We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Me and Excel - At war!
Options
Comments
-
I don't think this one is a suitable case for a DPA breach claim.
Excel were entitled to request the RK data, to invite the keeper to name the driver.
Lamilad never engaged with them until court proceedings were issued, therefore they had no notification under Section 10 to cease processing data.
I can't see how they would be held to have breached the DPA, and there's no point in issuing speculative weak claims, that just undermines the whole point of this.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
I would echo Bragepole's comments. Choose battles where you can win with overwhelming odds on your side.
For those who may be unaware, Bargepole is not simply an armchair warrior. He has REAL on the ground experience of taking PPCs on and winning because he knows the law and does his preparation.0 -
I agree, PPCs surely have a right to know who owns vehicles parked on their employers land.
However, imo they have behaved so unreasonably as to justify a claim for CPR 27.14You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
I agree, PPCs surely have a right to know who owns vehicles parked on their employers land.
However, imo they have behaved so unreasonably as to justify a claim for CPR 27.14
There may be a DPA claim as Excel completed the DQ in the name of VCS. I'd be interested in getting opinions on whether this has 'legs' or not0 -
I would echo Bragepole's comments. Choose battles where you can win with overwhelming odds on your side.
For those who may be unaware, Bargepole is not simply an armchair warrior. He has REAL on the ground experience of taking PPCs on and winning because he knows the law and does his preparation.
Bargepole was involved from the very beginning of this forum.
See thread# 1 in December 2008.
Will soon qualify for a testimonial !0 -
Lamilad, really interesting posts there. My wife has 2 at the same location 2012 and 2015...no idea on the driver on each occasion. Proceeding toward court on the 2012 so may contact via PM if you dont mind. Need all the help we can get !cm620
-
What happened with the SAR? And when did they finally disclose what they were claiming for rather than just various tickets over the course of a year?0
-
Excel lose - no proof of driver
The Pranksters report for Lamilad
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/a-bad-day-at-office-for-jake-burgess.html
Well done Lamilad .........
As not everybody will read this thread, this report has been given a new thread as well0 -
You Excelled:beer:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards