County Court Business Centre Claim Form via BW LEGAL

KeithP

What are the Dates of Issue on your Claim Forms?

earth_moon626

KeithP wrote: »

What are the Dates of Issue on your Claim Forms?

The issue date of both claims is 14 SEP 2018.

earth_moon626

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Nope, send the PARKING FIRM a SAR (see their privacy page on their website for where to send a SAR).

Hi, may I ask why you suggest sending the SAR to the PARKING FIRM and not the their representative BW LEGAL?

Many thanks.

System

Hi, may I ask why you suggest sending the SAR to the PARKING FIRM and not the their representative

Simple. BW don't have anything.

BW claim to have 1mn (yes that is the figure they claim with only 6 solicitors) on the go, so all they do it automate it. If they case actually trundles on to a hearing in 6 months time then they get the paperwork and a paralegal monkey sits down and invents the case for the court.

nosferatu1001

The PPC is also the data controller, and is obligated to respond. they may also have documetns they havent passed to their solicitors.
In short, you obvioiusly go after who has the MOST data

KeithP

earth_moon626 wrote: »

The issue date of both claims is 14 SEP 2018.

Then your earlier statement isn't true...

earth_moon626 wrote: »

The date of service for the claims was September 14th...

The Date of Service is five days after the Date of Issue.


With a Claim Issue Date of 14th September, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 17th October 2018 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to hone the Defence to perfection.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

earth_moon626

Many thanks to KeithP, nosferatu1001, IamEmanresu and Coupon-mad. Your help is really appreciated.

I have used a SAR found on this forum and adapted it to my circumstances.

I have one question about giving my proof of identity. As I no longer own this vehicle I can't attach a V5 as proof so I have opted for sending a photo of my photocard drivers licence.
Do you think this is suitable?

Could I ask your opinion on the letter in general, and whether I should send via email or post with proof of postage?

Many thanks in advance.



Subject Access Request

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am writing to you in your capacity as data protection officer for your company - PPC. I have reason to believe you hold personal data on myself as a vehicle I have owned and was the registered keeper for has allegedly been issued two PCN’s for parking on sites managed by your company. It should be noted that contrary to article 13 of GDPR legislation no privacy information was provided to myself, the data subject, at the time of collection. I am therefore compelled into making this request for access to personal data pursuant to Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation.

The vehicle in question is a XXXXXX with VRM: XXXXXXX

I have attached a photo of my photocard drivers licence as proof of identity. Should you require further documentation necessary to verify my identity please contact me.

I would like you to be aware at the outset, that I anticipate a reply to my request within seven days to a maximum of one month as required under Article 12, failing which I will be forwarding my inquiry with a letter of complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

Please advise as to the following:
Please confirm to me whether or not my personal data is being processed. If it is, please provide me with the categories of personal data you have about me in your files and databases.
In particular, please tell me what you know about me in your information systems, whether or not contained in databases, and including e-mail, documents on your networks, or voice or other media that you may store.
Additionally, please advise me in which countries my personal data is stored, or accessible from. In case you make use of cloud services to store or process my data, please include the countries in which the servers are located where my data are or were (in the past 12 months) stored.
Please provide me with a copy of, or access to, my personal data that you have or are processing.
Please provide me with a detailed accounting of the specific uses and lawful basis that you have made, are making or will be making of my personal data.
Please provide a list of all third parties with whom you have (or may have) shared my personal data.
If you cannot identify with certainty the specific third parties to whom you have disclosed my personal data, please provide a list of third parties to whom you may have disclosed my personal data.
Please also identify which jurisdictions that you have identified in 1-1 above that these third parties with whom you have or may have shared my personal data, from which these third parties have stored or can access my personal data. Please also provide insight in the legal grounds for transferring my personal data to these jurisdictions. Where you have done so, or are doing so, on the basis of appropriate safeguards, please provide a copy.
Additionally, I would like to know what safeguards have been put in place in relation to these third parties that you have identified in relation to the transfer of my personal data.
Please advise how long you store my personal data, and if retention is based upon the category of personal data, please identify how long each category is retained.
If you are additionally collecting personal data about me from any source other than me, please provide me with all information about their source, as referred to in Article 14 of the GDPR.
If you are making automated decisions about me, including profiling, whether or not on the basis of Article 22 of the GDPR, please provide me with information concerning the basis for the logic in making such automated decisions, and the significance and consequences of such processing.


