Parking solutions Limited- claim for over £700 !

lukesy123

of course, I cant remember who was driving

lukesy123

is their DPO right in refusing to give me certain parts of my SAR

KeithP

anon wrote:

is their DPO right in refusing to give me certain parts of my SAR

If your Subject Access Request asked for non-personal data, then yes.

Do the numbers in their reply refer to the numbers in post #7?

For example, if you asked "3. Please provide me with evidence you have paid a debt collector / Legal representative.", then they can refuse to answer that as part of a SAR, as neither the question nor any possible answer contains any personal information.

lukesy123

yes it does refer to post #7.
fair enough on that point. but how can they refuse to send me copies of all letters sent ... surely the letters contain my address on them so that counts as personal information.

Redx

they should send you copies of the NTK etc that they sent you, especially if you asked for them in your SAR

IF YOU DIDNT ASK FOR THEM , SEND A REPLY ASKING FOR THEM

you appear to have asked for them in point #5 in the first section , so they should have included them , they are the "relevant authority" , they issued them

they are talking about point 5 in the second section in their reply

lukesy123

on another point, I have realised all the signs are different in this car park now, so how can I draft defence without seeing the old signs - as they are rightly refusing to send this to me as it doesn't contain any personal information.

Redx

you will have to bring it up in your defence so you can talk about it later in your WS and skelly and possibly when you see their evidence

as its not about you and your data, its the evidence stage that means you can insist it is provided for the judge to see in court, and for you to comment on

prior to GDPR you didnt see anything until the WS and evidence stage, with little time to prepare

by asking for it now under the PaP oct 2017 rules, you can tell the court they have failed to provide the info and so you cannot act on it


this "game" you are in has nothing to do with parking , its about the civil court MCOL claim system and they are playing it like concert pianists, whereas you cannot find the C note. they have hooked their fish and are playing it on the end of the line , giving a bit , taking a bit , and setting the hook ready for the gaff later on

KeithP

anon wrote: »

on another point, I have realised all the signs are different in this car park now, so how can I draft defence without seeing the old signs - as they are rightly refusing to send this to me as it doesn't contain any personal information.

Why not ask them to send you pictures of the signs as they were on the day in question?

They are only 'right' because you asked them that question as part of a Data Subject Access Request.

lukesy123

1.1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date.
1.2. The Defendant denies that the original Claim by the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all and should thus be dismissed.
1.3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply ordering the PCN Sum to be paid within a set time period. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
1.4. The Particulars of Claim fail to state that the Defendant is the Registered keeper / Driver of the Vehicle XXXXXXX, rendering it unclear what legal basis this claim is brought to the Defendant.
1.5. Due to the sparseness of the Particulars of Claim, it is also unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
1.6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.
1.7. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and are in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
1.8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
1.9. The Claimant’s solicitors; BW Legal, are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 100 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to go against Public Interest.
1.10. The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is ‘Robo-claims’ which as previously stated is against the public interest – It also demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
1.11. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to his significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
1.12. The Claimant has produced no evidence as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.
1.13. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper. The Particulars of Claim state “the sum of £375 being moneys due from the defendant to the claimant in respect of multiple Parking charge Notices (PCN's)” and “The claimant also claims £200 contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms and conditions.” Given that 5 PCN’s were issued, each one amounts to a cost of £75 with a total of £375, The claim amounts to £605.78 (not including Court Costs and Legal Fees) - The Defendant believes this is a clear attempt at Artificial Inflation for Over-recovery and as stated before, no legally binding contract was entered, so the Defendant invites the Court to dismiss this claim.
1.14. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.
1.15. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Coupon-mad

The numbering makes no sense, so just use 1, 2, 3, etc.

You need a Statement of Truth at the end, and a signature & date.

Lots of repetition in the version you've used and it doesn't give any facts:

1.4. The Particulars of Claim fail to state that the Defendant is the Registered keeper / Driver of the Vehicle XXXXXXX, rendering it unclear what legal basis this claim is brought to the Defendant.
1.5. Due to the sparseness of the Particulars of Claim, it is also unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought,

I would start again, using bargepole's concise defence template from the NEWBIES thread which is so much easier to comment on and for you to adapt with a piece about the facts of the case and what the defence actually is about.