LBC BW Legal/Britannia Parking

beamerguy

AnotherVoice wrote: »

Writing to BW today to inform them they have failed to respond to my SAR and that i am reporting them to the ICO and SRA.

Just to i have this clear in my head, i initially sent an SAR to both Britannia, and BW seperatley, so i should receive 2 SARs back, one from each?

Two separate companies so both must reply.

BWLegal and their bosom buddy think they above the law ???
The ICO may show them they are not

You are entitled to a reply or a reason why they are not replying.

This ignorance by BWLegal and Britannia can only help you in front of a judge

Received another BWL Letter warning me to reply to them or to the Court Claim or they will issue a CCJ
HA .... THEY WILL ???? What rubbish, BWL pretending to be a judge again

AnotherVoice

I asked for the usual stuff in newbies thread, mainly the evidence they have (photos of the vehicle etc) copies of any letters they have sent me etc.

Now, after i sent it and reading through the forum, i realised my SAR was unintentionally ambiguous 'please send me a copy of all letters sent', now obviously i meant letters sent to me, but being the pedantic legal minds they are, they could infer i meant a copy of every letter they had ever sent and refuse.

However, they, unlike Britannia, did respond to my SAR with a letter saying they acknowleged receipt of the SAR and would provide the information to me within the 30 days.

I received the SAR from Britannia a few days outside the 30 day window but i allowed for postage, although they only sent the photos of my vehicle (PCN/NTK) and a copy of the letter i sent them requesting the SAR, they did not send copies of the other letters they had sent me.

I sent it in mid January, so the SAR was due to be received mid feb.

Umkomaas

The ICO expect (rightly or otherwise) the complainant to issue a reminder with a short deadline for response (~7 days) before considering a complaint.

I'm sure I read yesterday that the ICO are taking around 11 weeks to respond to complaints (inundated following GDPR?) - and very often complaints are deflected by mealy-mouthed reply.

I think they're probably only capable (resource-wise) of handling the very serious GDPR/DPA breaches.

See what they say if/when you complain.

beamerguy

But you said ........

Writing to BW today to inform them they have failed to respond to my SAR

AnotherVoice

beamerguy wrote: »

But you said ........

Writing to BW today to inform them they have failed to respond to my SAR

Yes, 'respond', in this case meant they didn't send me the SAR.

Their reply of 'yeah we will do that' surely does not count as fulfilling my request?

AnotherVoice

Got the 'we intend to continue with the case' letter today.

beamerguy

AnotherVoice wrote: »

Got the 'we intend to continue with the case' letter today.

Run with it ...... did they not mention mediation of being heard on papers ??? Giving you the false impression they would win ??

AnotherVoice

No, it was a single line 'our client intends to continue with the claim and we confirm we have notified the court of the same.

It was addressed 'Dear Sir' and signed 'BW Legal' although someone added a nicely scanned imaged of name 'BW Legal' which i assume was signed many moons ago.

AnotherVoice

Received my directions questionnaire yesterday.

MothballsWallet

AnotherVoice: is this DQ from the court (N180) or BW Legal (N159)?

If it's an N159, ignore it, BW will try to pressure you because they're really dumb like that.

If it's an N180, it's okay to use it.