Excel, Roxbourghe and Graham White

Bessy_the_Dog

Hi, I`ve followed this forum for a while now, anyway, I was subject to a Parking invoice from Excel in May, I followed the excellent advice on here and ignored all the letters and demands, I`m now at the Graham White solicitor stage (still ignoring), but I can understand why folk get nervous and pay up, it`s baically demanding money with menace. Anyway, I was going through their previous letters and found something interesting, the first demand from Excel had a return address on the envelope to excel at an Address in Sheffield, one of the following demands was a similar letter from excel but the return address was to Vehicle Control Services at a different PO box in Sheffield, why would excel use another company`s return envelope to correspond with me? also in the unlikely event that this went to court would it be worth mentioning this in any defence I may have to put forward?

ManxRed

They're sister companies with some shared resource/staff as far as I know.

Bessy_the_Dog

ManxRed wrote: »

They're sister companies with some shared resource/staff as far as I know.

They`re not very good staff if they are putting one company`s correspondence into the other company`s stationery, given that excel have been banned by the DVLA from accessing data from them I hope there`s no collusion between the company`s to illegally access data

ManxRed

We're keeping a VERY close eye on that one!

bondy_lad

ok bessy here we go,,,excell staff is lucy lu, she is an illegal and works for free,,on the next desk along is dumb john, he is that dumb he doesnt realise he should be paid for his so called work for roxburghe,,,on the desk in the corner 10 yards away,works janis, she is on work experience from school for graham ( i am a phoney solicitor) white,she spends most of her day texting her mates telling them what a cushy job she has and what scammers she works for and how unsuspecting motorists pay their FAKE fines,,so there you have it,all 3 have applied for a part on the apprentice with alan sugar,he rejected all three believing it was an april fool joke.

Bessy_the_Dog

One other thing I`ve observed with these low lives is, Excel have obviously obtained my Data from DVLA by paying a small fee and by filling in the vehicle registration form you are inadvertently giving DVLA permission to share your Data, now they have passed on my Data to Roxburghe and in turn they have passed on my Data to Graham White Solicitors both without my permission to do so. Under Data protection laws are they allowed to do that?

atilla

ManxRed wrote: »

We're keeping a VERY close eye on that one!

Indeed. But with a fair wind, i'm hoping at least one will slip through. :cool:

ManxRed

We're all keeping our fingers crossed for you Atilla!!

Bessy_the_Dog

atilla wrote: »

Indeed. But with a fair wind, i'm hoping at least one will slip through. :cool:

I`m pretty sure one will, as I`ve said in my second post on this thread Excel sent one letter to me using a VCS envelope, that`s more or less proof that these two company`s get their PCN`s mixed up and I`ve no doubt that there is collusion between the two given that the MD of both company`s is the same person, who also happens to be MD of a company called Captain Clampit, registered at the same address as Excel and VCS

Sirdan

Bessy_the_Dog wrote: »

One other thing I`ve observed with these low lives is, Excel have obviously obtained my Data from DVLA by paying a small fee and by filling in the vehicle registration form you are inadvertently giving DVLA permission to share your Data, now they have passed on my Data to Roxburghe and in turn they have passed on my Data to Graham White Solicitors both without my permission to do so. Under Data protection laws are they allowed to do that?

Yes they are :

Conditions relevant for purposes of the first principle: processing of any personal data :-
Data Protection 1998 Act Schedule 2

6(1)

"The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject."

Bessy_the_Dog

Sirdan wrote: »

Yes they are :

Conditions relevant for purposes of the first principle: processing of any personal data :-
Data Protection 1998 Act Schedule 2

6(1)

"The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject."

I`m not so sure about that, the bit in bold is the interesting point, have they got a legitimate interest? PCN`s are not enforcable and by definition are not legitimate, the only party as I can see it that has a legitimate interest is the land owner for losses incurred.