LoC to NCP for failure to supply SAR ***Paid in full***

[FTMDave]

No it's not normal, and as long as you have proof of postage you can sue them for not responding to the SAR.

 

There is someone on the site who has sued Virgin, and won, for exactly this.

 

Have a think about whether you want to go down this road.

[FTMDave]

That seems watertight then.

 

Personally I wouldn't wait till the end of the month.  They've had 30 days and obviously can't be bothered to respect their statutory duty.

 

This is particularly disgraceful given they are suing you and couldn't be pestered to get back to you after your phone call where you were trying to sort the whole matter out.  Which of course is why you want a reply to the SAR, to see what they have noted about the phone call.

 

The Virgin thread is here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428408-virgin-mystery-extra-line-2-judgments-for-data-protection-breaches-so-far/#comment-5077084

 

In post 17 there is a drafted Letter of Claim that you could easily adapt.

 

@dx100uk I vaguely remember in another thread that you suggested some sort of belt-and-braces contact with the ICO.  Is this right?

[FTMDave]

@dx100uk  I vaguely remember in another thread that you suggested some sort of belt-and-braces contact with the ICO.  Is this right?

[FTMDave]

I don't see how they could possibly defend.  They haven't replied to your SAR.  You have proof.

 

The steps to take would be easy enough.  1.  Letter of Claim which is nigh-on prepared on the Virgin link.  2.  Start a claim through MCOL, where you are already registered, with a short paragraph as Particulars of Claim and forking out £25 which you will get back if you win.  3.  At that point they will either ignore the court papers and lose by default after a fortnight or run to the parking association's solicitor and desperately try to defend, but I don't see how they can.

 

I suggest, firstly complaining to the ICO as dx suggests.

 

At the same time post a draft of your LoC here.  I know it will be almost identical to the Virgin one, but I'd like to flag it up and have Site Team members more experienced than me have a look.  The vast majority of motorists we get here are just glad to get rid of the ticket, hardly anyone wants to take revenge, even though it would be quite easy, so best we are absolutely sure that the letter is OK.

[FTMDave]

I don't think we're escalating too quickly.  You have already given them two chances to respect their statutory duty and they have ignored you.  The LoC is a third chance, it's not actually the start of court action, it's a warning that court action is imminent, so all they have to do to avoid court is get their act together.

 

Also, what is the context of you wanting this information?  Because NCP have started court action against you.  Time is of the essence, a court case is happening.  The least they can do is provide the information they have on you.  Especially as you bent over backwards by phoning them to try to sort things out.  In fact the whole point of the SAR is to see what they have on record about the phone call.

 

Hang on a little while and let me get the LoC checked by Site Team members who are vastly experienced with these things.

 

I think with the IOC it's simply option 1.

 

Once your e LoC is okayed and sent, I'll split these posts off into a new thread as there will be two separate claims happening (although ultimately connected of course), NCP v you for the drop-off invoice, and you v NCP for failure to reply to a SAR.

[FTMDave]

3 hours ago, MoaningCrusader said:

Shall I just send it to NCP and not BW Legal as well?.

I should think just one copy to NCP's head office will suffice.  FruitSalad is spot on.

 

The best result for you would be if NCP ignore the LoC, then ignore the claim form, and after a fortnight you win by default.  Less hassle that way.

 

That result would not negate NCP's responsibility to supply the SAR documentation.

 

BW Legal, charlatans though they are, are actually solicitors who would be likely to wake up to a LoC, so best to leave them out of the loop.

 

3 hours ago, MoaningCrusader said:

I will await final ok for the LoC.

I've flagged it up to the Site Team, especially to the person dealing with the Virgin case, but the weekend is nearly upon us and people have their own lives, but we'll get there slowly but surely.

[FTMDave]

There has been no further feedback - and I know you're anxious to get things moving.

 

I would say to give it another 24 hours.  The LoC is probably fine but just to be absolutely sure I would prefer others to have a look at it.

[FTMDave]

I'm just wondering whether the LoC should include the sum you will sue them for - so they can't say they weren't warned.

