County Court Claim Process

ShakeItOff

With the SAR, it would be worth checking in their privacy pages about if they "may require proof of identity", and if you didn't submit it with your SAR, you should do now.

The SAR clock starts ticking once they have verified your identity if they require it.

The_Deep

Did you complain to the SRA? They are already investigating a similar complaint here.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75339770#Comment_75339770

if you have not yet done so, do it now, the more complaints put in, the more likely they are to sanction the scammer, and the more it will cost them.

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

Did you complain to the SRA? They are already investigating a similar complaint here.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75339770#Comment_75339770

if you have not yet done so, do it now, the more complaints put in, the more likely they are to sanction the scammer, and the more it will cost them.

Totally agree about BWLegal

Complain here to the SRA
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems.page

GoshDarn

I have emailed BW legal again letting them know that I am still awaiting an SAR from either them or their client.

PPS website says this about requesting a SAR:

‘Please note that you have the right to request the above, however, when we receive your requests we may object to your request if we do not agree with it. However, if you do make the request we will tell you if the request has been granted or not.’

And also

‘You have the right to submit a Subject Access Request and this can be done via an email request to our DPO. We will need to obtain proof of your identity before providing you with information we hold about you. You can do so by emailing dpo@premierparkingsolutions.com or by calling 0845 862 1034. If you require more information about items raised in this notice we would recommend the ICO website’


As of yet, still heard nothing back from either of them, unsure if that’s a good or a bad thing?

GoshDarn

Okay so I have now received the SAR from the parking company. There are time stamped photos of the vehicle with ticket expired 14 minutes prior. There are also timestamped photos of the sign and ticket machine..
The NTK that they had sent (which I hadn’t received) was 40 days after incident.

It seems unfair, and unfortunate, but I’m struggling to find anything to really build a decent defence on here, other than perhaps only owing the extra time over stayed as they had just returned to the vehicle?

KeithP

Delete that sentence starting "They also have the..." from your latest post. You are giving the parking company useful information which they have no other way of finding out.

The parking companies trawl this forum just waiting for people to trip themselves up and can try and use your posts against you.

GoshDarn

All done, thanks Keith.

Do you think this would be worthwhile pursuing?

This seems fairly nailed on to my novice opinion, although hugely overinflated!!

Coupon-mad

If this is PPS just look at the defences on all the other threads exactly the same (and yes, they are all exactly the same and well worth fighting).

We had a dozen of these PPS cases in the autumn, why are the current batch of new PPS claim recipients here, not simply searching the forum for PPS BW Legal defence & copying a defence done then?

Stop looking for a defence angle from scratch. Read all the others...you will see a pattern.

GoshDarn

I have now received a letter saying that my file has been placed on a hold while they query a matter with their client.

The only thing I can relate this to is asking for a hold when I submitted a SAR, which they responded to me with a letter to say they would not???

Does this mean that the remaining days from the LBC are on hold, or will they commence county court proceedings regardless?

And if so, would this incompetence add anything to my defence?

Redx

nobody knows what they will do, so sit and wait for the next step from them


no , very , very unlikely to be of any use, their client has 6 years to bring a court claim, so if they are checking facts before proceeding or not then they are showing diligence, not incompetence (this is what your LBC rebuttal told them to do)