Residential PCN help please - ***I WON***

Fruitcake

amateurgirl wrote: »

Hello all.
Following up on my post #30 above, I sent off a SAR application. I've received the following response:

"We will process your request within one month from the date you verify your identity. If we consider the request to be complicated, we can extend the time for responding to your request by a further two months (i.e. three months in total). If an extension is needed, we will let you know within one month from the date that you verify your data. You may also review XXXX privacy policy online by visiting https://www.xxxx.com/Privacy-Policy or calling xxxxx.
Please note that because we require additional information from you, we are required to inform you of the following:
* The reasons why we have requested additional information from you (please see above);
* Your right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office; and
* Your ability to seek to enforce your right of rectification through a judicial remedy"

I think it's unhelpful to the point of being obstructive (no surprise there I suppose). They seem to be asking for ID verification but aren't doing so specifically. They say they have asked for additional information from me but I've received no request for additional info. I've asked what additional info they require but they haven't responded.

Please could you advise me on this response and what my next steps should be?

Thanks all, as ever.

The ICO states that the clock starts from when they receive the SAR, even if they don't get proof of ID until later. It would be unreasonable for you to wait until day 30 before sending ID, but if you send it today, they must still respond within one month of receiving your original request which is assumed to be two working days after posting, or the actual date if sent electronically.
They must not wait for proof before starting the clock. You should tell them this, and complain to the ICO if they miss the original one month deadline from the original date of receipt by them.

The only proof of ID they need is a copy of the VRN, or something with your name and address on it such as a redacted utility bill.
They are not allowed to ask for photo ID as the ICO has stated this is unreasonable because they have nothing to compare it to.

amateurgirl

Hello all
please would you cast your eyes over my WS below and let me know what you think? Many thanks.

In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
UK Parking Control Ltd (Claimant)
and
XXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am XXXXX of xxxx the Defendant in this matter and I will say as follows:

2. The facts in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief

3. I deny every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim.

4. I am the leasehold owner-occupier of a flat in a residential block on a private housing development. My address is xxxxx and I have lived there since 2001 when the block was built.

5. Under my Lease I have a demised and allocated parking space giving me “The right to exclusive use of the Parking Space for the purpose of parking a private motor vehicle not exceeding three tonnes gross laden weight”. The location of the Parking Space is marked on the Parking Plan attached to the Lease. It is therefore evident that I have purchased the Parking Space along with the flat. As such I have a right to park in that location at all times. A copy of my Lease and parking plan are attached (exhibit A).

6. In 2012 the Management Company for the Development engaged UKPC to manage parking on the Development. There had been no consultation with me, or any other resident, about this proposal and no communication with me or, any other resident, prior to the scheme’s implementation. It was only after the Claimant had commenced operating on the Development that I, and other residents, received a letter from the Management Company stating that they had engaged UKPC to ‘enforce’ parking on the Development and enclosing UKPC-branded parking permits (exhibit .

7. There is no requirement or Development Regulation anywhere in my lease for the display of a Parking Permit of any kind, and no reference to the Management Company having any involvement at all in the operation or use of the Parking Space.

8. As in my defence, I argue the following:
• that the scheme introduced by the Management Company, and operated by the Claimant, constitutes a variation of the terms of the Lease. No such variation has ever been sought by the Management Company or agreed by me. In the cases of Link Parking v Parkinson 2016 C7GF50J7 (exhibit C) and Pace Recovery v Mr N 2016 C7GF51J1 (exhibit D) the Judges ruled that, unless the Lease has been varied, a resident’s Lease takes precedence over any arrangement between the Management Company and a third-parking Parking Management Company;
• that, in the absence of a variation to the Lease, the Lease has primacy of contract over any subsequent contract the Management Company has entered into with UKPC. In the case of Jopson v Homeguard 2016 BNGF0A9E the Judge ruled that unless the Lease has been varied a resident’s Lease takes precedence over any arrangement between the Management Company and a third-parking Parking Management Company (exhibit E).
• that the Claimant has no authority over the Leaseholder’s property, and that the Claimant has no authority to bring a claim. The Claimant does not own the land on which the vehicle was parked, nor do they have any interest in the land. Therefore, the Claimant lacks the capacity to offer parking. In the case of UKPC v Mr Aziz 2017 C2HW01A6 the Judge ruled that UKPC had no authority to override the Lease.
9. However, at the time I had no knowledge of any of this and so, in good faith, I attached the permit to my windscreen. Nonetheless, in the ensuing years my vehicle has been issued with PCN’s despite being parked in my own demised parking space on every occasion.

PCN dated xx S 2014
10. When this PCN was issued I was away on holiday, and during this time the permit had peeled off the windscreen. The permit’s adhesive is not strong enough to bond them securely to the windscreen and they soon begin to peel off, needing to be periodically re-stuck to the screen. When the permit peeled off, it left behind its imprint on the screen, and this is clearly visible in the photos taken by the UKPC Operative (exhibit C). I appealed the PCN via the Claimant’s online appeal process, explaining that the PCN had been issued against my own vehicle in my own parking space and requesting a replacement permit (exhibit D). UKPC did not respond until xxxx November and rejected my appeal.

10.1 Although the permits are UKPC branded, and are therefore clearly supplied by UKPC, their response states that “…..to receive a new permit you need to contact either your property management agency or your landlord” (exhibit E). I therefore emailed the Management Company (then called xxx but now called yyyy) to request a new permit.

10.2 As an interim measure, and in a bid to avoid receiving further PCN’s, I stuck a piece of white paper behind the imprint of the peeled-off permit on the windscreen to highlight it, hoping that the UKPC Operative would see it, realise that if the vehicle had not had a permit there would have been no imprint on the windscreen, and not issue a PCN (exhibit F).

