UK Car Park Management try very hard to enable Shedule 4.

bergkamp

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8lim1ctsavqhx12/FORMAL_DEMAND%20REDACTED.pdf?dl=0


In response to Formal demand;

Data Protection Act 1998 – Section 10 Data Subject Notice

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX and received your Notice To Keeper (PCN) number 9999999.
You cannot use Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability to the registered keeper, as the NTK does not meet the criteria needed to enable the Act.
I then received your Formal Demand with the same reference number. This stated that you allegedly have the right to recover from the driver the parking charge amount.
I am under no obligation to name the driver.
You have been informed numerous times at the two appeal stages that I was not the driver and will not be naming them.
As a result, there is no legally-enforceable parking charge against me the registered keeper and no justification for you to pursue me. You must now delete all my personal information that you have obtained and hold . Your unreasonable and unlawful demand for payment is causing me significant distress and anxiety.

I demand that you immediately cease and desist from processing my personal data, except to inform me that you have complied with this demand. Any further processing of my personal data, including demands for payment or passing my personal data to any third party, will be considered harassment and a flagrant disregard of the DPA, which will be reported to DVLA and to your ATA, and may result in legal action against you for compensation or damages, including Exemplary or Punitive damages.

The DPA requires you to respond to this notice within 21 days to confirm that you have or will comply with my demands, or to explain why you have not or will not comply.

Hope link works now!


https://www.dropbox.com/s/mdzw9kcoau7ueyg/UKCPMSection10DataSubjectNotice.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Looks fine to me, and yep that's a non-POFA NTK, talking only about 'driver' liability.

bergkamp

Received from UKCPM in response to the Section 10 Data Subject Notice;


https://www.dropbox.com/s/qifw4ihk5gbm5x6/CPM_UK%20RESPONSE.pdf?dl=0


Will have to wait and see what comes next...

Umkomaas

Actually, the IAS has not decided that ‘you are liable for the parking charge fee’ - that is a gross misrepresentation by UKCPM and should be the subject of a strong complaint to the DVLA!

beamerguy

bergkamp wrote: »

Received from UKCPM in response to the Section 10 Data Subject Notice;


https://www.dropbox.com/s/qifw4ihk5gbm5x6/CPM_UK%20RESPONSE.pdf?dl=0


Will have to wait and see what comes next...

I wonder what idiot from UKCPM dreamed
that load of rubbish up

Apart from being a complete scam, the IAS
are pretend ajudicators and CANNOT tell
anyone to pay ... ONLY A REAL JUDGE CAN

Imbeciles proving to themselves they are Imbeciles
YES complain to David Dunford of the DVLA
and copy in Sir Greg Knight who is heading
a private members bill regarding the parking
industry.
https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/sir-greg-knight/1200

By now Sir Greg will already know all about the
Great Gladstones/IPC/IAS and members SCAM

Maybe the scam boys at the IAS should tell
UKCPM to STOP TELLING LIES

Ryandavis1959

beamerguy wrote: »

I wonder what idiot from UKCPM dreamed
that load of rubbish up

Apart from being a complete scam, the IAS
are pretend ajudicators and CANNOT tell
anyone to pay ... ONLY A REAL JUDGE CAN

Imbeciles proving to themselves they are Imbeciles
YES complain to David Dunford of the DVLA
and copy in Sir Greg Knight who is heading
a private members bill regarding the parking
industry.
https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/sir-greg-knight/1200

By now Sir Greg will already know all about the
Great Gladstones/IPC/IAS and members SCAM

Maybe the scam boys at the IAS should tell
UKCPM to STOP TELLING LIES

Steady on beamerguy ... you forgot to mention reporting them to trading standards as well!

bergkamp

After ignoring the DR+ letters (including the fake Gladdies one), the RK has received an LBC from Gladstones eight days after it is dated;


https://www.dropbox.com/s/5j9o8ofhsfohhe4/GLADSTONE_LBC_REDACTED-1.pdf?dl=0


The Pranksters views on the situation prior to the LBC;

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/12/is-bryn-holloway-lead-assessor-of.html

beamerguy

I don't know if Gladstones are ignorant or just plain stupid ???
Probably both, we do know that Gladstones are highly
incompetent at the best of times.

Charging £60 for their clients time etc is simply rubbish
and is no different to them claiming for use of the
office printer, paper, uniforms ..... a judge deemed this
as business expenses which they can reclaim from their
tax returns and was not allowed as a claim

You therefore require from Gladstones a breakdown of the
£60 ...... I MEAN A BREAKDOWN

If this goes to court, their claim can only be

£100 parking ticket
£25 court fee
£50 solicitors fee
maybe a bit of interest

The question to the court is why are Gladstones trying
to extort an extra amount

Umkomaas

Standard (but real) Gladstones LBC. To be dealt with as per the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, and in conjunction with demanding everything entitled to as per the PaP.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

bergkamp

Umkomaas wrote: »

Standard (but real) Gladstones LBC. To be dealt with as per the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, and in conjunction with demanding everything entitled to as per the PaP.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

Draft response in progress and SAR with the DVLA. The RK will be 'going all the way' if need be....