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

LETTER OF CLAIM

 

General Data Protection Regulations - Subject Access Request

Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXX

 

On Wednesday 3^rd August I sent you a subject access request for a statutory disclosure of my personal data under the Data Protection Act.

You have failed to comply.

You have now breached your statutory duty. It has caused me a great deal of distress not having my data in order to understand the problems you have caused by the failure of your systems and your charging process, together with the necessity to chase after you to get this disclosure..

You have 14 days to respond, after which I shall begin a County Court claim against you for the sum of £200.
 

Yours faithfully

[FTMDave]

Regarding the SAR LoC. I really don't think you should go above £200, tempting as it is.  The person who is dealing with the Virgin case - and who knows a hell of a lot more than me - was uncertain about whether to sue for £100 or £200.  A judge is much more likely to grant a lower sum.

 

Remember that you will be suing for distress up to the day you issue the claim form.  If they continue to faff around and not respond to the SAR then you can sue them for a second period of distress.  That is what happened in the Virgin case. 

[FTMDave]

I think there's been enough waiting.  I know you want to move things on.

 

Get the LoC sent off tomorrow to NCP's head office by 1st-class post and get a free CoP from the post office.

 

Once that's done we'll divide the thread into the two separate legal actions happening.

[FTMDave]

Great points from FruitSalad.

 

I would also include their PCN no. as a sub-heading.  That's how their systems will reference you, how they will "find" you.  If they still ignore you you'll be able to show the judge you gave them every chance to cooperate but they failed to do so.

[FTMDave]

Well done.

 

I've started a new thread about the SAR action.

[FTMDave]

When you have time, as you're already registered on MCOL, you might as well go there and draft a Particulars of Claim.  You can save a draft on MCOL.

 

The Virgin ones are not that useful as they emphasise the huge delay in replying.  In your case the seriousness is down to the court claim against you.  The Virgin ones -

 

10 minutes ago, FTMDave said:

I had an account with the defendants reference number XXX. On XXX date I submitted a subject access request pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018. The Defendants breached the statutory deadline of 30 days and failed to make the disclosure and this failure is continuing seven months later. The defendants breach of their statutory duty and by inability to access my personal data has caused me serious issues and distress. The claimant seeks damages for distress £200

PoCs can be very brief.

 

I would be tempted to include

   - their failure to reply to rhe SAR

   - which has caused you distress

   - the distress has been exacerbated because they have a court claim against you regarding a failed payment, although you phoned them during the payment attempt to resolve the issue

   - you need the SAR information to prepare for the court hearing and in particular to see their record of the phone call.

 

However, IIRC there is a limit to the number of characters you can use in MCOL so you'll probably have to slim the above down!

[FTMDave]

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/452147-loc-to-ncp-for-failure-to-supply-sar/page/2/#comment-5181807

 

[FTMDave]

Well you could still sue them, given you have proof of posting, but judges don't like it when someone rushes to court without trying to solve the dispute before.

 

I think it would be better to extend the deadline - but certainly not by another 30 days.

 

E-mail them then with (a) the original SAR, (b) proof of posting, (c) the I.D. they want and (d) mention your VRN.

 

Point out they were in breach of their statutory duty on 2 September (or whenever it was, check the date) and their incompetence with correspondence is not your concern.  You are prepared to wait another seven days until 3 October but will start a court claim on 4 October if they do not reply.

 

Your LoC seems to have shocked them into action!

 

There are several "night owls" on CAG who are highly experienced in these matters so wait until as late as you can this evening before sending the e-mail, just in case there is further advice.

 

Whatever happens, it will be positive for you.  If they do reply, meaning unfortunately you can't sue them, you'll at least get to the bottom of the phone call business.

 

We normally say not to use e-mail but I think it's OK as long as, after the SAR is sorted one way or the other on 4 October, you tell them not to use e-mail ever again to contact you.

[FTMDave]

That is great work.  Well done.  Send if off today - keep them squirming.

