Letter before Claim, SAR Refusal

eva16006159

Hi All,

I have been reading up on fighting my ticket whilst waiting for the debt collector letter stage to progress to letter before claim. This has now happened and I sent a subject access request which has been refused. I am certain this is likely to now progress to court and I have drafted my defense in preparation. Can anyone advise if there is anything I can do about the SAR refusal? Also is it too early to post my draft defence for review? Is there anything else I should be doing?

Thank you in advance for any advice.

Castle

1) Why was the SAR refused; or did they simply ignore it?


2) Which PPC was it?

beamerguy

jamesevans25 wrote: »

Hi All,

I have been reading up on fighting my ticket whilst waiting for the debt collector letter stage to progress to letter before claim. This has now happened and I sent a subject access request which has been refused. I am certain this is likely to now progress to court and I have drafted my defense in preparation. Can anyone advise if there is anything I can do about the SAR refusal? Also is it too early to post my draft defence for review? Is there anything else I should be doing?

Thank you in advance for any advice.

You are not dealing with DRP are you ???

DRP are biggest bunch of powerless timewasters around. Just let them wallow in the sewer whence they came from

Fruitcake

Complain to the ICO about an SAR refusal.
This assumes you have provided the scammers with the necessary information.

The ICO says that asking for photo ID is unreasonable, as is asking for ID if they already have an ongoing (horrible word) relationship with the requester.

Providing a copy of the V5 is normally advised along with name and address of course, but in my opinion, if a PPC or their agent have a request from the person and address to which they sent a NTK or LBC, then they already have an ongoing relationship.

The 30 day time window for the scammers to reply starts from the date the original request is received and should not be taken from the date they receive proof of ID if that is requested.

steve1500

Report to the ICO


Photo ID is absolutely pointless as you don't know what the person looks like in the first place

The_Deep

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

eva16006159

Its PCM and the solicitor wrote to me as follows:

Unfortunately, we cannot process your request because we can demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds for the processing of your data which override the interests, rights and freedoms of you as an individual. We act on behalf of our client for the recovery of monies relating to an unpaid parking charge notice. To process your data is necessary and lawful, as it is required in furtherance of our client’s instructions, and we act for them on their rights and obligations for the recovery of such monies.

Umkomaas

jamesevans25 wrote: »

Its PCM and the solicitor wrote to me as follows:

Unfortunately, we cannot process your request because we can demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds for the processing of your data which override the interests, rights and freedoms of you as an individual. We act on behalf of our client for the recovery of monies relating to an unpaid parking charge notice. To process your data is necessary and lawful, as it is required in furtherance of our client’s instructions, and we act for them on their rights and obligations for the recovery of such monies.

Was that in response to a request to halt proceedings while the PPC dealt with the SAR, or was it a flat refusal to deal with the SAR?