Court proceedings for auto repair visit

foofcat

For background to this, see this post: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5696882/court-proceedings-for-auto-repair-visit&page=10#192

So I've had a second rapidly sent reply by post from the PPC after I asked what they were talking about in their first SAR re: there being a request for my DVLA details for a different vehicle as follows:

Thank you for your most recent correspondence received on the 30th May 2018. I can confirm that the response to your previous Subject Access Request was sent to the email address you provided at 15:19. You may wish to check your 'junk' folder.

With regards to your further request - it appears I was mistaken. The other case pertains to another individual at your address and with a similar name. I cannot be sure that this case relates to yourself and as such I am not satisfied that I will be able to disclose this data.

FYI the only possible similarity between me and any family at that address is our surname, and possibly our first initial.... I suspect the vehicle they were referring to is registered to the name of either a male relative (I'm female), or a female relative who has a different first initial to me.

I'm a bit dissatisfied by this, because it means they have enough data on me to mistakenly connect me with a different vehicle entirely even though it is inn't and has never been registered to my name. Is there anything I can do at this stage?

Edit: and now as promised here is what they said to me in their first response to my SAR. Note the GDPR bits.

Coupon-mad

I'd leave that now, and concentrate on preparing for the hearing, if it were me.

foofcat

I will. Sounds like they cottoned on a bit.

Have you got any feedback on my WS, Coupon-Mad? I'm hesitant to submit today without a regular having had looked over it though I realise people probably don't have the time (understandably) so can submit anyway if not.

Thanks

foofcat

Here is my first attempt at a skeleton argument. I'd be grateful for feedback, especially for advice on how to make it more skeletal. It's double spaced size 12 with an extra space between each point to make it more readable. This is why the page count may be higher, but I'm aware that the content could also be more concise.

This is how I (currently) intend to fight my corner at the hearing. I read a really helpful account by WBM who won their hearing this week but said the Judge didn't seem to have even read the WS. I think that may have influenced the way I've written my SA somewhat because I didn't want to count on the judge reading my WS. I also don't trust myself to remember to say everything on court so wanted to include everything salient here so I don't get flustered. That said, WBM's SA was much much more concise even than the examples in the Newbies thread, let alone mine.

The sources I used to cobble this together are here and here (both from the Newbies thread, and the latter seeming particularly pertinent to my case - though I accidentally copied the POPLA stuff which I then realised doesn't apply for me so I removed it)

Thank you.

PS - spotted a few typos including in point 25, which now reads:

25. The second avenue that shows no locus standi is the agreement supplied by PCMUK in their evidence bundle which is only referred to once in their witness statement, when it is listed as an exhibit in para 2 as ";the Agreement authorising my Company to manage parking on the relevant land (as described therein and hereafter referred to as 'the Relevant Land!');"

I would correct the link but it was a !!!!!! to redact.

PPS point 48 now reads:

48. Ms XXX puts to the Court that PCMUK has wasted the time of the court as well as her own. They have caused significant distress to Ms XXX in erroneously pursuing this case all the way to hearing even after Ms XXX twice explained to PCMUK's agents precisely how and why they were pursuing the wrong party.

49. This is compounded by the fact that they had no locus standi, under PoFA nor by the terms of the agreement they supplied to pursue Ms XXX, or whoever was driving at the material time in the first instance.

foofcat

Hello. GS have called to ask me if I'd like to settle. I asked them to email me and they have now, asking me to make an offer. I have a costs schedule that is for £566 at the LiP rate - that's excluding the £103 for the court hearing date travel / loss of leave costs.

My intention (unless any of you have a better idea?) is to email this costs schedule to them in reply to their email and say I will waive the costs related to the hearing day itself if we come to an agreement prior to the hearing, but would expect £566.

Should I ask them to also make a commitment to no longer enforce PoFA charges on that roadway as it is subject to statutory control, and ensure that they and their agents remove all traces of my data from their records?

I expect they will say no to all of the above, but I feel I should at least ask in case I do still end up having to go to the hearing.

Any and all guidance welcome!

Fruitcake

I suspect they are expecting you to make an offer to pay them to stop this going to court.

They are going to be disappointed when they find out it is the other way round. Your offer sounds reasonable, especially when you tell them that a DPA breach will cost them £500 on its own, let alone standard small claims costs of £90 (I don't think you can claim £103 as it is capped) and unreasonable costs on top of that.

I think the best you can hope is they will make a counter offer. An out of court settlement will help you, but can't help anyone else caught in this scam location.

nosferatu1001

£95 loss of earnings plus Parking and travel, so £103 is possible
Indeed, respond back stating the above, and that it has real value to the, - it avoids paying a rep to turn up to also lose

foofcat

Forgot to mention, they already informed me and the Court that they're not sending anyone at all and planning to rely on their WS.

I think I may ask for all of the above except for the ordinary loss of leave + petrol + parking (but will add that I will include those if I do go to court).

Asking for a commitment to stop trying to charge people for land over which they have no authority will definitely get refused but it may remind them of how they shouldn't have pursued me or whoever was driving in the first instance and may make them more willing to consider the £566 perhaps?

Wrt the DP breach should I add that their client also mistakenly told me that I had another charge for a different vehicle and then informed me it was about someone else at that address? Could I add that any DP claim that I make will involve both GS and their Client as co-defendants as they both handled my data?

I'm planning on saying that should they refuse the offer, I will proceed to Court and am attaching my Skeleton Argument to fulfil my obligation to supply the SA to the other party. (I.e. attach the SA so that they have been served it in case things proceed to hearing). It summarises how and why they were wrong fairly comprehensively so again, may make them more willing to reimburse me for my time and efforts in a reasonable manner...?

(Separately, also wondering if anyone has read GS' privacy policy. It looks absurd to me. Not sure why they would need to know someone's ethnic or racial origins for example.)

foofcat

I sent my offer, they replied within an hour to say they have discontinued and "the matter is now closed". I'll search the forums for what to do next because if they had accepted my drop hands offer last October I wouldn't have had to go through all the trouble since then (and keep peppering you guys with questions and requests).

Thanks everyone for your help - this forum and its regulars are incredibly generous and I don't really have sufficient words to thank you!

System

On the contrary, the amount of work you've done will be of great help to others in the same location (and for the purposes of Google - Joseph Ray Road, E11 4RA. There is a comprehensive trashing of PCM's authority to operate there since the Network Rail FOI's show that Bye Laws apply.

You might want to put it to the DVLA that PCM are claiming to operate a contractual model as evidenced by their Statement of Truth where parking bye laws apply and ask the DVLA to put on record that they are allowing PCM to access keeper data under false pretences.