Waitrose, BW Legal, Britannia Parking, John Lewis Legal team

beamerguy

This is the normal rubbish that BWLegal send out, bad grammar and ignorance is normal for this lot.

Your complaint is now with Waitrose and JL and that is where the pressure must now be applied ..... I MEAN PRESSURE.

Waitrose should be shown the rubbish from BWLegal and the question must be just how many customers have this problem and indeed how many customers Waitrose lose because of the Britannia antics followed on by the BWLegal bully boys

Invite Waitrose to join you in court.

BS_Newbie

Th RK has just asked about the bit at the bottom of BP's auto reply which mentions a fee of £10 for data that is non personal to the RK. -
They have asked me would everything that was on the list be classed as personal to them or would they have to pay the £10 to acquire all the information asked for -

very good question and not one I am experienced enough to answer -

I am sure everyone is aware of what these auto replies state but Ive copied it :-
Your SAR request is free, however please be aware we are able to charge for additional copies and any requests for information which does not qualify as personal data. ICO guidelines advise we are able to charge a reasonable administration fee, which is £10.
Please send a cheque payable to Britannia Parking to the following address: Data Protection Officer, County Gates House, 7th Floor, 300 Poole Road, Poole, BH12 1AZ.
Include a list of the additional information you require and the PCN number/s. Once the cheque has cleared we will action your request. We will only send additional information which is not business sensitive.
Please refer to the ICO website for further information: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/your-right-of-access/
[I]If you do not wish to pay £10, we are under no obligation to provide you with the information, your only options is to wait until this matter progresses to court, when it will be adduced as evidence. [/I]
Once you are in receipt of your SAR, all additional correspondence regarding the request for additional information will not be responded to, unless payment of £10 is received.

twhitehousescat

We will only send additional information which is not business sensitive.

I suspect you will be throwing £10 away , and wasting time awaiting them to clear cheque , because everything is business related

they are not your buddies , they are a business , and every bit of info you require is business related

beamerguy

It is clear that Britannia has been given advice (guess who) about a SAR. Reasonable information must be provided FREE and you are asking for reasonable information purporting to their claim.

You are seeking proof that they are entitled to charge you and also if Waitrose has an agreement with them to issue court proceedings against their customers.

As said, it is Waitrose you are dealing with now and you are in a position of blackballing this Waitrose with your local media and social media.

Forget the £10, any reasonable company who were professional would respond correctly ........ this is Britannia ... enough said

twhitehousescat

SAR , is just that , you the subject , ie info held about YOU , not site contracts or what MD had for breakfast

BS_Newbie

beamerguy wrote: »

This is the normal rubbish that BWLegal send out, bad grammar and ignorance is normal for this lot.

Your complaint is now with Waitrose and JL and that is where the pressure must now be applied ..... I MEAN PRESSURE.

Waitrose should be shown the rubbish from BWLegal and the question must be just how many customers have this problem and indeed how many customers Waitrose lose because of the Britannia antics followed on by the BWLegal bully boys

Invite Waitrose to join you in court.

I love it - I a sure Waitrose would love to appear in court -

its a very good idea to let the waitrose chappie know bout the nonsense that BW have sent and their reply which has just come in is a joke - separate post about that

I will email the RK and ask them to scan the first letter from BW and point out again specifically that BW are chasing an innocent RK (who also happens to be one of their customers)

The RK did add this line to the email so the MD is aware of the fact that BP havent complied with POFA - I have sought advice on this matter and have carried out my own research extensively and it is clear that Britannia Parking has issued these PCN’s incorrectly and illegally as they have failed to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act 8 (4) and as such they cannot hold me, the keeper, liable for the actions of the driver .

BS_Newbie

And the reply from BW legal has arrived ad its a joke - copied below

I have emailed the RK and suggested that they could possibly reply along the lines of this :-
I note in your email that you have stated the following – “Whilst we acknowledge you have made a request for information with Our Client it is important to note that this does not affect the validity of Our Client’s Claim meaning that Our Client has an overriding legitimate interest to recover the sums due to them”

You may feel it is important for me to note that my request for information from your client does not affect the validity of their claim and that you also feel they have an overriding legitimate interest to recover the sums due to them. However, it is vital that you and your client take note that because your client has failed to comply with the requirements of POFA 8 (4) they cannot hold me, the registered keeper, liable for the actions of the driver and therefore they do not have a valid lawful claim against me.

I would be very grateful if you can confirm that your client has failed to comply with the requirements of POFA 8 (4).

BW EMAIL REPLY
Good Morning

Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which have been noted on file.
Should you wish to discuss this matter via email, please confirm the following:

1.Please complete your full name
2.Please provide first line of your address
3.Please provide your postcode

Information about the right to restrict processing is available on the Information Commissioner’s Office website https://www.ico.org.uk. The right to restrict processing only applies in certain limited circumstances. We are not of the view that the right to restrict processing is applicable in this case. Your data is processed for the lawful purposes set out in the Privacy Notice, a copy of which is enclosed and available on https://www.bwlegal.co.uk. Whilst we acknowledge you have made a request for information with Our Client it is important to note that this does not affect the validity of Our Client’s Claim meaning that Our Client has an overriding legitimate interest to recover the sums due to them.

As such, your account will not be suspended from further collections activity unless we are instructed to do so by Our Client. Please contact us to reach a suitable resolution.

We trust this is satisfactory and clarifies our position. Should you be dissatisfied with our response you may raise a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

You can also contact us by signing In or registering to our Online Portal at https://www.bwlegal.co.uk.

Should you have any queries please contact our office on 0113 487 0432

Kind Regards,

twhitehousescat

“Whilst we acknowledge you have made a request for information with Our Client it is important to note that this does not affect the validity of Our Client’s Claim

umm the reply and info could very well kill the validity of the claim

beamerguy

You really don't want to be pu*sy footing around with this lot, you will never get any sense from them.
The only time they will get the message is when they are whooped in court.

More ammo for Waitrose and JL to get rid of Britannia once and for all as you will not be the only customer who is suffering

And don't phone them, they are phone bullies

BS_Newbie

twhitehousescat wrote: »

“Whilst we acknowledge you have made a request for information with Our Client it is important to note that this does not affect the validity of Our Client’s Claim

umm the reply and info could very well kill the validity of the claim

absolutely - and its very Interesting to note that in the letter that the RK received from BP on the 8th informing the RK of that they had now handed everything over to BW and therefore all future correspondence should be with BW, that BW now say they wont pause the process unless instructed to d so by their client..

So now the RK is going to have to send another emai tol BP with a copy of the email from BW and request that they instruct BW to pause proceedings and can they please confirm they have done so !!!