Claim Form Received

KeithP

You don't need to run any of those risks.

In post #4 above I wrote:

8. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Download a DQ now and deal with it now if you wish.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, just do it now. No need to wait!

Redx

So how is the SAR going regarding the other vehicle ?

Have they refused again so you can go to the ICO ?

Or have they complied ?

Or are you still waiting for a follow up reply about this SAR issue ?

inydaisy

Hi,
I have received no reply at all from them..........

Coupon-mad

Follow it up if 30 days has gone.

Did you email it to their data protection bod as shown on their privacy page?

inydaisy

Hi,

Not quite 30 days have passed yet, I will definitely chase it once this time elapses. Yes, sent it to the address as per their privacy page, this is also the email address that I received previous replies from so they have definitely received it.

I have also received notification from BW Legal that Britannia intend to proceed with the claim and will be informing the court of same, so I expect the questionnaire through my door any day now.

Will complete as advised on the newbies post

Thanks

inydaisy

This is the response I have received from Britannia

Thank you for your email.

We have provided a SAR request for the below VRM's which we hold in the system in your name:

PCN XXXXXXX / XXXXXXX (old registration) ( this one was cancelled on appeal 2 years ago)
PCN XXXXXX / XXXXXX (new registration)

The other PCN on VRM (old registration) is not in your name (XXXX), and has never been in the name of XXXXXX, therefore i am unable to release this information to you at this time.

Please be aware PCN xxxxxx / xxxxxxx was appealed to POPLA, which is a seperate company to our own. Any appeal information submitted to POPLA, is not retained by Britannia Parking after a POPLA decision is made as this information was not directly submitted to ourselves.

Regards,

I am not sure why they have mentioned POPLA? I also appealed in them in the first instance showing proof of payment - this hasn't been included in the info provided to me. I also wrote to them, this was signed for ( I have evidence of this) but this too was omitted from the information provided to me.

All they provided me under the SAR was;
Photos of my car going in and out on the day
The statement they made to POPLA ( which is inaccurate)
A copy of my bank statement from my previously cancelled appeal - none for this case
And some generic waffle about how my info is used.

It would seem they haven't a scooby doo about my case,

Coupon-mad

Report your concerns online to the ICO; get them investigated.

inydaisy

Hi All,

I received a letter today from Bedford County Court advising me that my court date has been set for Dec 5th, all documents need to be submitted 14 days before. Britannia parking have until November 7th to pay the court fees. I would appreciate if someone could have a look at my witness statement below and advise on any changes I should make.

In the County Court at XXXXX

Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
XXXXXXXX (Claimant)
and
XXXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

I XXXXX of XXXXXXX, will say as follows:

1.I am the Defendant in this matter and attached is a paginated bundle of documents marked AP1 upon which I will rely

2. This matter relates to a pay on exit car park and on the material day, 31st August 2018, I entered xxxx at 12.15pm, parked and left the carpark. Upon returning to the carpark, I went to the pay on exit machine, entered my registration number and paid my fee as instructed by the machine, I then exited the carpark at 12.58pm. I believe, it was perfectly reasonable for me to rely on the payment I had made which was accepted into the machine.

3.On the 13th of September I received a PCN from the Claimant stating I had failed to make a valid payment. I immediately contacted the Claimant through their appeals process sending my proof of payment (page 1, AP 1). With this, I explained that as the car was new (had been purchased 2 weeks previous) and while I have no recollection of making any error, it was possible that I may have entered a 0 instead of an O. My appeal was rejected without any explanation given as to why.

4. A subsequent appeal to POPLA was also rejected, stating that “while it was not disputed that a payment was made evidence provided shows that no payment was made under the full correct registration of the vehicle parked” (page 2, AP1). Given that the POPLA annual report 2018 stated that “in October 2017, the British Parking Association suggested that its operators consider cancelling PCN’s where a simple keying mistake was made”. It would seem that the Claimant and POPLA has chosen to ignore this guidance (Page 3, AP1)

5. On January 8th 2019, I wrote a formal response to a “Final Reminder Letter” to the Claimant requesting clarification on a number of points e.g. their use of ANPR, the BPA COP on simple keying errors, whether any manual checks had been done. No response was ever received to this letter from the Claimant despite having evidence that it was received by the Claimant on 17.01.2019 (Page 4, AP1)

6. On January 30th I started receiving demand letters from the Claimants legal representative’s BW legal. I then made further attempts to explain the confusion to the individuals who contact me, without success.

7. Car Park Signage,
7.1 The sign states that a PCN of £100 may be issued, however, I received a PCN for £85. Therefore, I deny that a contract was formed to agree to pay a penalty of £85 as this was not stipulated anywhere on the signage (Page 5 AP1)
7.2 There is a huge amount of wordy but small font text on the sign (Page 6 AP1). Vital information, such as the possibility of the machine accepting payments for the incorrect VRN is hidden in small print so none of this was known or agreed as a contract when I put my card into the machine.
7.3 The signage also suggests that if the incorrect PCN is entered then the customer will be advised, the customer will then re-enter their registration at which point this information will be taken as correct. At no point in paying for my parking was I advised that the incorrect PCN was entered which suggests, the machine is either not fit for purpose or the signage is incorrect (Page 7 AP1)

8. I tried to mitigate this at every step to avoid further action, in the end this is wasting the courts and you, the judge’s time, all for the sake of a payment that was made in full for the time that I remained in the carpark

9. At no point has this Claimant actually evidenced that the I did not the make a full valid payment or that I incorrectly entered my VRN nor have they even mentioned checking that information. This I believe is in breach of the British Parking Association COP Section 21.2 relating to the use of ANPR technology (Page 8 AP1)

10. If they wanted to ensure the correct tariff was paid without such disputes arising, the machine should be set so that no payment is taken until a VRN matching the ANPR data is entered. If the machine had prompted me that I had made an error I would have rechecked the information entered

11. I believe the way the machine is set is an unfair term and unfair business practice. Additionally, I contend that this claimant's 12-month pursuit of this matter, harassing me with debt collectors despite my consistent responses, was wholly unreasonable and vexatious. Given the sum involved this claim is out of all proportion to the alleged (denied) sum purportedly owed.

12. This claimant may try to rely upon the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, regarding disproportionate charges. However, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court's decisions during the course of that case do not support this claim at all. Beavis was a matter concerning an unusual enforcement regime and location, offering a free licence to park followed after 2 hours, by a charge. Indeed at the Court of Appeal stage the Judges stated that the 'free licence to park' regime was the factor which made that case 'completely different' from ordinary transactional contracts where a sum of money owed can be easily quantified.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.


I will get to work on getting my documents together, do I need to resend my defence when submitting my documents?

KeithP

inydaisy wrote: »

...do I need to resend my defence when submitting my documents?

No .