Sr security pcn appeal

Shahbaaz

Good afternoon,

I recently received a PCN from SR Security which I appealed with the below message after following the step in the newbies post:

"Dear Sir/Madam,

Re PCN number:

I am the keeper of the vehicle which received this purported 'parking charge'. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. I am not liable and I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs are in small print and the onerous terms are not readable.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN immediately, I require the following information with your template rejection:

1. Does your charge represent damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.

2. Please provide dated photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract.

3. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.

I am alarmed by your contact and I do not give you consent to process any data relating to me, or this vehicle. I deny liability and will not respond to debt collectors. You must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA, and should you fail to respond accordingly, your company will be reported to the Information Commissioner.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and will also be making a formal complaint to your client landowner.

If you are a current BPA member, send me a POPLA code. If you are an IPC firm, cease and desist with all contact.

Yours faithfully,"

They have now responded with this:

"Dear Sir/Madam

With regard to the below e-mail you can either provide the name and address of the driver and we will re-issue the PCN to them or accept liability as the owner of the vehicle and we will then accept the below e-mail as your appeal.

Kind Regards

SR Security Services"

Please could you advise on what I should do next?

Many thanks in advance!

Redx

IGNORE and await the next stage, no point in identifying a driver unless you have a REALLY GOOD REASON to dob them in

IGNORE, they are phishing for the drivers details

Umkomaas

Non-litigious BPA AOS Operator. Await your POPLA Code and get this killed off then.

Shahbaaz

Ok thanks!

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, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

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 they will be out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

"Dear Sir/Madam

With regard to the below e-mail you can either provide the name and address of the driver and we will re-issue the PCN to them or accept liability as the owner of the vehicle and we will then accept the below e-mail as your appeal.

Kind Regards

SR Security Services"

How amusing. I would reply, just for fun (and yes I mean I would do this):

"Dear Sir/Madam

With regard to the below e-mail you can either provide the POPLA code and you will lose at that stage, due to no keeper liability, or accept liability for demanding money from a registered keeper without any basis in law, and cancel it, to save yourselves the POPLA fee and humiliation on the MSE forum, whose regulars are watching this with interest.

You already have a duty to accept my e-mail as my appeal. Wanna test that, I can always complain to the BPA about your conduct in pretending a keeper's appeal is not an appeal?

Kind Regards