PCN due to the only machine being broken - 2016

Paulscarbs

Yes, made no difference.

Snakes_Belly

Paulscarbs wrote: »

Yes, made no difference.

It won't with the PPC or the appeals adjudicators but it might with a judge especially if the photo's that the PPC have taken at the time of the incident show the note on the dashboard. It shows that it was not an afterthought.

See Prendi v Camden and Link Parking v Mr N. Prendi case is a POPLA decision by the lead adjudicator

Paulscarbs

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why ask BW Legal, a bit pointless; they always reply with that template response and they hold NOTHING by way of data about the PDT machine payments.

Send a SAR by email (as per the NEWBIES thread where this is explained) direct to the parking firm's DPO (also explained in the NEWBIES thread), insisting on the data from the machine.

State that this must include the payment you made (or the partial record if it failed to register fully) and the VRN recorded against it (even if a close match and not exact, or if an error code appeared). Tell them they can partially redact other VRNs on the listing, but not the times of payments or machine identifier, and they must state how many PDT machines they interrogated for this data, and show all listings in the half hour after your car arrived even if some machines show no payments made for hours, due to this fault:


Alternatively, you need to DPO to confirm that he/she has interrogated the data held in all the machines on site and has found no payments at all and the machines were clearly broken that afternoon. That is the only reason for a nil return of data, to this specific enquiry. PUSH THEM FOR THIS DATA.

I contacted PPS and they simply stated the case has been handed to BW Legal. BW Legal subsequently sent the response attached.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/de6k9g6rb8o9yie/Photo%2002-04-2019%2C%2023%2005%2059.jpg?dl=0

I assume I now need to wait for further correspondence?

Coupon-mad

No.

When I said ''Send a SAR by email (as per the NEWBIES thread where this is explained) direct to the parking firm's DPO (also explained in the NEWBIES thread), insisting on the data from the machine''

I meant that's exactly what you must do, to the DPO, headed up SAR.

A firm can't deny you a SAR.

KeithP

Paulscarbs wrote: »

I contacted PPS and they simply stated the case has been handed to BW Legal.

Do you mean that you sent a Subject Access Request to PPS's Data Protection Officer and they simply referred you to BWL?

You need to remind their DPO that they have a statutory responsibility here, and if you don't receive a proper response to your SAR within seven days you will be reporting them to the Information Commissioner's Office.

Paulscarbs

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No.

When I said ''Send a SAR by email (as per the NEWBIES thread where this is explained) direct to the parking firm's DPO (also explained in the NEWBIES thread), insisting on the data from the machine''

I meant that's exactly what you must do, to the DPO, headed up SAR.

A firm can't deny you a SAR.

I have, indeed, written to both requesting and insisting on the SAR. They both provided photos and letters etc but not the details of the funds collected from the only machine in question.

D_P_Dance

IMO you should also involve your MP in this.

On 18th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

rachity

Paulscarbs wrote: »

I contacted PPS and they simply stated the case has been handed to BW Legal. BW Legal subsequently sent the response attached.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/de6k9g6rb8o9yie/Photo%2002-04-2019%2C%2023%2005%2059.jpg?dl=0

I assume I now need to wait for further correspondence?

Legally privileged?


Which one of the 2 parties to the contract is a solicitor?


https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/resources-and-tools/legal-privilege

beamerguy

rachity wrote: »

Legally privileged?


Which one of the 2 parties to the contract is a solicitor?


https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/resources-and-tools/legal-privilege

It's just a game of charades from the Kindergarten

Coupon-mad

Paulscarbs wrote: »

I have, indeed, written to both requesting and insisting on the SAR. They both provided photos and letters etc but not the details of the funds collected from the only machine in question.

Well they don't have to disclose the funds collected as part of a SAR, but do have to disclose your payment matched to your car. You said:

a faulty machine accepted payment but issued no ticket. The defendant, being overheard by another car park user at that same time, stated that the machine had been playing up for a few days.

Therefore, even if the ticket printer wasn't working, there must be a record of your payment matched to your car, if it was a machine that needed you to enter the VRN?

Or was it a machine that didn't need a VRN and you received windscreen PCN?