VCS parking in restricted area & claim from from CCBC

Le_Kirk

Completion of DQ is covered in NEWBIE thread post # 2 in a post written by Bargepole. Do not submit it to the CCBC late!

upstanding

Thanks to recent posters - yes everything in other half's name, but thank you for referring - simply referring to I on here as I'm doing the donkey work, also advice about Lay Rep. Will ensure DQ is returned in time but am aware you have to give dates of when unavailable and as 'we' at the mercy of Hospital waiting lists and dates awaiting further major surgery - it is difficult to complete this section at the current moment - hoping to have an update on it this week so can then send on its merry way!! have got some key points already jotted down as preparation for draft WS - guessing won't get sight of anything from them until DQ has been submitted. Now on Day 28 today and Still nothing back from SAR

Le_Kirk

Companies are allowed 30 days to respond to SARs. If nothing after that then send a follow up e-mail to the same address that you sent the first one and say you are now reporting them to the ICO (which you can do on-line).

upstanding

So after sending SAR on 8th July - they responded today. Interesting facts : some photos, not sure why they felt the need to photograph the inside of the car? Copy of letter of Notice to keeper, copy of LBC, copy of PCN and some sort of screen shots which are so small it is virtually impossible to read what it says on them.
So here's the thing - No notice to keeper was received by ourselves ever. They have omitted the fact that they sent 6 threatening letters all demanding money - copies of all here safely in folder - but no mention of them or photos of them and the parking officer(!) statement which states it can be used in evidence in Court has a different date on it to the date of the alleged offence. I'm also intrigued by the fact that they must be using an 'american' camera or technology as the dates are transposed......

A few facts that we can obviously use in WS but would be grateful for input and advice from the Regular Forum Users please ........

upstanding

The other point that Snakes Belly mentioned in earlier post (86) it looks like they pinning it on the fact that part of the wheels were on cobbled area! Not sure if i'm going mad but have I read it on forum somewhere that there is a 'formula' of how much allowance is made encroaching an area before they decide a transgression has occurred? - if it wasn't on here, I've either read it elsewhere or somebody shared that little snipet of info with me.

Snakes_Belly

Does their photograph show that your wheel had encroached onto the cobbled area?

upstanding

yes unfortunately it does!

upstanding

Still unsure SB as whether the cobbled area is 'conservation area' - mind you not much conserving being done on it - could do with a good weeding!!) or whether it indeeds comes within confines of car park - still can't figure out how VCS could state location on PCN as NI when they were units across the road ??

Umkomaas

upstanding wrote: »

So after sending SAR on 8th July - they responded today. Interesting facts : some photos, not sure why they felt the need to photograph the inside of the car? Copy of letter of Notice to keeper, copy of LBC, copy of PCN and some sort of screen shots which are so small it is virtually impossible to read what it says on them.
So here's the thing - No notice to keeper was received by ourselves ever. They have omitted the fact that they sent 6 threatening letters all demanding money - copies of all here safely in folder - but no mention of them or photos of them and the parking officer(!) statement which states it can be used in evidence in Court has a different date on it to the date of the alleged offence. I'm also intrigued by the fact that they must be using an 'american' camera or technology as the dates are transposed......

A few facts that we can obviously use in WS but would be grateful for input and advice from the Regular Forum Users please ........

Go back to them and ask for the outstanding items, especially the parking officer's report (don't let them argue it's not personally related, if it includes your vehicle's VRM, it's 'personal). List the missing items so you can check them off.

Give them 7 days to respond with the missing items, failure will result in you complaining to the ICO. Carry out that threat!

If the 'threatening letters' came from the PPC, then they should have been included. However, if they emanated from a debt recovery agent or other 3rd party, the PPC won't be responsible for sending these.

upstanding wrote: »

Not sure if i'm going mad but have I read it on forum somewhere that there is a 'formula' of how much allowance is made encroaching an area before they decide a transgression has occurred? - if it wasn't on here, I've either read it elsewhere or somebody shared that little snipet of info with me.

It wasn't on this forum.

Snakes_Belly

upstanding wrote: »

yes unfortunately it does!

It's been difficult to get your head around this because it has not been clear from day one what the transgression really was. This is the way that I see it

The driver did not park in a restricted area. They parked on the road which they were perfectly entitled to at the time. The car slightly encroached onto a restricted area in a car park that was/is leased to Excel. There was no demarcation between the restricted area and the road so no guide as to where the restricted area starts and the road finishes. The driver could not have possibly disadvantaged another driver.

There cannot be any contract so is this trespass?