 

(If I'm being pernickety it's "their representatives' incompetence" and "in breach of your statutory duty".  Forgive me, ten minutes' ago I finished some proof-reading work for an English-language grammar book for an Italian publisher so have these things on my mind!)

[FTMDave]

23 hours ago, MoaningCrusader said:

the following addresses: NCP Head Office (EC1N 8XA), NCP PCN Processing PO Box (M16 0RH) and NCP's legal representatives BW Legal’s offices (LS11 9BH).

So they lost three letters - how unlucky they are!

 

More likely they threw the letters in the bin as they couldn't understand them and they didn't include payment of PCNs, then wet themselves when your Letter of Claim turned up.

[FTMDave]

Anything from the fleecers today?

 

If not, when you get time it would be a good idea to draft the PoCs on MCOL.

 

The last time I took someone to county court was in the mid-80s when MCOL didn't even exist.  However, I do know there's a limit to the number of characters you can use.  So you will probably need to unwaffleise what I wrote in post 29!

 

IIRC they have until the end of the working day on Wednesday to reply.

[FTMDave]

Spot on.  Your claim will be for distress caused from 2 September to when you file the claim on Wednesday.

 

That doesn't absolve them from replying to the SAR.

 

Even if they reply to the SAR on Thursday, tough, the distress was still caused.

 

And if they continue not to send the SAR after Wednesday you can sue them again for another period of distress, as the Virgin claimant did.

[FTMDave]

The other reason for getting the PoCs done tomorrow, if you can, is that they could be flagged up to Caggers with huge experience with these things to have a quick look at before filing.

[FTMDave]

Andyorch was exactly the person I hoped would look in!

 

The PoCs are excellent, well done.

 

IIRC their 7-day deadline runs out tomorrow morning around 10:45 UK time.  Any time after that issue the claim.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Leave it out for now.

 

But well spotted.

 

In the Virgin case the Cagger won and was paid for a first court claim.

 

The same for a second court claim.

 

For a third court claim Virgin got solicitors who defended on the grounds that the PoCs for claim 2 and claim 3 were the same and the matter had already been litigated.

 

A second court claim for you is well down the line but if it happens then at that point yes, you would need to add that the distress was from 5 October to 1 November or whenever to avoid the Virgin claim 3 scenario.

[FTMDave]

This is incredible.  They did nothing about three SARs, were given an extra week under threat of legal action, and still write to say they're going to do something "shortly" rather than, er, actually doing something.  They're supposed to be an organised, established national company.

 

8 minutes ago, MoaningCrusader said:

 

Should I respond to this informing them that I have now proceeded with a claim against them? Or not?

No, don't.

 

The least hassle outcome for you would be if they ignore the claim form like they ignored the three SARs.  That way you would win by default in a fortnight or so, like in the Virgin case.  It would save you the hassle of a court hearing.  Don't write anything that could alert them to the claim form. 

 

You already told them what would happen if they faffed around for more than a week anyway.

 

BTW, have a look at MCOL for the issue date of the claim form.  That way we can work out when you can apply for judgement (assuming they don't defend).

[FTMDave]

In a sense you've got the best of both worlds.

 

You've got the SAR, can find out about the phone call, etc.

 

And you get to sue them for £200.  The distress was still caused.  They still didn't reply by the statutory deadline.  In fact they didn't even respect the extension you kindly gave them. 

[FTMDave]

That's amazing news! - well done 

 

From the point of view of the forum, your case will become very important.  The vast majority of motorists who come here just want to get out of paying the fleecers' invoice, which is fair enough, and when we explain a claim for breach of GDPR or for distress through ignoring a SAR can be brought, no-one will do it ...

 

... except you!

 

We didn't have a private parking SAR claim to point you to, only the Virgin one, but from now on anyone in a similar position will be directed to your thread.

 

I'm amazed that NCP were sensible and coughed up.  That was definitely the rational thing to do, pay what is a small amount of money for them and so get rid of you and the claim.  I thought they would try, badly, to defend.  My own experience of companies is that they think they are an important firm, I'm just an oik, and in some vague way an important national firm is bound to beat the oik - with the final result that they just prolong the agony for themselves!