Re: ipark and icbc in bed together?
Posted: Dec 7th, 2012, 4:36 pm
Bsuds wrote:Wouldn't surprise me if they were paying ICBC for the information.
I'm sure they are.
The Okanagan's Discussion Forum
https://forums.castanet.net/
Bsuds wrote:Wouldn't surprise me if they were paying ICBC for the information.
Dec 7 wsooperphreek wrote:
ipark and icbc in bed together?
this is a disturbing thought.
http://news.ca.msn.com/local/britishcolumbia/bad-parking-ticket-issued-with-icbcs-help
Requesting records
Under FIPPA, you may make a request for access to records in the custody or under the control of ICBC. This includes anything on which information is recorded or stored.
We'll do our best to provide access to the records you're entitled to under FIPPA, unless an exception applies and information may be withheld. (see Division 2 — Exceptions).
Fees »
How to access records
To request records at ICBC:
1. Fill out an Access Request form. (PDF)
Please include a detailed description of the specific records you're looking for.
If you're requesting access to your own personal information, we may ask you to verify your identity.
If you're requesting someone else's personal information, you'll need to provide proof that you're authorized to act on their behalf. (Include these documents with your request.)
2.Mail your completed Access Request form to the address below.”
“Disclosure harmful to personal privacy
22 (1) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose personal information to an applicant if the disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy.
(3) A disclosure of personal information is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy if
(j) the personal information consists of the third party's name, address, or telephone number and is to be used for mailing lists or solicitations by telephone or other means.”
(4) A disclosure of personal information is not an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy if
(i) the disclosure, in respect of
(i) a licence, a permit or any other similar discretionary benefit, or
(ii) a degree, a diploma or a certificate,
reveals any of the following with respect to the applicable item in subparagraph (i) or (ii):
(iii) the name of the third party to whom the item applies;
(iv) what the item grants or confers on the third party or authorizes the third party to do;
(v) the status of the item;
(vi) the date the item was conferred or granted;
(vii) the period of time the item is valid;
(viii) the date the item expires
Notification of unauthorized disclosure
30.5 (1) In this section, "unauthorized disclosure of personal information" has the same meaning as in section 30.2 (1).
(2) An employee, officer or director of a public body, or an employee or associate of a service provider, who knows that there has been an unauthorized disclosure of personal information that is in the custody or under the control of the public body must immediately notify the head of the public body.
Veovis wrote:If you were parked illegally on their property would that not grant them the right to know who's vehicle it was? I don't know but they are interesting questions.
Impark is a ruthless company that I am certainly no fan of, but this almost seems more like, negligence are carelessness by ICBC that causes people great grief and Impark never backs down or listens to reason, they just say "pay up or else" from day 1.
I'd be curious to know just how often this actually happens though.
Veovis wrote:If you were parked illegally on their property would that not grant them the right to know who's vehicle it was? I don't know but they are interesting questions.
Impark is a ruthless company that I am certainly no fan of, but this almost seems more like, negligence are carelessness by ICBC that causes people great grief and Impark never backs down or listens to reason, they just say "pay up or else" from day 1.
I'd be curious to know just how often this actually happens though.
sooperphreek wrote:ya. its scary to me that we have tickets and insurance tied directly together. that is gestapo crap. and next we may well see parking tickets and bridge crossing tolls and everything tied in. that kind of collusion is a sign of how bad things will get in the future.
sooperphreek wrote:how exactly are tickets tied together with insurance? you pay insurance to make sure you are covered in an accident. how does parking tickets tie into that? or municipal speeding tickets etc tie into that? it has no tie and shouldnt.
sooperphreek wrote:the flaw in everything being attached to the car and not the offender is that there could be someone else in the car driving at the time and the owner would have no choice but to pay. that is not right in my opinion. the reason they would want to do this is because a person had a choice to delay paying the violations until their license came up for renewal. so instead of having to wait 5 years to feed the cash cow they only have to wait a year.
Smurf wrote:I keep an old GMC Tracker stored in Arizona as a desert vehicle when we are down there. It is registered in Arizona. When we are done for the winter I cancel the insurance (private) and they immediatelly notify the DMV who cancal the registration. When I go back down to use it I must get insurance and prove to DMV I have insurance before I can drive again. If I used a payment plan and missed a payment, the insurance company would cancel my insurance and my registration. So yes things do get tied together even with private insurance etc..
"highway" includes
(a) every highway within the meaning of the Transportation Act,
(b) every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, and
(c) every private place or passageway to which the public, for the purpose of the parking or servicing of vehicles, has access or is invited,
but does not include an industrial road;