from your complaint to G24 (or such time has passed that they have exceeded the deadline for responding to complaints as set out in the relevant Code of Practice), otherwise ICO are likely to just tell you to complain to the operator first.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List

dynamo77

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
How is this for a complaint to the DVLA ?

As the registered keeper of this vehicle I received a Penalty Charge Notice on 16th October 2024 from the car park company G24 in respects to an alleged offence on 30th September 2024 at The Hough Retail Park, Lichfield Road, Stafford, ST17 4LL
G24 claim that the car visited the car park at 8.22am and left at 7:11pm this being on the car park for close to 11 hours.
This is a case of a "double-dip" error, where the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system has failed to accurately log the vehicle's first exit and second entry.

On the day in question, the vehicle made two separate visits to the car park:
• First visit: approximately 8:22am
• Second visit: approximately 7:11pm

G24 erroneously treated these two distinctly separate visits as a single continuous stay, leading to the issuance of this PCN. G24 failed to properly check the ANPR data for "orphan images"—that is, missing entry or exit records that the vehicle made.

My complaint with yourselves, the DVLA is that there was no Reasonable Cause for G24 to request my personal data from yourselves, and this constitutes a breach of the KADOE contract, and my data was therefore obtained unlawfully.

Can you please advise what the next steps are in escalating this issue.

dynamo77

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Some good news today of sorts.  I received the following email from G24

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr XXXXXXX XXXXX

RE: Contractual Parking Charge Notice 107924093001

Regarding the above Contractual Parking Charge Notice, we would like to confirm that this has been waived.

No further action is required by you.

Appeals Team
G24 Ltd

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now whilst that is great, given the appeal text I sent (thank you again to B789) they have clearly realised they fecked up and think by cancelling the PCN that its the end of it.

I sent the complaint email to their dataprotection@g24.co.uk email address and a week later I've not had anythign back so I'm sendign the same complaint by post to their offices with the view to riaising a complaint with the ICO if nothing comes from that.  To quote Vic and Bob "you wouldn't let it lie !!"
Like Like x 1 View List

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Karma: +107/-4
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
The DVLA complaint should also be made. It will be interesting to see the DVLA response (fob off) but it all remains recorded.

Quote
Formal Complaint – Unlawful Request for DVLA Data by G24 Ltd

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding G24 Ltd’s unlawful request for my personal data from the DVLA, which breaches the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract. Specifically, G24 failed to comply with their Code of Practice (CoP) by neglecting to perform a manual quality control check of the ANPR images in what is clearly a 'double-dip' scenario.

In this case, the ANPR system recorded the vehicle’s entry and exit incorrectly by missing key images, which I believe should have been flagged through a manual quality check of 'orphan images.' By not taking the necessary steps to ensure accurate data collection, G24 requested my DVLA data without reasonable cause and subsequently improperly issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), contrary to the requirements set forth in the IPC Code of Practice and the KADOE contract.

This breach of the CoP highlights their failure to follow the established procedures for correctly identifying 'double-dip' errors, and their unlawful request for my data from the DVLA is a clear violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) under the Data Protection Act 2018. I expect this serious breach to be investigated promptly.

Please confirm receipt of this complaint and advise me on the actions the DVLA will take in relation to this unlawful request for my data.

I reserve the right to escalate this matter further if necessary, including pursuing a claim for damages under the Data Protection Act 2018 for the misuse of my personal information.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[PCN Reference Number]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List

dynamo77

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Had a reply from the DVLA... Essential they say there's nothing to see. They've contacted G24 who are saying they only have one entry and one exit in their records.
Sounds very convenient....

Dear Mr xxxxx,
Thank you for your correspondence of 24th October about the release of information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) vehicle register. I have been asked to formally review your case at Step 1 of our complaints procedure.

The DVLA takes the protection and security of its data very seriously and has procedures in place to ensure data is disclosed only where it is lawful and fair to do so and where the provisions of the Data Protection Law are met. The Agency must strike a balance between ensuring the privacy of motorists is respected while enabling those who may have suffered loss or damage to seek redress.

Drivers choosing to park a vehicle on private land do so subject to the terms and conditions set out on signage in the car park. The need to contact individuals who may not have complied with these conditions is, in most circumstances, considered to be a reasonable cause. Data is provided by the DVLA to enable landowners or their agents to pursue their legal rights and to address disputes. I hope you can appreciate that if this were not the case, motorists would be able to park with disregard for the conditions applying with little prospect of being held accountable.

I have investigated this matter with G24 Limited who made the request to DVLA for the registered keeper details for vehicle registration number xxxxxxx. I have sight of their supporting evidence to show that they had reasonable cause to make their request. I have also been advised that upon receipt of your appeal the decision was made to cancel the parking charge notice on this occasion. G24 Limited have also
advised me that they have carried out a detailed review of their systems, however could only find one event of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park.

To help ensure motorists are treated fairly when any private parking charge is pursued the DVLA discloses vehicle keeper information only to companies that are members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association (ATA). The purpose of requiring a company to be a member of an ATA is to ensure that those who request DVLA information are legitimate companies that operate within a code of practice that promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures that there is a clear set of standards for operators.

The company in question, G24 Limited, is a member of the International Parking Community Ltd (IPC) which is an Accredited Trade Association for the parking industry. The IPC’s code of practice is published on its website at www.theipc.info under the heading Accredited Operators Scheme. If a member of this AOS does not comply with the code of practice, it may be suspended or expelled, during which time no data will be provided to it by the DVLA. If you feel that any of the practices used by the company do not comply with the IPC’s code of practice, you may wish to contact the IPC via their website or by writing to IPC, at PO Box 662 SK10 9NR.

We have fully considered all the information available. If you feel that your complaint has not been resolved, you can request escalation of your complaint to Step 2 of the complaints process. Further options about our complaint procedure can be found online at www.gov.uk/dvla/complaints.
Yours sincerely
Carly Williams
Data Customer Auditor
Data Assurance Team/Information & Assurance Group
« Last Edit: October 30, 2024, 07:40:36 pm by dynamo77 »

dynamo77

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Got a response to my complaint letter/email from G24

Complaint response from G24

Stating they completed a "detailed review and couldn't find any other entry or exit in my 2 visits.  They seem to be happy with their privacy policy (as do the DVLA) and are pointing me to the IPC.

What would you suggest next @b789 ?  Do you have a template for a Subject Access Request ?  Such was the swiftness of both visits I wouldn't need more that 15mins data from entry the first time and 15 mins before the exit the 2nd time.

Thanks in advance

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2055
  • Karma: +61/-0
    • View Profile