Parking Eye PCN Claimform - Goodmayes Hospital, IIIford , Goodmayes Hospital, Barley Lane, Ilford , IG3 8XJ

[Reapstar]

it was the 3rd of July for the original SAR. The second one giving 14 days was sent on the 3rd of August.

 

Yeah I noticed that too, writing the date many days earlier than they bothered to reply, no post mark on the envelope no.

[FTMDave]

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.

[Reapstar]

I expect them to do so, I have however filed the claim with MCOL, where would this leave me? 

I wonder if any reasonable minded person would accept that a letter dated on the "4th" of August would arrive in the post on the morning of the 18th when they are fully aware a claim is being raised against them,

I also wonder if they have POP too

[FTMDave]

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.,

 

9 hours ago, Reapstar said:

"We were told to cancel it by our bosses but we decided not to"

What do you mean by this?

On 10/08/2023 at 13:19, Nicky Boy said:

If we wait a few days, Reapstar may well have a bargaining chip in the form of a SAR claim.

(Could negotiate discontinuance of both claims. With Reapstar's costs being covered, of course).

This is a very interesting idea by NB.

Have a look at MCOL and tell us the date your claim was issued so we can work out when the fleecers will receive it (MCOL's date will likely be slightly later than the real date as it takes time for claims to filter through the system).

[Reapstar]

But who is going to believe that RM took 14 days to deliver a simple letter when everything else gets delivered within a reasonable time of less than a week...

it would seem a bit fishy wouldn't it, but regardless, the letter was received on the 18th which is 1 day over the limit given... anyone can back date a letter, this is why I specifically must collect POP, in order to prove my claim that I followed the law,

if they have no POP then in my opinion, by default ruling should be in my favour, especially when POP is used so often in these cases in order to prove the victim has carried out his/her part according to law. 

You submitted a claim on 18/08/2023 at 07:21:24 
 

Post wasn't received until after 9am... unless they can prove it was delivered before the given deadline they shouldn't have a leg to stand on. Otherwise why would forum members recommend and encourage people to get POP??
 

It says in the letter that they received a request to cancel from the client onsite but couldn't due to the stage of the claim

[FTMDave]

54 minutes ago, Reapstar said:

It says in the letter that they received a request to cancel from the client onsite but couldn't due to the stage of the claim

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELL !!!!

This is dynamite.

Please upload this document.

[Reapstar]

It's in post # 246

On 18/08/2023 at 16:04, Reapstar said:

Here is the letter that came with the pack, 

SARREPLY.pdf 2.29 MB · 15 downloads

 

its a big pack of papers that will take a couple of hours to scan and convert.

They have included the CPR request that they failed to respond to, they have included everything that was sent and received from start to finish, so all the important stuff has already been uploaded

I guess it is time to get my WS put together?

 

[Reapstar]

I find it interesting that they claim a breach has occurred which has allowed them to bypass GDPR and attain personal details of a private individual. (Perhaps I can make up some random claims and then bypass GDPR and collect personal details of people from third parties holding those details if I give them a couple of quid it should all be ok?)

Their claim is invalid, there is no evidence of breach of contract, they have just assumed there is a breach based upon little to no information then used this vexatious claim to enable themselves to gain access to personal data. Could this not be considered illegal?

They claim the vehicle was parked, but parking involves leaving the vehicle unattended, this was never the case and they cannot prove this.

All they have is a photo of the car entering and a photo of the car leaving. This does not prove the vehicle was parked, it just proves that the vehicle entered and then left at the given times that are noted by the photo.

A photo of a car passing a camera does not indicate that the vehicle was parked, it can only be assumed that the car was parked, otherwise the car could have been waiting along with the individual who was in control of the vehicle at the time, i.e. the driver. 

The driver in this particular case, is not the person they are attacking, they are attacking the owner because they have no proof of who the driver is or was. 

That is two major issues I have here.

They cannot prove the vehicle was parked and they cannot prove who the driver was. 

They can only claim, and without evidence in my opinion, their claim is void ab initio, what do you guys think?

With regards to the admittance that they were told to stand down, how does this help us??

Thanks again for all your help Dave  

Edited August 20, 2023 by Reapstar

[brassnecked]

Letter no longer available in Post 246 it says

 

It does mention  PE had a request to cancel but  unable to as had issued a Claimform, so basically want their £25 or whatever for filing the claim.

[Reapstar]

That's strange, here it is again

SARREPLY.pdf

[Nicky Boy]

11 hours ago, Reapstar said:

With regards to the admittance that they were told to stand down, how does this help us??

