Province selling info to Impark again

[fredr123]

The provincial Tories have decided to sell our info to Impark again. They used to have similar access as late as February 2004 but it was taken away after a plethora of complaints about late night calls from collection agencies. Just recently, the government increased the cost of registration to "cover the cost of increased security measures to strengthen the ability of registry agents and their employees to safeguard the personal information provided by Albertans." So how does allowing Impark to access our data play into this whole safeguarding plan again?

[Resolute 14]

Presumably Impark had to prove that it would not abuse the data, as well as prove that it's collection meathods would conform to provincial laws before it would regain the right to access information on people that dont pay their tickets.

[fredr123]

Presumably, sure. But doesn't it seem odd that the justification for increasing registry fees is to safeguard the data and then a week later that same data is allowed to be sold to Impark? A company that has a track record of being less than secure with the information it receives?

[Incinerator]

All the more reason why everyone should live in secure condo apartments and ditch their landline phones and get a cell phone, put it on silent when you go to bed, block calls from telemarketers, pick up only from people you know...it's great I tell ya. I haven't paid a single Impark ticket in 3 years and I get them pretty much once a month.

[Cowperson]

What they should have done is told Impark to pony up for the expense of lot attendants at their places, eliminating the need for licence plate information.

That way the government could have kept the information private instead of using it as a cash cow.

Cowperson

[Incinerator]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 11 2005, 05:12 PM
What they should have done is told Impark to pony up for the expense of lot attendants at their places, eliminating the need for licence plate information.

That way the government could have kept the information private instead of using it as a cash cow.

Cowperson

exactly, but that'd also means no more free parking for me

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 11 2005, 11:12 AM
What they should have done is told Impark to pony up for the expense of lot attendants at their places, eliminating the need for licence plate information.

That way the government could have kept the information private instead of using it as a cash cow.

Cowperson

Bloody good point! This government has spent too much time at the trough to understand even a simple concept like respecting private information.

A question related to "collection" practices...

How can the company initiate debt collection unilaterally? I.e., unless they prove the existence of some debt in a small claims court (or something), is it not simply harrassment when they repeatedly call you asking for money?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate+Aug 11 2005, 11:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cube Inmate @ Aug 11 2005, 11:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Aug 11 2005, 11:12 AM
What they should have done is told Impark to pony up for the expense of lot attendants at their places, eliminating the need for licence plate information.

That way the government could have kept the information private instead of using it as a cash cow.

Cowperson

Bloody good point! This government has spent too much time at the trough to understand even a simple concept like respecting private information.

A question related to "collection" practices...

How can the company initiate debt collection unilaterally? I.e., unless they prove the existence of some debt in a small claims court (or something), is it not simply harrassment when they repeatedly call you asking for money? [/b][/quote]
From what I understand it pretty much is a scare tactic.

Impark can't legally charge you more than the posted rate on the sign.
if you get a ticket, all you have to do is send them whatever the price to park there was supposed to be and there's nothing they can do about it. I got this advice from a prof in a law course, and i've done it and it worked just fine.

[Clarkey]

I always pay the minimum, 30 minutes or whatever it is, then stay as long as I need. If I get a ticket I throw it away. I've never been towed, I think it's because I have purchased a ticket. On the news about a year ago a guy from the parking authority (or wherever impark has to call to get a car towed) said that they won't tow your car because you were late.

[pope04]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+Aug 11 2005, 05:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ Aug 11 2005, 05:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Bloody good point! This government has spent too much time at the trough to understand even a simple concept like respecting private information.

A question related to "collection" practices...

How can the company initiate debt collection unilaterally? I.e., unless they prove the existence of some debt in a small claims court (or something), is it not simply harrassment when they repeatedly call you asking for money?

From what I understand it pretty much is a scare tactic.

Impark can't legally charge you more than the posted rate on the sign.
if you get a ticket, all you have to do is send them whatever the price to park there was supposed to be and there's nothing they can do about it. I got this advice from a prof in a law course, and i've done it and it worked just fine. [/b][/quote]
Years ago, I got an Impark ticket and did not pay. When they contacted me, I simply responded that I wished to take the matter up in court. Never heard from them again. This has to be about 15 years ago.