Britannia rejected Sar request

AnotherVoice

Coming in late to the thread, but i am expecting my own SAR response in the next few days so it is of interest to me.
I have spoken to the DVLA about my own case, and, from what i can tell a PCC is not allowed to provide the details they got from the DVLA to a Debt Recovery company, per sections 5 & 7, unless i misunderstand (possible).
https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/709632/v8883-request-for-information-for-those-who-issue-a-parking-charge-notice.pdf

That may only apply if they have sold the debt to a third party and not simply passed it to a third party legal firm for recovery.

Coupon-mad

from what i can tell a PCC is not allowed to provide the details they got from the DVLA to a Debt Recovery company,

Yes they are.

That may only apply if they have sold the debt to a third party and not simply passed it to a third party legal firm for recovery.

It's the other way around.

They are NOT allowed to sell DVLA data/the debt (without prior permission). They can use debt recovery trash.

Mazzamonkey

I have now amended my defence does this look ok? Is it too long?

Background. Like so many others on this forum I received a pcn after my vehicle stayed 27 minutes in a car park where signs state the first 30 minutes are free. This was in 2017 Only now do I realise that I was supposed to obtain a ticket to claim the ticket which I believe is deliberately complicated. They have now added lots more signs stating this


1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, registration XXXXXX. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of the terms and conditions of the car park’ by the driver. 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. when parking at xxx car park on xxx.

2.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; xxx. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. 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.

4. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied, that on the material date, the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. It is ,therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.


6. The Defendant's vehicle has parked within a marked bay!and according to the Claimant's own images, remained on site for 27 minutes. This is!less than the 30 minute free period!offered in large lettering on a sign, where other terms were in much smaller font size and were not clearly visible.!

6.1The contravention on the Notice to Keeper stated that the Defendant ‘failed to make a valid payment’ However at no point was the Defendant’s vehicle in the car park during any chargeable period for which the Claimant can seek financial loss or compensation.!!There was no breach, and no contract at all.

7.!!ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis![2015] UKSC 67 ('Beavis') also related to a retail car park, but it is fully distinguished. In the instant case before the court, there was a 'concealed pitfall or trap' in the misleading signs which were emblazoned 'FIRST 30 MINUTES PARKING FREE'. The doctrine of!contra proferentem!must be applied in favour of the consumer, where terms are in any way ambiguous in their drafting or display.!!

7.1. There can be no 'commercial justification' nor legitimate interest in charging drivers who are patrons of the shops, for using the free parking time offered. Further, there was no overstay nor any mischief to deter, nor was there any misuse of a valuable parking space by the Defendant who parked in good faith.!

8. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach. The Supreme Court Judges in!Beavis!held that a Code of Practice is effectively 'regulation' for this blatantly rogue industry, full compliance with which is both mandatory and binding upon any parking operator.

8.1. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.!

8.2. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:

i) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and

ii) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

iii) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR, together with a Pay and Display style system as a secondary data processing system at this site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement, such as (very simply) not applying for DVLA data to issue any PCNs to keepers of cars seen on site for less than the 30 minutes advertised as free., and

iv) Failure to consider the number of complaints from the landowner and other businesses, which would have alerted this Claimant to the fact that their ‘Pay and Display / ANPR' and confusing signage was not being seen and/or understood by all genuine patrons and was therefore a wholly inappropriate method of data capture, which was unreliable at best and negligent (or even deliberately misleading) at worst, being the main cause of unfair parking charges against Evans Cycles patrons, and

v) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and the Pay & Display system and how the data captured on both would be used, and

vi) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.

9. This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations and has breached principle 1 (at least) of the DPA, as well as the BPA Code of Practice.!


10.The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

11 In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.

11.1 The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

12 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.

Statement of Truth:

beamerguy

11 In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.

Better to say .....
In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery

Mazzamonkey

Yes, meant to add that as coupon mad had suggested will make changes and email as advised. Cheers

Coupon-mad

Is this the Chelmsford Army & Navy site like in the other one someone replied on today?

Someone was pointing out something about the signs there.

Mazzamonkey

Yes same bloody car park! It would be good to know the outcome for others that have had a NTK for the same reason

Mazzamonkey

Hi, I have to write a witness statement now as have a court date. I have looked at a few of the examples. Do I need to evidence that i was a paying customer of the shop I went in as the car park is a small retail park? Also I asked BW to send photos of the signs at the time of the parking charge in 2017as the signs have increased significantly in the last 2 years and they sent me a photo time stamped at 2018! Useless! I will be stating that their increased signage is an admission that the signage at the time was poor. Also on the NTK they repeatedly stated the contravention as i didn’t make a valid payment, however no payment is required for the free half hour I was there so I will be adding this point too. Is this ok? Any other advice? Chelmsford court have allocated the case to a court in London I will be glad when it’s over!

KeithP

When is your hearing?

When is your Witness Statement and evidence due?

Mazzamonkey

Hearing is 13/9 evidence by 30/8