PCN where permit not transferred to vehicle

Umkomaas

I now request that you provide the information requested ** or I will have no alternative but to make an official complaint to the ICO for breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 by CST Law.

** within seven days

Beanthere2020

Umkomaas said:

I now request that you provide the information requested ** or I will have no alternative but to make an official complaint to the ICO for breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 by CST Law.

** within seven days

In fact, would it be worth requesting they cancel the alleged debt or I will pursue a breach of DPA2018 with ICO? 

Umkomaas

Beanthere2020 said:

Umkomaas said:

I now request that you provide the information requested ** or I will have no alternative but to make an official complaint to the ICO for breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 by CST Law.

** within seven days

In fact, would it be worth requesting they cancel the alleged debt or I will pursue a breach of DPA2018 with ICO? 

Hey, it's all a game of Poker at this stage. They won't run away at that, but there's no cost in threatening and finding out for yourself. Remember, these are trained lawyers you're up against, and they're usually up for a fight, especially if an untrained individual is looking for a fight on their turf. 

Beanthere2020

Well the response has gone into CST Law, so will wait and see.

As the driver liability from keeper, was transferred at POPLA stage which led to 2 of the 4 PCNs being cancelled, I'm wondering how to word a further landowner letter or local MP to try and get remaining PCNs cancelled prior to potential small claims?

The fact that the alleged driver was permitted to park there albeit in a different vehicle, should this be disclosed? Or saved until small claims? 

Coupon-mad

always try to resolve things before court and get them cancelled if possible. If it doesn’t work then you look more reasonable to a Judge later.  So saying stuff in writing now is a win win approach.

Beanthere2020

Coupon-mad said:

always try to resolve things before court and get them cancelled if possible. If it doesn’t work then you look more reasonable to a Judge later.  So saying stuff in writing now is a win win approach.

What would you advise around the wording of this @Coupon-mad?

Essentially the driver worked at a nearby business and the usual vehicle which was on a list of permitted vehicles to use the shopping centre car park, wasn't used on the 2 days in question. Trying to avoid any wording that may impact on defence in small claims. 

Coupon-mad

just say it like it is. There is no template.

Beanthere2020

Coupon-mad said:

just say it like it is. There is no template.

Response to Letter Before Action stage cancellation request to shopping centre 

"Thank you for your e-mail.

 I have forwarded your e-mail to Care Parking, to provide further information, and have received the below

“ We can see there are currently 2 live PCNs for this vehicle, both XXX and XXX days old. The PCNs were appealed directly with us, which were subsequently rejected, at which point they chose to go to POPLA (The Parking on Private Land Appeals Service).

 On 28 Oct 2019 we received notification from POPLA that the appellant chose to withdraw their appeals. Two reminder letters (one for each PCN) were then sent to XXXXXXX on 27 Nov 19. We did not receive any further communication regarding the PCNs.

The PCNs have therefore continued to escalate until it has reached this stage, and as such, additional charges have been incurred. Prior to the Letter Before Action being issued, the motorist has received several letters from ourselves, Debt Recovery Plus and Zenith, before the debt finally being passed to CST Law to proceed with court action.

As the debt recovery process has been exhausted and a Letter Before Action has been issued, this is now an outstanding debt, we are therefore unable to action a cancellation at this stage.”

 Whilst I am not disputing that the original registration was exempted, as per the agreement with [employer], it is the registration, rather than the individual that is exempted, such is the case on any car park where there is an exemption process in place.

 Is the above information accurate, as to the timeline and actions which were taken?"

FYI 2 x PCNs that were transferred at POPLA stage were not appealed (in error)

No explanation of the 'additional charges.'

Currently also got the local MP involved

 

 

Coupon-mad

Ermmm, they say that you withdrew both POPLA appeals?!

Beanthere2020

Coupon-mad said:

Ermmm, they say that you withdrew both POPLA appeals?!

Nope. Liability transferred from RK at POPLA stage. 2 PCNs were rightly cancelled as the couldn't uphold against RK as liability had been transferred (a la @Coupon-mad tactic) the other 2 PCNs were then asked for third party authorisation from RK that they were acting for driver. This was challenged as you'll see from the earlier threads, and POPLA withdrew the appeals.
2 X PCNs were then issued to the driver, but didn't appeal (in error) as they believed the appeals process had already been used.

So the withdrawal was by POPLA for lack of third party authorisation from the RK, which was unwarranted.