Another victim of PCN (from Excel, Peel Centre) fighting back.

Rainman06

Thanks all. I'll make the amendments and get it off today. And then get on to the SRA...

Rainman06

Update:

After the letter above was sent I received a fairly prompt reply which seemed like a generic "We're sorry you are unhappy with our service, we always try to provide the highest standards... bla bla bla."

Then recently I received a more thorough response which addresses (most of) my points in turn. In the response, BW Legal do indeed cite Eliot v Loake and state that this is what their client will be relying on in court. They also enclose documents (photos of my car, photos of someone else's car that I've never seen before(!), and the original PCN) which, they say, confirm my liability in the matter. They then say that a letter before claim will be sent out, and finish by saying that if I am not satisfied with the response I should reply within 14 days, otherwise their records will be updated (whatever that means).

Should I reply to this, or wait for the letter before claim?

Coupon-mad

Reply to it, of course. Don't make it look like you are 'satisfied' with that response.

photos of someone else's car that I've never seen before(!),

Write and tell them they have breached the DPA (if those photos are JUST of that other car on its own, not just in the background behind yours). Tell them you will now be reporting them to the Information Commissioner, and that you are surprised they still intend to rely on Elliot v Loake, bearing in mind it has been debunked in defences up and down the Country and there must be few County Court Judges not wise to that rubbish by now.

If they have also thrown the Kumari case in to try to justify double recovery, reply in the style of this on in post #22, adapted to suit:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5495093

Be robust with what you say, not a victim.

Rainman06

The photos are just of the other car, mine is not in the picture at all. They've obviously gotten my file mixed up with someone else's and sent me the wrong photos. What exactly is my complaint to the Information Comissioner, that sending me photos of someone else's car is a breach of the DPA? Should I send evidence, or simply state what has happened?

There's no mention of Kumari. The only cases they cite are Eliot v Loake and Parking Eye v Beavis (in response to my complaint about their legal costs).

Do you mind if I post my reply for you to have a once-over before I send it?

Coupon-mad

What exactly is my complaint to the Information Commissioner, that sending me photos of someone else's car is a breach of the DPA?

In fact, for best results (hopefully giving you grounds to counter-claim later) you - must be the registered keeper - should do a complaint to the ICO not about BW Legal but about Excel Parking Services, who are the primary data controller:


- Excel Parking Services obtained my data from the DVLA for the single purpose of enquiring as to who was driving (no more and no less is allowed in a case with no possible prospects of 'keeper liability' in law).

- Excel Parking Services then used the keeper's data inappropriately, to suggest the keeper themselves was liable, despite Excel admitting that they do not use the only law that could enable 'keeper liability' (the POFA 2012, Schedule 4).

- not only do Excel admit they do not use the POFA but the Notice to Keeper itself proves they do not (lack of any statutory wording from POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9).

- despite this, Excel continued to process the keeper's data for reasons other than the DVLA-sanctioned 'enquiring who was driving'.

- Excel are misusing the keeper's data to try to sue me as keeper, despite not being backed by any applicable law.

- Excel have passed incorrect data to their legal representatives (BW Legal) in the form of photographs included in my case file, of someone else's car that I've never seen before.

- This latest issue is indicative of negligence - how can a motorist be assured their data is secure if the wrong car photos are transferred between case files - and a failure by Excel's data controller.

- The entire processing of my own data beyond the original single purpose allowed under the DVLA KADOE rules, using it instead to 'assume' the keeper themselves was the driver (in the absence of any evidence or use of the applicable law for keeper liability) indicates an inherent failure to abide by the DPA Principles.



You can submit that online to the ICO tonight with copies of the NTK and the BW Legal letter & photos. It will stand you in good stead for a claim or counterclaim if the ICO upholds your complaint.

Meanwhile, respond robustly to BW Legal urgently. Tell them that a formal complaint about Excel and BW Legal has been submitted to the ICO.

Do you mind if I post my reply for you to have a once-over before I send it?

We never mind checking over people's letters, appeals and defences - that's what we do here for best results.

Rainman06

Is this any good??

---

Dear Sir/Madam

I write to you with reference to your response (dated 20 January 2017) in regard to the above matter.

I am indeed extremely unhappy with your resolution, and you may 'update your records' to reflect my position as such.

Despite my request that you do not cite Elliot v Loake, you have indeed done so. Is your memory so bad/your record keeping so dismal that you fail to realise that this (as a criminal matter) has no bearing on this present case in question (a civil matter)? You know (or maybe not?) as well as I do that the vast majority of courts in the land will reject this reference as irrelevant after your numerous defeats in similar cases to mine.

I have noted your apology for stating falsely that I had not raised an appeal within the required time frame. It just goes to highlight a degree of incompetence and negligence that seems to be rife within yours and your client's companies.

Speaking of negligence, I must point out that you/your client has enclosed photographic evidence with your most recent correspondence. These photos are of a vehicle unknown to me, namely that with number plate ____ ___. This is not my car, nor does it have any relevance in this matter. This is clear evidence of negligence and incompetence by yourselves and your client, and is in breach of the Data Protection Act. I will be lodging a formal complaint with the ICO with regard to the actions of yourselves and those of Excel Parking.

You state, finally, that my complaint will not be upheld and that you see no reason why I should withhold payment, and that a Letter Before Action (LBA) will be sent out in the event of legal proceedings. I do sincerely hope that this is the final correspondence between us in this matter, or that the next correspondence I receive from either you or your client will be a formal LBA. If not, then the numerous letters from your client, the two responses from you to me, PLUS the unanswered telephone call from your office to my mobile phone (why??) may well be seen as harassment, and included in a further complaint to the SRA.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

I do sincerely hope that this is the final correspondence between us in this matter. [STRIKE]or that the next correspondence I receive from either you or your client will be a formal LBA[/STRIKE].

Looks OK except I would remove the crossed out phrase above (you don't actually 'want' a lba!) although I would remove 'why?' after talking about the mobile phone contact and instead FORBID them from contacting you except by letter. No texts, no phone calls.

Rainman06

Ok thanks, I'll get it amended and sent off.

Could I just ask for some clarification of your first point in post #36:

"- Excel Parking Services obtained my data from the DVLA for the single purpose of enquiring as to who was driving (no more and no less is allowed in a case with no possible prospects of 'keeper liability' in law)."

I take it that this means, since Excel do not comply with Pofa, that all that they are legally permitted to do is ask me (the registered keeper) who was driving at the time? If Excel did comply with Pofa, then they they could use the data to pursue me for the 'parking charge', but they don't so they can't. Am I correct?

Gah, this is hard work. I can see why people just pay up. I'm trying to juggle 3 month old twins and a full time job as well as all this. £154 seems like a great deal to do away with all this stress; I dread the postman every day. I will see this through to the bitter end though, purely on principle.

Redx

they can ask , but you dont have to answer (or know)

so you "take the fifth" as it were

I decline to answer , your honour , its the job of EXCEL to prove who the driver was , not mine

read the recent parking prankster blogs , where its been done several times , in court , to great effect