St Austell McDonald £100 PCN

Coupon-mad

DC17 wrote: »

That's also my point of view. Out of 7 points one should be accepted.

Thank you again.

It will. I love the picture of the sign among foliage.

DC17

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It will. I love the picture of the sign among foliage.

Yes, hopefully the assessor can see just by the pictures that the (So called “The terms and conditions of parking clearly stated on signs that are prominently displayed […]”) aren't so clear.

Thanks for sharing.

DC17

So if there are no apparent issues I'll submit my appeal tomorrow.
Can anyone tell me how long usually for a decision?

Thank you.

Umkomaas

DC17 wrote: »

So if there are no apparent issues I'll submit my appeal tomorrow.
Can anyone tell me how long usually for a decision?

Thank you.

5-6 weeks, unless MET cave earlier.

(Could be much longer if they read every word!)

DC17

Umkomaas wrote: »

5-6 weeks, unless MET cave earlier.

(Could be much longer if they read every word!)

Thank you.
Well half of the point is to intimidate the reader with the amount of paperwork.
The second half is to have a dismissal with a possibility of compensation.

Umkomaas

The second half is to have a dismissal with a possibility of compensation.

Care to tell us more?

DC17

Umkomaas wrote: »

Care to tell us more?

Following hundreds of posts I have came across a few people that have received compensation.

Example

(Due to the stress caused, and time wasted, with various letters threatening bailiffs, court, and CCJ's, and a misuse of personal data with the DVLA, which all could have been easily avoided if the operator had done his job correctly, I feel it is fair to claim £300 compensation.
RE: Vidal!Hall v Google (IC Statement attached), the Court of Appeal ruled that compensation could be awarded for stress alone. Please also see here:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/principle-6-rights/compensation/)

They received 100£. Different circumstances but the principle is still the same.
The distressed cause is still significant to the point of having grounds for compensation.
Plus the fact that if they do cave and pay, it's another positive point for the next person.
And if they don't cave or pay, it still shows that people are prepared do go further and not let them get away with all sorts of "irregular activities". And might deter them on the next case.(we live in hope.)

Thank you

Umkomaas

I don't know if you've read the Parking Prankster blogs, but if you Google 'Parking Prankster DPA breach' it will bring up three or four successful cases. The main reason for claims was for a breach of the DPA (causing distress), but not causing stress per se.

So if you're ultimately to go for this, you need the right peg to hang your hat on.

To my knowledge there have been no more successful DPA breach cases than those already blogged by PP. But I understand some are in the pipeline for pursuit later this year - it's early days in respect of pursuing this action against the private parking industry, so maybe keep your powder dry to see more outcomes. You have 6 years in which to make a claim.

DC17

Umkomaas wrote: »

I don't know if you've read the Parking Prankster blogs, but if you Google 'Parking Prankster DPA breach' it will bring up three or four successful cases. The main reason for claims was for a breach of the DPA (causing distress), but not causing stress per se.

So if you're ultimately to go for this, you need the right peg to hang your hat on.

To my knowledge there have been no more successful DPA breach cases than those already blogged by PP. But I understand some are in the pipeline for pursuit later this year - it's early days in respect of pursuing this action against the private parking industry, so maybe keep your powder dry to see more outcomes. You have 6 years in which to make a claim.

Yes I read the PP, MSE, Saga, CAB, PC, PPP (among other) posts. As well as law sites and previous cases. Exceptions, rules and mistakes, many mistakes...

In "http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/distress-and-inconvenience.htm" as many other Ombudsman sites for different areas says:

"As well as looking at whether someone’s lost out financially as a result of a mistake, it’s important to recognise the emotional or practical impact it’s had. This “non-financial” impact could be:

distress – including embarrassment, anxiety, disappointment, loss of expectation, upset and stress. There may be some overlap with pain and suffering (see below) – for example, if the distress made someone ill;
inconvenience – including the time someone’s spent and/or effort they’ve had to go to as a result of a business’s mistake;
pain and suffering –including physical or mental suffering arising from what a business has done; or
damage to reputation – where someone’s personal reputation has been negatively affected as a direct result of a business’s actions."

"Occasionally, we decide that the time someone has spent trying to resolve their complaint means they should be awarded compensation for their time."

"When we’re thinking about how someone’s been affected by a business’s mistake, we’ll also look at how much they did to try and minimise the impact of what happened.

If we think someone could have lessened the impact in some way, we might say it’s fair to award slightly less compensation. But we always bear in mind that the consumer shouldn’t have had to deal with the business’s mistake in the first place."

After a dismissal from POPLA there are grounds to pursue some sort of compensation.

Let's see the appeal's decision first.

Fingers crossed.

I'll keep in touch.

DC17

Umkomaas wrote: »

I don't know if you've read the Parking Prankster blogs, but if you Google 'Parking Prankster DPA breach' it will bring up three or four successful cases. The main reason for claims was for a breach of the DPA (causing distress), but not causing stress per se.

So if you're ultimately to go for this, you need the right peg to hang your hat on.

To my knowledge there have been no more successful DPA breach cases than those already blogged by PP. But I understand some are in the pipeline for pursuit later this year - it's early days in respect of pursuing this action against the private parking industry, so maybe keep your powder dry to see more outcomes. You have 6 years in which to make a claim.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It will. I love the picture of the sign among foliage.

The_Deep wrote: »

However, with that amount of argument the Assessor is likely to find at least one point with which he/she agrees, It is the PPC who will have to do all the work. I expect they will cop out.

Started my appeal and it asks "Please make sure your Phone Number is correct so we send your appeal result."??

Any comments?

Thank you.