Yours Sincerely,

NAME

earth_moon626

Hi all,

I since sent the above SAR request and promptly heard back from PPS in great detail. They sent the below email along with a file of documents for each claim including two letters from PPS (1st letter with sum of £100, and 2nd letter with increased charge of £130)
Pictures of the vehicle and signage included in the files.

DPO

Yes, your “personal data” is being processed and I attach copies of that accordingly.
I do not believe that any further data is held on you, save what is enclosed.
Your data is securely stored at the London Data Centre managed by our system service provider, Unity 5 Ltd. I have attached copies of the data accordingly
Our legitimate interest for processing your personal data is as follows:

The processing is necessary for a contract which has been entered into and there is a legitimate interest to do so.

2. We are entitled to:

a. Pursue a motorist for an unpaid parking tariff

b. Pursue a motorist for an unpaid parking charge

c. Ensure safety and security and help deter/detect criminal activity

The Three Categories of “Personal Data” we Process:

1. No Unpaid Charge/Tariff:

As a compliant user of our privately managed car parking site, the personal data we obtain is your registration number. We may capture images of the vehicle, occupants or bystanders. A full list of your Rights under GDPR are summarised above. Where your data is obtained it will be retained for 3 months only. We then erase your registration and any other images from our records.

2. Unpaid Fee :

Where there is a fee which is payable we may request personal details of the registered keeper of the vehicle from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency “DVLA” and other third parties (for example the registered keeper or hire companies where applicable) who may possess information which could assist in resolving any dispute.

The personal details we will obtain include:

a) The name and address of the registered keeper;

b) The make, model and colour of the vehicle;

c) Confirmation of the registration number;

d) Any other information that we gather, in pursuance of the unpaid fee, including information that is shared by you with us.

Your data will be held for sufficient time to enable the fee to be settled, by you or another person and resolve any dispute. However, your data will not normally be held for longer than 6 years in such circumstances. In some circumstances your data may be held for longer than 6 years. Examples of when we may hold your data for longer are;

• When there is an ongoing dispute which requires us to hold the data for longer than normal.

• Where a court order has been made allowing us to pursue outstanding money after the expiration of 6 years.
Unity 5 Ltd and BW Legal have access to our systems and your data. BW legal is a debt collection company. You may wish to contact these two companies to ask about the data they hold on you and what they do with it?
These companies operate within the UK the legal grounds for sharing this data is detailed above.
These companies are both British Parking Association and International Parking Community members and as such they undertake regular audits by these organisations as well as 3rd party specialists.
Up to 6 years, longer if allowed if court proceedings have been commenced.
We are not making automated decisions about you



Thanks all :j

earth_moon626

Hi everyone,

it has taken a while to get this defence drafted but here it is, I've used content from Lamilads defence and cross referenced material from more recent defences relating to similar claims.

It would be great to have some feedback before sending ideally today or tomorrow.

Many thanks.


Statement of Defence

15/10/2018


1. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with.
a) Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under PoFA, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver.
b) The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of £100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time and with mandatory wording
c) The claimant has no right to assert that the defendant is liable based on ‘reasonable assumption’. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

2. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

4. The signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear, unlit, not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The claimant was also a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

5. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Premier Parking Solutions Ltd.
a) Premier Parking Solutions Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land
b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

6. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

8. The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:-
a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
b) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA Code of Practice
c) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
e) The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear reference to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour type car parks.

9. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of the PCN and was not the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of £100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal representatives costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.

11. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

12. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.
I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of Defence, XX/XX/XX are true.


Signed


[my name]

System

Some editing questions.

Why are you referring to both the BPA and the IPC? If you check the IPC site you will have a date when PPS switched. That's what they will be working to on the dates in question.

we are unsure who the driver was on those occasions.

There is no presumption in law but there is inference. But in any case, ask yourself this question. Is it better for the driver to come out as the driver can talk with authority about the signs on the day. Someone who is not the driver can't but if you insist the signs were unclear, it comes back to inference again. An inference that may be to your disadvantage (see below)

Do you really want to make a judge (who is your friend for the day) to jump through those hoops?

Para 8 is a bit of a mess. Another hoop for the judge? Or can you make it clearer.

At para 9 you say you were not the driver but earlier you say you were not sure. If you are now certain what evidence has led you to that conclusion and is it enough to persuade the court?