iPark and ICBC in bed together?

[my5cents]

Wouldn't surprise me if they were paying ICBC for the information.

I'm sure they are.

[LongHaul]

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

This links to a CBC article which starts as :
“CBC B.C.
Bad parking ticket issued with ICBC's help
A southeastern B.C. man says the Insurance Corporation of B.C. is carelessly giving dated information to parking lot companies to help them issue parking-fine tickets to car owners.”

Interesting as last May I received a “Past Due Notice” in the mail from DPS for one of their parking lots in Surrey.
They demanded payment of $112 for failing to display a valid ticket.
The licence number on the notice was for my vehicle. However I haven't been to Surrey in years. The address where the violation supposedly occurred was 13277-108th av. Surrey. This appears to be near some municipal offices. Contacted DPS, informed them hadn't been to Surrey in years and as I was taking people to appointments the day of the violation had witnesses who could testify where my vehicle was. DPS was very cooperative, apologized and cancelled the ticket.

Wondered how they got my name and address. Didn't think ICBC would be the source as was sure they did not disclose private information except for law enforcement. The CBC article posted by sooperphreek may have answered the question which I find very disturbing. If this article is correct it would mean information collected by ICBC is being made available to parking lot owners for a fee.

The back of one's ICBC insurance forms states ICBC is governed by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). FIPPA applies to the provincial government, crown corporations, etc. Assume ICBC checked with the Privacy Commissioner if making personal information available without consent to Parking Lot Owners is a violation of the FIPPA. Even so still find it hard to believe the privacy act for the government and crown corporations is much more lenient than the one for private companies. The privacy act for private companies is very draconian about the release of private information. Found a web version of the FIPPA to browse through looking for what it allows in disclosing private information. Note: the web version is not considered the official version. For an official version one would have to purchase it from the Queen's Printer.

Like most government documents it is brutal to read. Managed to skim though it before my eyes glazed over. If one is fighting insomnia trying to read the FIPPA may help. Reading the rest of this post which got much longer than expected may also help....

The link to FIPPA on the web is:
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/LOC/freeside/--%20F%20--/Freedom%20of%20Information%20and%20Protection%20of%20Privacy%20Act%20RSBC%201996%20c.%20165/00_Act/96165_00.htm

Going to the ICBC web site their privacy section on requesting information says:

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.”

There is a FEES link so there is a charge.

The link to the ICBC page above is:
http://www.icbc.com/about-ICBC/request_complaint#1

According to the above one cannot request information on a third party unless authorized on their behalf. As per FIPPA that is bit simplistic as there are exceptions for law enforcement warrants etc.

Didn't see anything in FIPPA that collections on unpaid parking lot tickets for private lots is considered law enforcement. It could be there but it wasn't obvious. Unless there is a law that not paying a parking ticket for a private lot is breaking the law? Have never heard of such a law. Think this would be more like breach of contract.

There are a couple of sections which might provide an opening for one to get private information about a third party without the third party's consent depending on how they are interpreted. Section 22 3 J has the following heading and sentence:

“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.”

j) by itself seems to suggest one can access name, address data of a third party if the information is not going to be used for solicitations. I don't think this is a correct interpretation as it would make FIPPA nearly useless for protecting private data. Am guessing what is being said in a convoluted way is that even if the request passes all the criteria in the preceding sections it will be denied if it is going to be used for mailing lists or solicitations. Arguing about how sentences like this are interpreted in the overall act is where lawyers and judges make the big bucks.

The other one is a section in section 22 4 I:

(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

Would this allow for disclosure on who is registered to a licence plate? Or is this meant for something like a business licence? Even so it only allows disclosure of the name on that licence. It does not include disclosing an address and other information.

Recall right after the Vancouver Stanley Cup Riot ICBC offered their facial recognition software for use by the police in identifying rioters. Very quickly the Privacy Commissioner jumped in and told ICBC you can't do that. The paragraph below was copied from CBC news.

“A public body can only use personal information for the original purpose it was collected, except in very limited circumstances. ICBC's offer to use its database to check police-submitted images is clearly a different purpose," said Denham.”

That lines up with what is stated in the FIPPA.

Going by the above statement it would seem if ICBC is supplying name and address information to Parking Lot Owners they would be violating the FIPPA. This is a guess based on a very limited understanding of the FIPPA.

The Privacy Commissioner should certainly review this ICBC activity if it is happening and hasn't already been done.

If ICBC is found to be in violation of privacy and ordered to shut down this sideline activity the public may never know it happened. The FIPPA seems to be much more lenient than the privacy act for private companies about notifying individuals whose information was accessed by a breach. Section 30.5 in the FIPPA states the only action required after a breach is notifying the head of the public body. It appears notifying individuals whose personal information was disclosed is not legally required. Unless this is specified some where else? This differs from the act for private companies who have to notify individuals affected by the breach if certain criteria are met. Section 30.5 is below.

