BW Legal LOC

KeithP

TKNVD wrote: »

Hi,

After sending a letter to BWL asking them to put case on hold, I have now received a response from them saying they will not do so. It states that they are acting on instruction from their client and that the request to restrict processing does not meet the terms outline on the ICO website. I sent exactly what I was told to send on this forum (newbie faq) so that should be correct?

Should I ignore this letter or...?

Just add it to your growing list of 'unreasonable behaviour' that you are keeping for your Costs Schedule.

beamerguy

TKNVD wrote: »

Hi,

After sending a letter to BWL asking them to put case on hold, I have now received a response from them saying they will not do so. It states that they are acting on instruction from their client and that the request to restrict processing does not meet the terms outline on the ICO website. I sent exactly what I was told to send on this forum (newbie faq) so that should be correct?

Should I ignore this letter or...? I have spoken to the landowner who has told the PCN issuer (Brittania Parking) to revoke the charge.

Just more harassment from BWLegal.

Tell the landowner you are being harassed by BWLegal and that clearly Britannia are ignoring him so you will have no option but to involve him if court action starts.

This "odd couple" relationship between BWLegal and Britannia and the SAR objections can only lead to tears for Britannia

Coupon-mad

Same as all the other BW Legal refused data restriction SAR threads.

Search the forum for those words in bold - this happens all the time and you will learn far more from threads ahead of you in this little game of chess, than (as it seems at the mo) by not expecting each letter and just coming to this thread alone to ask about it.