You're in legal dispute. You throw away the paperwork. You have the chance to get it back by filling in a simple A4 form and posting it - and you decide not to. Brilliant. Not. But it's your case. It's up to you, but ether you do what NB says sharpish or you'll find yourself with a court claim. SAR done today, get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office. And tomorrow a draft of a suitable snotty letter please.

We have a new case which is a carbon copy of yours. Catford Island - Highview - overstay - claim form - issued on 4 August. Like in your case Highview have delayed taking court action for years & years so they can charge as much interest as possible, which is unreasonable and you need to include that in your coming defence.

Thanks for taking the time to come back and tell us.

Thank you for this information. It will at least make it possible to file a defence early next month. However, several things. 1. You say a Letter of Claim was never sent. Are you sure? Or was it thrown away? If the fleecers never sent a LoC then that can be included in the defence but it would be a disaster to state this if it wasn't true. 2. In your first post you mention the date 20.10.2019 and again in the PoCs you write xx/10/20xx. Is this the date of the PCN? Then if so in the defence we can hammer the fleecers for deliberately waiting four years to pump up the amount of interest. 3. We've asked four times (this is the fifth) to see the original PCN, the most important document. Where is it? Has it been thrown away? If so the CPR - which should have been sent on 11 August - might get it back. Otherwise he will have to SAR the fleecers. Getting basic information about this case is like getting blood from a stone. Obviously that's not your fault. But your mate got himself in this mess, you come along as a Gift Horse to get him out of it and he still won't put any work in. Everyone here is an unpaid volunteer and if your mate won't lift his little finger you'll find several of us deciding to do nothing too, and very soon. EDIT I see fro's thread is a carbon copy. Catford Island - Highview - overstay - claim form. Fro is exactly a week ahead with the CPR. It's a very good idea to follow their thread so you know what'll be coming - or not coming - next. Fro's overstay was 23 minutes, your mate's could be within the consideration/grace periods. But we need to see the PCN.

No - well spotted Reapstar. Parking Eye hid this information away in the small print and I did not read the small print properly and missed it. A judge will be singularly unimpressed with nonsense like "Parking Eye were unable to cancel". Issuing a Notice of Discontinuance is extremely simple. I bet at this stage it could even be done on MCOL. So SAR claim issued on 18 August, five days for service takes us to 23, next Wednesday. That's when a decision needs to be taken whether to try to negotiate a deal with them or not.

Any update? Was your defence accepted?

For how long? Where? When? It was certainly a long time ago as the fleecers have invented £55 interest on top of £70 Unicorn Food Tax. Sadly with no information it will be impossible to draft a defence and on 5 September he will have to pay all these made-up charges to the fleecers.

So you've done Acknowledgement of Service?

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELL !!!! This is dynamite. Please upload this document.

If they defend then their case against you will be defended and your case against them will be defended. I doubt very much they have POP. Unfortunately the PPCs regularly lie about the date when they send out their bilge and unfortunately get away with it.,

OK, so there is no dispute that they failed to reply to the SAR within 30 days and only moved after you sent a LoC and complained to the ICO. They may well lie and pretend they respected the 14-day LoC deadline though.

I see they have lied about the date they replied. Was it 3 August you sent off the SAR? Is there any postmark on their letter?

That is incredibly well spotted LFI. Unfortunately I can't get Peter Parker's link to work any more. However, changes made to the WS above in blue.