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.

On the positive side if ICBC and the Provincial Government who are responsible for ICBC don't have to deal with public notification and the can of worms this opens it saves tax payer dollars.

Anyway that's my opinion.

[The Rooster]

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.

Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

And therein lies the conflict of interest . The Liberal Government routinely steals revenues from ICBC , on a quarterly basis , ICBC has a communistic monopoly on insurance in Bc . See in the states , a privately owned parking lot will ticket you and they pay a fee for your information to the local DMV , and they tow you away . In Canada it is very different . Just ask the nurses at KGH about the parking around the hospital .
If you have tickets unpaid in the states you can still get insurance , in Canada they make you pay for them first , before they issue you any insurance
Municipalities are supposed to state what can be charged in Bylaws , but they won't enforce them so parking lots and towing companies routinely rape British Columbians

[sooperphreek]

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.

[my5cents]

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.

I don't see how this is ICBC's negligence or carelessness. ?

[my5cents]

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.

Aren't tickets and insurance directly tied together ?

How about the people who don't pay their family maintenance, who can't renew their insurance, or driver's license ? I thought that would be the one you'd be talking about.

[sooperphreek]

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.

[my5cents]

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.

I was referring to traffic tickets, not parking, but actually since the owner of a car is responsible for everything the car does, if a municipality (a city government) wants to enter into an agreement where another branch of government, the provincial government, will collect the parking fines from an owner, it's all related to a car.

As for "municipal speeding tickets", virtually 99.9999% of all speeding tickets are issued under provincial legislation, not municipal, however since it's in the operation of a vehicle, it's insurance linked.

Even in jurisdiction with private auto insurance, and for the private carriers of own damage insurance in BC, they are very interested in the number of tickets one of their insured receives.

I'm not too concerned how government gets people to pay their fines.

In the old days, tickets that weren't dealt with, went to "Traffic Bench Warrants". If you didn't pay a ticket or show up on the court date for the ticket, a warrant was issued for your arrest.

A lot easier on everyone when a delinquent violator is just turned away at the Autoplan office, vs getting arrested by the police.

If we don't return to warrants for unpaid tickets, what do we do to get violators to pay up ?

I have a bigger problem, and you don’t hear the exact details from ICBC or the police, but it what the police and ICBC call “Enhanced Enforcement”. ICBC actually pays the police overtime to hunt violators and or drinking drivers.
Considering ICBC assesses penalty points and license reinstatement fees, they actually are getting a “piece of the action” for the police working on their days off hunting violators.
How would we like it if Speedy Glass paid police overtime to pull over and ticket people driving with cracked windshields ?

[John500]

...and you still think ICBC is a good monopoly?...ha ha ha

[sooperphreek]

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.

[my5cents]

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.

As for moving violations, it is attached to the driver and his/her license. If it's a parking ticket, it was the car that was illegally parked not the driver.

Just like if the car was involved in a hit and run, the owner is responsible unless they identify the driver.

Personally I don't think giving someone 5 years to pay any ticket is reasonable.

[Smurf]

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..

[The Rooster]

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..

What does your insurance cost in Arizona ?

[LongHaul]

ICBC provided an explanation why parking lot operators can obtain information on who the owner of a licence plate is which seems like a violation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

ICBC collects personal information when a vehicle is registered and a licence is issued for the purpose of controlling access to the highways. The definition of a highway includes parking lots where the public can park.

A parking lot operator controls access by collecting parking fees. To enforce this control the lot operator needs to identify non payers. This is consistent with the purpose for which private information is collected by ICBC. If it wasn't ICBC would be in violation of the FIPPA by providing private information to the Parking Lot Operators. The definition of a highway as per the Motor Vehicle Act follows.

"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;

ICBC also stated they do not sell private information. A fee is charged for access by an approved request. All fees collected are remitted to the province.

[The Rooster]

Come on people , ICBC gave out license plate info , WOW. Ow about the fact that they suppress info that should go to the victims in accidents and the fact hat the government, especially the Fiberals that steal their revenues from them , tell doctors ot to run certain tests after an accident , not to save money, but to suppress medical info . I know people that have almost died because ICBC has refused to exspidite tests , I feel with the desire to see them die before the settlement .

By the way , if you die before a settlement ICBC doesn't have to pay your family anything . When you buy your insurance just notice ow it doesn't ask for a beneficiary in the event of death . Every other insurance company does

ICBC will hold back treatment hoping for you to DIE .

A Crown Corporation run by the BC government , that demands that ou pay them , and employs 5200 employees in BC , and in 2006 the Fiberals sold $3Billion of ICBC stock to Goldman Sachs , the very reason for the 2007 World Wide Financial Crisis .