SAR distress claim against Parking Eye

[Reapstar]

I have just sent a complaint to the ICO along with the original SAR and LoC, will begin preparing the PoC - thank you guys

[Nicky Boy]

Got a draft of your PoC started?

[Reapstar]

Sort of, I know what I am going to put, its going to be pretty similar to the one in the link provided, just edited to accommodate my situation. 

 

[brassnecked]

They won't be expecting a claim against themselves so might well focus their mind and be sensible.

[Reapstar]

Hi all, apologies for being away the past few days I have been extremely busy.

I have prepared an initial PoC, what do you guys think?

 

The claimant submitted a subject access 
request pursuant to the Data Protection Act 
2018 to PARKINGEYE LTD, on 03-07-23. 

 

The Defendant breached the statutory deadline 
of 30 days and has failed to make the 
disclosure. This failure is continuing despite
further correspondence with the defendant
requesting the SAR be satisfied within 14 days of their breach.

 

The defendant's continued breach of their statutory 
duty and the claimant's inability to access 
their personal data has caused the claimant serious 
issues and distress. 

 

The distress has been further exacerbated as 
the defendant is pursuing the claimant for 
payment of a disputed private parking charge. 
The claimant requires all data held by the 
defendant to prepare for their court hearing. 

The claimant seeks damages for distress £220

[FTMDave]

That looks absolutely fine to me, except ...

... why do you want to claim exactly £220?

[Reapstar]

Hey, thanks for the quick reply,

 

I just copied in the amount the other victim claimed plus 10% due to the rise in prices etc, is this incorrect? Should I be seeking more?

[FTMDave]

IIRC on the other thread we had a discussion about whether the amount should be £100 or £200, before deciding on £200.  I think you should stick to £200.

D-Day is the day after tomorrow, right?

[Reapstar]

Yea, I will be filing my claim on the 18th early morning  

[FTMDave]

So, presuming the fleecers haven't sent anything today, start your claim tomorrow.

Just be careful that as your mum got the ticket, and your mum sent the SAR and the LoC, it's your mum who starts the court case.

[Reapstar]

File claimed on MCOL

[Reapstar]

Claim filed even haha

[Reapstar]

Update : I received their response to the SAR today, after filing my claim this morning.

Interesting. Why send it out of time if they are going to send it?

[FTMDave]

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.

[Reapstar]

Cheers Dave, I really appreciate your help here!

[FTMDave]

New thread created for the SAR distress court claim.

[FTMDave]

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

[Reapstar]

Here is the letter that came with the pack, 

SARREPLY.pdf

 

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?

[FTMDave]

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?

[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

[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

[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"

[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!