ParkingEye County Court Defence- I have proof?

beamerguy

JoshBrux wrote: »

Bloody hell, this is starting to feel like a game of chess! :T

I'll get it sent off ASAP, thanks guys!

Certainly is ...... remember you are dealing with cowboys here

JoshBrux

Hey guys, apologies for the delay, so PE did reply to Coupon-mads SAR email that I sent them, I thought you'd be interested in the reply, obviously I've omitted sensitive details to keep my identity private from them

Dear (My name)



We write further to your recent email. We note from your correspondence that you have submitted a Request for Access pursuant to Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This request was received on (Date omitted) 2018 and therefore this response has been issued within the applicable timeframe.



We wish to confirm that the response provided below, and via the enclosed documents, concerns the Parking Charge referenced above. This data is provided on the basis that we note that you have already been identified as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in relation to the date (Date omitted) and therefore we can be satisfied, to the standard required, that the data collected and processed in respect of that vehicle on that date is personal data pertaining to you.



We can confirm that your name and address were provided by the DVLA on (Date omitted) 2017. This data was provided as you were identified as the registered keeper of vehicle (License plate omitted) in respect of a breach of the parking terms and conditions that took place within (Place of alleged parking infringement and date it occurred on)



Please note that the General Data Protection Regulation provides the following further rights:



• The right to request from ParkingEye rectification or erasure of your personal data;

• The right to request from ParkingEye restriction of processing of your personal data;

• The right to object to the processing of your personal data.



Please note that some of these rights are not absolute and will only apply in certain circumstances. We will review each request we receive in respect of these rights. We do not have to agree with a request but if we refuse, we will still contact the data subject within one month to explain why. You also have the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). For further information, please refer to the ICO website, https://www.ico.org.uk.



We can also confirm, in line with s.(1)(h) of Article 15, that no automated decision-making or profiling, referred to in Article 22(1) and (4), has been undertaken in relation to the enclosed data.



For further information about your rights as a data subject, plus information about the categories of data we process, data transfers, the legal basis for our processing, and the purposes of processing, please visit: https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy/



We trust the above and enclosed assists with your query. If you have any further questions regarding the above information or the enclosed, please contact us by return to the below address or email.



Yours Sincerely



ParkingEye Privacy Team


Now I don't know how it looks to you but they haven't provided ANY of the 'Further information' they claim to have recieved which led them to offer me a £60 'Without prejudice' out of court settlement, all this email says is 'Haha you've admited you're the registered keeper.'

Any tips on how to proceed?

Coupon-mad

Reply and tell them they now have a seven day extension only, to disclose the source of, and detail of, the shared 'further information' you specifically requested.

Failure to declare the source of and details of the 'further information' (with copies of correspondence, emails, telephone notes, case status updates) will result in a formal complaint being made about ParkingEye to the Information Commissioner, by 10th November.

Since the case is still in the midst of a SAR, ParkingEye must continue to place the case on hold and you suggest they might either discontinue the claim or advise the court of the current position.

JoshBrux

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Reply and tell them they now have a seven day extension only, to disclose the source of, and detail of, the shared 'further information' you specifically requested.

Failure to declare the source of and details of the 'further information' (with copies of correspondence, emails, telephone notes, case status updates) will result in a formal complaint being made about ParkingEye to the Information Commissioner, by 10th November.

Since the case is still in the midst of a SAR, ParkingEye must continue to place the case on hold and you suggest they might either discontinue the claim or advise the court of the current position.

Will get that done ASAP, thank you Coupon-Mad :beer:

JoshBrux

The ‘Further Information’ you refer to was provided as part of our initial response. On page 14, there is an email we received from (The cinema) on (date omitted) 2018 following which we issued correspondence to you dated (omitted) (Without Prejudice Offer). Following this, we received an email from you dated (omitted) on page 100 which included attachments of a bank statement and a copy of the email referred to previously from (The cinema) Upon receipt of this we issued a second Without Prejudice Offer dated (omitted).


So it looks like they're claiming the 'Further Information' they recieved was information from myself. Obviously this wasnt clear in their first response.

Coupon-mad

I'd reply (and copy in the Legal bunch: enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk as well, to push the matter in the right direction) saying:



Thankyou for confirming you know or should have known that the driver was a patron of the cinema and as such, you have no commercial justification for penalising genuine Cinema customers, where is will be common ground that the driver was caught out by your routine choice to hide a purported VRN keypad from people. ParkingEye knew this information before the claim was filed, so it is not 'new'.

I am copying in the Enforcement Team so they can be left in no doubt, and to avoid a meritless claim proceeding further, which I will inform the Cinema manager about, so that he knows what you ultimately do to people.

When I spoke to the Manager asking if anything could be done, months ago, we had a fairly long conversation. He mentioned how complaints about ParkingEye were becoming a daily occurence for him since the enforcement started, he mentioned how he now has to get his staff to verbally prompt the customers that come in because the ipads and the signing used to indicate them are ''not at all obvious''.

It will be argued that ParkingEye set people up to fail and you have no legitimate interest excuse in this case, setting it apart from Beavis and failing to disengage the penalty rule.

yours,

JoshBrux

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I'd reply (and copy in the Legal bunch: enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk as well, to push the matter in the right direction) saying:



Thankyou for confirming you know or should have known that the driver was a patron of the cinema and as such, you have no commercial justification for penalising genuine Cinema customers, where is will be common ground that the driver was caught out by your routine choice to hide a purported VRN keypad from people. ParkingEye knew this information before the claim was filed, so it is not 'new'.

I am copying in the Enforcement Team so they can be left in no doubt, and to avoid a meritless claim proceeding further, which I will inform the Cinema manager about, so that he knows what you ultimately do to people.

When I spoke to the Manager asking if anything could be done, months ago, we had a fairly long conversation. He mentioned how complaints about ParkingEye were becoming a daily occurence for him since the enforcement started, he mentioned how he now has to get his staff to verbally prompt the customers that come in because the ipads and the signing used to indicate them are ''not at all obvious''.

It will be argued that ParkingEye set people up to fail and you have no legitimate interest excuse in this case, setting it apart from Beavis and failing to disengage the penalty rule.

yours,

Thanks again I'll get that sent, I've seen on the case log they provided in the SAR that they'd 'Discounted' the amount to £60 after the information I provided, but they have now brought it back up to £175 after I refused to pay. Seems like a bizarre action to take, really looks like PE can't make up their mind about what to do with this one!

Quentin

Forget that £60 discount rate.

It's just a bribe to get the gullible to pay.

The £175 for an amount claimed by way of the county court is the norm

Coupon-mad

JoshBrux wrote: »

All done, submitted via email and have recieved the letter of confirmation from the Tribunals service, so now its the 28 day waiting game i guess.

Re the previous letter asking for £60, is there any point in responding to this?

How did you get on, you never came back at WS & evidence stage, or to tell us about the hearing outcome?

Allygood100

I've emailed the parking firm my responseto thier offer of discount and a request of a SAR.



Dear Sir/Madam

without prejudice (save as costs).

Replaying to your last letter regarding the offer of discount on the disputed parking fine
Vehicle registration XXXXX . The defendant reject that offer.

The defendant Request for Access pursuant to Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Please provide all and every information you hold of the register keeper of the vehicle mentioned above. Including the new information you mentioned (your referred to a new information past on to Xxxxcxcccc ltd that made you make an offer of discount on the parking fine) on your latest corresponds.

Yours sincerely