Letter before claim from Gladstones

Joey_Santiago

I received a Parking Charge Notice through the post from NPE over a year ago for 'parking in a child and parent bay whilst unaccompanied by a child 12 years or less' with photographs of our vehicle. We had our 2 year old with us but after parking realised he was asleep so my partner popped in to the shop for 10 mins alone. I have since been back to the car park and read the small print on the sign (which I didn't see on the day) which says that the child must leave the car although this seems pretty flaky - is 1 metre ok? I obviously intended on leaving the car when we parked but would value anyones opinion on whether this puts me on shaky ground.

After reading the various excellent posts on MSE I responded by email the same day challenging the PCN and telling them that we had our child with us (without saying who the driver was)
I heard nothing more from NPE but in Feb had a letter from Debt Recovery Plus with an additional £60 added to the fine which I ignored.

I then heard nothing until just before Christmas, over a year since the original PCN when I received a letter from Gladstones Solicitors. This is a letter before claim, requires payment to them and suggests if I have a valid reason for non-payment I should complete their Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) form on their site.
So, reading the NEWBIES thread it said to start my own thread, send a holding letter to Gladstones and SAR to NPE to get all the data they have on me.
I'm happy to go to court if I have a decent chance of not screwing it up NPE have a terrible reputation in this car park with tickets to old ladies who's wheels touch the white line etc. Just wanted to check the above is the right course of action and whether I should complete the Gladstone PAP form?

Thanks!

Redx

yes to SAR to the PPC


YES to issue a rebuttal letter (holding letter) to GLADRAGS


NO to filling in their forms

Coupon-mad

I'm happy to go to court if I have a decent chance of not screwing it up NPE have a terrible reputation in this car park with tickets to old ladies who's wheels touch the white line etc.

We see some 99% of people report a win in court, and NPE would be on very shaky ground with their interpretation of a P&C bay. So yes, you have a more than decent chance and NPE do not deserve your money.

Having said that, P&C bays are pointless gimmicks and (even if the 2 yr old had got out) you didn't need to use one anyway, so avid them in future; people really do not need a special bay for a child so steer clear of the awful retailer gimmick bays which take up far too much space, and park in a normal bay.

Only disabled people need a wider bay IMHO. There should be more disabled bays and no tiresome gimmick 'come & spend your money here, families' bays. People need to open their eyes to what retailers are actually doing.

Anyway, you'll likely win.

Joey_Santiago

Great, thanks very much for confirming that

Yep, I'm annoyed with myself for using it. I think it's the first time I've ever parked in one!

Joey_Santiago

I sent the SAR to NPE and have received the reply below from appeals@. This was sent to appeals@parkingprotection.co.uk and dpo@parkingprotection.co.uk. Are they allowed to ignore the Subject Access Request?

Thank you for your email dated .
A Notice To Keeper was sent out by First Class Royal Mail on (date removed) and a response to your appeal was sent by First
Class Royal Mail on (date removed)
As no payment has been received, this has been passed onto a third party debt recovery company.
All further correspondence should be entered into with Gladstone Solicitors.

Coupon-mad

Are they allowed to ignore the Subject Access Request?

No, and they are not ignoring it. The DPO deals with the SAR separately.

All you have had is the reply from appeals@ and there was NO NEED to email them!

Joey_Santiago

Thanks, I'll wait patiently for the DPO to respond

Joey_Santiago

Quick update...
I received a reply from Gladstones regarding my request to restrict processing of data saying they '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. To process your data is necessary and lawful.......

They did however, agree to extend the Pre Action Protocol period by 30 days to xx/xx and I need to pay or reply by that date.

The SAR request to DPO is still ongoing, they replied a couple of time asking for more information (reg no, ref, postal address) and would not process until they had that info even though they have had that from the start. As a result of that delay (and one of their emails going undiscovered in my junk folder) I doubt I will have the info from DPO before xx/xx.

Do I just wait for that date to pass or should I respond in some way to Gladstones?

Cheers

nosferatu1001

Well of course you respond. THe newbies thread is clear on this

The 30 days runs from when they had sufficient info to process your SAR, and sufficient proof of identity
Not any later
Remind them the deadline is X date calculated as follows...

The_Deep

If they are daft enough to take it to court, be sure that the Parking Weasel who issued the ticket attends so that you can cross-examine them. Also, in view of the fact that they are accusing you of lying, swat up on unreasonable behaviour costs, CPR27.14(2)(g) and complain to your MP.

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 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. .

Joey_Santiago

I responded to DPO and told them despite their email asking for more information the original SAR 30 day period stands as they had all of my details for over a year. I have not had a response or any information as yet.
Gladstones had refused my restriction of processing of data but agreed to extend the Pre Action Protocol period until xx/xx which is only a few days away so I have sent them a letter informing them their client has breached the 30 limit on SAR and requesting the PAP is extended again and the case put on hold.