I would presume that because the actual landowners instructed the fleecers to discontinue... they should have!

They are simply agents of the landowner and under contract.

Organ grinder and monkey comes to mind.

Well spotted Dave.

Just goes to show, we have to read paperwork thoroughly!

[FTMDave]

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.

[Nicky Boy]

Further compounded by Reapstar graciously offering to cover their £35 loss and the fleecers STILL refusing to discontinue.

[brassnecked]

If tyhis did go to court would Judge look kindly on that letter I think not.  PE are not in a good situation here now, letter is fatal to their cas, were told to cancel but said no as have issued a claimform.  And Beavis won't help them either

[Reapstar]

Thanks for the input guys, let's see what happens come the 23rd!!

 

MCOL update regarding SAR - "Your claim was issued on 21/08/2023"

[lookinforinfo]

Can you please post up the original PCN you received in their reply to your SAR  We don't need to see the reminders but the original is the all important on as that is the one they rely on to pursue the keeper. If there are mistakes then your Mother is off the hook as only the driver is then responsible for the debt.

[Reapstar]

Here you go :

 

InitialPCN.pdf

[FTMDave]

7 hours ago, Reapstar said:

MCOL update regarding SAR - "Your claim was issued on 21/08/2023"

Discussion a bit later than Wednesday then!

[Reapstar]

Ahh, is it 5 days from THAT date then??

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for posting the PCN. The good news is that both you and your Mother are off the hook. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 so the charge CANNOT be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now responsible for the charge and as several thousand people with valid motor insurance policies are allowed to drive that car, good luck knowing who to pursue.

In order to be able to transfer the debt from the driver to the keeper  PE must observe the wording of the Act. And they haven't. Schedule 4 S9 [2][e] states  "

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

If you read the PCN to your Mother it does not invite her to pay the charge nor to pass the PCN on to the driver. It may not sound much but it is a major mistake on PE's part and as such the liability to pay the charge is restricted to the driver only. If you have not appealed the PCN then you cannot as yet claim they have breached your Mother's GDPR in relation to sending numerous notices to her asking to pay when they were not aware that she was not the driver. Once she tells them that in her Witness statement and they continue to take her to Court, that is when her GDPR is breached since they should have dropped the case at the WS stage.

 They have also not complied with the Act again since they are supposed to specify the  parking.period. They have not. They have listed the arrival and departure times which is not the same since driving to the parking place from the entrance and driving from the parking  space to the exit cannot be described as parking.

Whether you can argue that you were not parked even though you were there for almost two hours is a moot point.

i

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by lookinforinfo

[Reapstar]

You're welcome, and thank YOU!! well spotted!!

So what would be the recommended course of action now??

PCN was never appealed, all they ever got was CAG style snotty letter upon receipt of their letter before claim   

Edited August 21, 2023 by Reapstar

[Nicky Boy]

Stick with what you're doing at the moment. LFI's stuff will be useful in your witness statement, if it goes that far...

[FTMDave]

On 10/08/2023 at 14:19, Nicky Boy said:

If we wait a few days, Reapstar may well have a bargaining chip in the form of a SAR claim.

(Could negotiate discontinuance of both claims. With Reapstar's costs being covered, of course).

As I'm away for three nights from early Friday morning just to finish off the summer, I'll bring forward some ideas, now that the SAR case is up & running.

IDEA 1

Re NB's suggestion above, offer to discontinue your case if they will discontinue theirs.  I don't think, realistically, you could humiliate them into paying your court costs too.  Just you both drop the cases.  You could emphasise that (a) they breached their statutory duty, the dates are clear, they have no defence, and (b) you have from PE themselves, in writing, that the landowner told them to drop their case.  If they accepted, you would be down on the deal by £35.  Is this something that would be acceptable to you?

IDEA 2

You pursue the SAR claim all the way, as really they have no defence.  With their £200 in your pocket, your mum could give in, pay £185, and still be £15 up on the deal.  Again, would this be a positive result In your opinion?

IDEA 3

Your mum fights them to the bitter end on both fronts.

As scribbled before, your case is highly atypical with your mum's involvement and your imminent move abroad, and only the two of you can decide what's best for you both and what she is prepared to do.

[Reapstar]

Hi Dave,

Thanks again for your input.

We are not particularly happy to be put out of pocket due to the crooked games these people play, just waiting to see what happens with regards to the claim on MCOL. 

As soon as I have an update I will post

[FTMDave]