ParkingEye County Court Action - DW Gym Member

Le_Kirk

ateeq94 wrote: »

Is there an email address for the DPO, or do I still send it to enforcement@

There is normally an e-mail address for DPO on the privacy page of most companies.

Coupon-mad

Is there an email address for the DPO, or do I still send it to enforcement@ ?

Groundhog day again!

The DPO is a completely different contact than 'enforcement@' and I would email BOTH,

Have you not looked on their privacy page to find PE's form for data requests yet?

Ralph-y

as an aside to all the good help you are now getting



if you do a forum search for DW stadium



======================================
HOW TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION:

Use the Forum Jump button (one near the top and one near the bottom of this page) to get back to the forum thread list. Just above the threads, on the right, is a heading along a line, next to forum tools, called 'Search this Forum'. Put your key word(s) in and change the default search from 'Show Threads' to 'Show Posts'.

=======================================

but for this search use show threads ....


this should show several past threads that may help / inform you ...


can you please confirm what ParkingLie's reason was for the dastardly deed that you committed ?


overstay ? not inputting vehicle reg ?



Ralph:cool:

ateeq94

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Groundhog day again!



Have you not looked on their privacy page to find PE's form for data requests yet?

Sorry, I found the form but thought you may have an email address as you have years of experience fighting PPC's. For future reference - the email is Privacy@parkingeye.co.uk

ateeq94

Thanks for the sound advice Ralph. I have tried researching into other threads, but unfortunately most are about Appeals etc. One mentioned the landowner being Harvey Spack Field, but it must be an old thread as they own a different retail park in Derby.

As for the reason behind it... an overstay of time. Parking is for 2hours only. The vehicle was allegedly parked for 2hours 11 minutes. Would you (or anyone else) suggest that I argue the grace period instead of the 'im a member of DW Gym who have repeatedly tried to tell PE to cancel this fine but PE have ignored' angle.

Ralph-y

"suggest that I argue the grace period instead of the 'im a member of DW Gym who have repeatedly tried to tell PE to cancel this fine but PE have ignored' angle."


it is just one more argument to use , so as well as following all the good advice



look up grace periods



Ralph:cool:

ateeq94

Already done it Saw lots of posts from CouponMad. I have tried sending another email to both Enforcement and Privacy, stating

It must also be taken into account the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting from 30th July 2015, where it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes'

Therefore an overstay of 11 minutes does not warrant a parking charge. But I also came across an old post where CouponMad has said that PE will not cancel a charge once it has been sent to court. So I think I may need to start drafting a well-written defence - with the help of you all please please please :j

ateeq94

*Quick update*

I have heard from Parking Eye who have FINALLY offered me a 'Without Prejudice Offer' of £60.

I have had to spend a lot of time researching and sending off various different emails, and getting knocked back, before finally getting this offer.

It is worth noting that I have been constantly pushing DW Head Office to do something about this charge. They have allegedly had their head of estate contact ParkingEye and ask for the charge to be removed, but Parking Eye have responded by saying they are not prepared to cancel the charge as the keeper has been ignoring all correspondence which they believe is a result of following the advice of an online forum!

I have tried emailing Parking Eye to say that if the head of estate has now contacted ParkingEye asking for the charge to be cancelled. Therefore it has been established that you have in writing that the landowner, your client DW Sports, does not wish to pursue this alleged charge or take any further action and has asked you to cease any further action. Your actions are therefore no longer sanctioned, and completely illegal. On your website it says: "Charges that result in legal proceedings being pursued most commonly occur following little or no contact from the registered keeper and in those circumstances we, on behalf of our clients, are left with no option but to take further action to recover the outstanding charge amount." ParkingEye manage the car park under the authority of DW Sport's. I have above given evidence that not only have you on numerous occasions been told to "remove the fine" but that your client has several times put in writing to you that they have no interest in pursuing this alleged debt, resulting from a charge that was never owed. You therefore have no authority to continue to pursue this matter, and have no reason to hold any details for any parties in relation to this charge. Under GDPR guidelines, and The Data Protection Act 2018 you must remove all details from your database and cease all legal action against the Registered Keeper of FL06 POU.

Any further action taken by ParkingEye in relation to this charge is unsanctioned by the landowner and so will be treated as Harassment.

But in true ParkingEye fashion, they have responded saying their position remains unaltered, and the sum is £175.

Should I just pay the £60 and move on? Even though I am right, and I do not owe them anything. It's so time consuming and stressful

Coupon-mad

Have you shown that to DW and asked if they will settle the £60 as a gesture of goodwill? We can't really advise whether you should pay it yourself as that's a matter of opinion.

We can't guarantee a win at a hearing, where £175 would be back in play, albeit you would have the argument that there is no legitimate interest or commercial justification to penalise genuine patrons and the charge is not supported by the landowner (unlike in Beavis) therefore the penalty rule has not been disengaged.

That is a valid argument, but some Judges might say as you ignored the PCN and letters, and a LBC (wrongly, and not 'internet forum advice' to ignore ANY of these!) it meant PE had no idea you were a genuine patron etc...and were therefore left with no option but to litigate. It would be up to the Judge.

£60 is as good as you are likely to get, but I would feel DW should pay it.

Now The Keeper has received a Court Claim Form, asking for a reply with a defence.

You need to acknowledge that on MCOL if you haven't already, to buy you the full 28 days to build on the defence and keep pushing both sides to sort it out between themselves.

If you carry on, it IS possible that your will have called PE's bluff and they might discontinue, as they do sometimes. Do you feel lucky?

ateeq94

Totally understand where you are coming from.

I agree. I have been speaking with DW head office, and put across to them that it was their General Manager who advised me to ignore all correspondence from PE and that he was therefore vicariously liable for the advice he gave. I was merely acting on the instruction of the landowner. I do however agree, that the arguments I have put forward to them are as good as it gets - the landowner does not support this charge. PE state they initiate legal proceedings in an attempt to recover outstanding penalty charges, ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENTS. - However their client has made it explicitly clear that they have no interest in pursuing this matter.

I think I will see if I can push DW to pay the £60, if not - I will have to just write it off and pay.