Appeal Response

sianmipcn

Hello

Received a windscreen notice from an ipc company, then received the notice to keeper in the post.
The ticket is for apparently parking in a permit holders estate. At the time of the ticket there was no signs near where we parked or visible on the estate. We didn't take any photos at the time. The following week we went back and they have now put signs at the entrance of the housing estate and on all the lampposts.
I used the standard template as suggested. I have now received the following response from a zzps email address.

'Thank you for your email, your comments have been noted accordingly.

Please note that our client is relying on POFA 2012 to pursue this parking charnge notice. If he driver details are not provided, the registered keeper will remain liable. You are within the time frame to transfer the liability to the driver.

If you wish to continue your appeal with this matter please specify the reason for your appeal.

We refer your email, which we are treating as a formal section 10 notice ("the Notice") under the data protection act "(the Act)"

Please accept this email as our formal acknowledgment and response to the notice.

You have provided no justification for the notice. The process of your data is warranted.

In any event, Section 10(1) of the act does not apply in circumstances where schedule 2, paragraphs 1 to 4 of the act are met, accordingly, we are permitted to continue to process your data at this stage.

If this is not clear we suggest that you seek legal advice.

I have placed the account on hold for 14 days for you to either provide the drivers details or confirm the basis for your appeal. '

What response, if any should there be?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Dear ZZPS,

The basis for my appeal was as stated in my appeal. If you do not understand simple wording about signage I urge you to seek legal advice, how about asking your chums at Wright Hassall?

While we are about it, I ask you for your clients records as to exactly (the date) when the signs were added at this site (copy of signage records required) because there is now a new set of signs at the location that the driver contends were not there on the day. The driver's name will not be divulged so forget that for an excuse to write and harass me to demand it, as if you can't consider an appeal.

Did you and your clients enjoy the Parliamentary debate last month, universally condemning the entire parking industry, including the IPC, the IAS, and the conduct of AOS members, their debt collectors and their robo-claim solicitors?

For obvious reasons we will not be considering any ADR except the only bespoke service which demonstrates a level of independence, namely POPLA, which you will not offer because your client has forum-shopped and chosen the IPC for the very reasons exposed in the debate by MPs, who are well aware of the 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18) operated in residential car parks and concluded unanimously: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

I will use the debate as part of my evidence against the charge, should your client proceed to court.

yours,

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.

Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.