I've made some suggestions in red. See what you think. My inclusion of the persuasive cases is not very good but is all we have to go on at the moment. The BBC website article I quote is here https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-49883876 Witness Statement One Parking Solution Limited v. <Defendant> (Claim Number <number>) Below is the Witness Statement of <Defendant> <Address> Sequence of Events I parked in Llangrannog Beach car park on 03/05/2021 and 06/05/2021, and on both occasions the only ticket machine showed Not in Use. Alternative means of payment, via an app, was not available due to lack of mobile signal in this remote location on the West Wales coast. I always pay for parking, and provide evidence (Exhibit 1) of having done so at other car parks in West Wales during my holiday that week. Frustration of Contract One Parking Solution Limited (OPS) claims I am in breach of contract, by parking in Llangrannog Beach car park, and failing to buy a ticket. I reject this claim on grounds of Frustration of Contract, as there was no available means to do so, as explained above. OPS is well aware of the ticket machine being Out of Use most of the time and of the unreliability of the mobile signal, as this was highlighted in a report by OPS's trade association the British Parking Association (BPA) in 2019 (Exhibit 2). The BPA's representative went so far as to write: "My own experience confirmed that it was not possible for me to pay for parking and I had no choice but to leave the car park within 10 minutes. If I had taken longer, presumably I would have received a PCN from One Parking Solution". OPS has chosen not to act on the recommendations of the BPA in their report. The ticket machine being invariably Out of Use is reported in numerous articles in the local and national press. To be succinct I include only two, an article in the Cambrian News from May 20th 2021 (Exhibit 3), which describes some of the many cases where OPS have issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to motorists who were unable to buy a ticket, and even some who did, and another published on the BBC website (Exhibit 4). Planning permission for ANPR cameras was granted to OPS in May 2019. There were a large number of objections to the application. Many pointed out then that the internet reception was insufficient to provide a service. So OPS knew from the start that paying was going to be a problem. Four years later they are still charging motorists for something that is not the motorists' fault. In a number of persuasive court cases judges have indeed ruled that Frustration of Contract applies in cases brought by OPS for this car park. One such case was in February 2022 and another the same or the next month before Deputy District Judge Henderson sitting at Blackwood Civil and Family Court. Breach of Code of Practice Section 9.5 of the BPA Code of Practice (Exhibit 5) states “You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges”. This is exactly what OPS is doing though. The constant stream of complaints on Trip Advisor (Exhibit 6) about this car park and its operator, is an indication that OPS is deliberately making it as difficult as possible for motorists to purchase a ticket, so they can demand a Parking Charge, and indeed have even demanded a Parking Charge from some who did manage to buy a ticket, in the hope they’ll have thrown it away and not be able to prove they ever had one. The earliest of these complaints was made in June 2019 and the latest in July 2023. Indeed the latter is the latest review on the site. The pattern is always the same - for four years OPS has left a single, Not in Use machine on site which makes it impossible for the motorist to pay, Double Recovery OPS has artificially inflated their claim for two £100 invoices to a total of £340, as well as claiming legal representative's costs. This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...'' The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4) Statement of Truth I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

OK, there's something to consider. Not necessarily to do. But to consider. As scribbled on other threads, the matter of your mum being RK and your imminent move abroad complicates life. Your mum could write to them and out you as the driver. Then when you move abroad you could write giving them your foreign address. The reason I throw this idea into the ring is because the fleecers invariably give up when the driver is abroad. If you look at Zimbird's many threads, you can see that she has written to different PPCs over the years from Zimbabwe and they've always chucked in the towel. The negative aspects of this idea is that you would lose your POFA protection and the fleecers might say it's "too late" to out the driver. It still wouldn't look good though if they tried to sue the wrong person. Alternatively just continue as you are doing. I've looked through all the NPE threads here and only once have they had the gonads to do court. If they ever send a LoC your mum could reply pointing out the brake lights and that she has photos of the hidden signage and inviting them to Foxtrot Oscar. They would be highly unlikely to do court (unlike Parking Eye). But there are no guarantees. Just something for you & your mum to consider.

Any update here? I ask as we have a new user taking on these jokers.

Any update here? I ask as we have a new user taking on these jokers.

Any update here? I ask as we have a new user taking on these jokers.

Any update here? I ask as we have a new user taking on these jokers.

Just thinking. Is your mum the registered keeper also in this case?

Ha! Ha! Hot air from paper tigers with no powers to do anything. Laugh at them and ignore.

If there is any documentation in the SAR, which we haven't seen already in the CPR, please post it up.

New thread created for the SAR distress court claim.

New thread created for the SAR distress court claim.

Stupidity and arrogance I suppose. What you are suing for is for distress you suffered when they didn't respect your SAR, particularly bad as you are trying to prepare for a court claim. The distress had already been suffered when you sent the LoC, so even if they had replied after just one day you could still have sued for distress. However, you didn't, you bent over backwards and waited till 14 days were up, and they still hadn't replied. So no problem. Their own fault. I'll create a separate thread now for the SAR court claim.