11. Despite reminders, the replacement permit was not despatched until 14th J. 2015. Clearly I could not display a permit when neither the Claimant, nor its contractual partner the Management Company, had provided me with one. And yet the Claimant has proceeded to take Court action knowing that I did not have a permit to display.

11.1 In correspondence with me dated xxxx the Claimant states that they have no record of my needing a new permit. However, the Claimant’s response to my online appeal is evidence of their having just such a record. I have since provided the Claimant with copies of my email chain with the Management Company, concerning a replacement permit (exhibit G).

PCN dated xx J. 2015
12. This PCN was issued despite the paper-highlighted imprint of the old permit being clearly visible, as can be seen in the photos the Operative took (exhibit H). Indeed, he has entered into his device the words “The vehicle has no permit or photocopy permit. What you see in the photos is white paper stuck behind the area where the ink from the permit transferred onto the windscreen” (exhibit I). The Operative clearly recognised therefore that there had been a permit, and that it had left its imprint on the screen, so it is difficult to understand why the PCN was issued. Interestingly he comments that “the vehicle has no permit or photocopy permit” as if a photocopy permit would have been acceptable; whereas in fact this is supposed to be a contravention of UKPC’s contract terms.

12.1 The new permit arrived between the 1xth and 1xth J 2015. I had been away for a few days and arrived home in the late afternoon of the 1xth, to find it had been delivered. My records show that I emailed the Management Company at 4.30pm that day to confirm its arrival (exhibit J). However, when I went out to place it in my car, I found that another PCN had been issued that day and just a few hours earlier.

PCN dated xxthJ 2015
13. This PCN was issued despite the paper-highlighted imprint of the old permit being clearly visible, as can be seen in the photos the Operative took (exhibit I). Indeed, he has input an identical note into his device i.e., “The vehicle has no permit or photocopy permit. What you see in the photos is white paper stuck behind the area where the ink from the permit transferred onto the windscreen” which confirms that the paper-highlighted imprint was still clearly visible (exhibit J). The situation is therefore exactly the same as in point 12 above. The timing was unfortunate, but clearly I could not have displayed the permit any sooner because I had not actually received it. Any reasonable procedure would allow time for new permits to be received, particularly over the Christmas and New Year period, but clearly such reasonableness conflicts with UKPC’s money exhorting business model. Again they have proceeded to Court in full knowledge of the timing.

PCN dated xx O 2016
14. This PCN was issued despite the new permit being on display. The reason given for issuing this PCN was that the permit was, quote, a “non-valid photocopy”. In fact all the evidence is to the contrary in that, on the numerous occasions since J 2015 that the Claimant’s Operatives will have visited the site, no further PCN’s had been issued, thus implying that the Operatives had recognised a valid permit on display. The photos the Operative took of the permit look the same as the recent photo I took of the same permit (allowing for it having faded over time) (exhibit K). I am tempted to ask whether, in issuing this PCN, the Operative had some sort of target to achieve. Furthermore, and as visible in the photos, the Operative pushed the PCN under the wiper blade causing damage costing £30 to repair.

15. Following the issue of this last PCN in 2016, I received no further correspondence relating to it, and I assumed that this was because UKPC realised a mistake had been made in issuing it. Then in 2018 I received a claim letter relating to all the above PCN’s, including the 2016 one, and demanding payment of £640 (exhibit M). I have since discovered that this ‘long silence followed by a court claim’ approach is a tactic typically employed by Parking Management Companies as part of an arsenal of frightening and intimidating behaviours no doubt designed to exhort from their hapless victims (for such they are) payment of their so-called ‘fines’.

16. Since the time of the first PCN being issued, I have received various threatening and intimidating letters from Zenith Collections, Debt Recovery Plus and SCS Law demanding money and threatening legal action against me (exhibit N). I have engaged in copious correspondence with the Claimant during this time, clearly outlining my case (exhibit O), but their business model clearly does not allow for successful counter-claims and their threatening letters have continued. I have found this aggressive behaviour in pursuit of monies which I do not owe, and to which UKPC is not entitled, extremely stressful, worrying and vexatious. I was no more liable then than I am now but this unwarranted harassment and baseless litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress. In addition, I consider it a misuse of my data and a contravention of Data Protection legislation.

17. My data was supplied by the DVLA for the purpose of determining the keeper of my vehicle, and not for storing for years with the purpose of later using it to exhort money from me through threats, intimidation and scaremongering.

18. The Claimant has failed to respond appropriately to my Subject Access Request, made on xxth A 2019 by email and hard copy letter, requesting any data they hold about me to which I am entitled under Data Protection legislation and which allows the Claimant to issue claims on the landowner’s behalf (exhibit P). Their responses have been obstructive and apparently designed to frustrate my rights (exhibit Q).

19. I am at a serious disadvantage in this case. It involves a Claimant who is a serial litigant with unlimited access to legal representation against a Defendant with no legal knowledge or experience of court process.

The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs (exhibit N) of dealing with this claim, and attending the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
Signature of Defendant:

Name: XXXXX

Cili

I just found this thread while researching a defence for mine. I hope I am not too late. Have you also looked at Jopson vs Homeguard where the agreement with the scammers are disregarded due to a lease.

amateurgirl

Thanks for your post Cili. Yes, I know about this case, it's very well known on the forum. If you need help please start your own thread, you will get lots of help.

amateurgirl

Hello LeKeith, The Deep, Nosferatu10 and other Forum Friends - please let me know what you think of my WS above.
Thanks!

Le_Kirk

Your WS is a narrative of what happened at the time(s) of the issue of the PCNs and, as you know that story, you should be able to check its accuracy. It is in support of your defence therefore, providing it supports your defence and you add the evidence, which you seem to have done, I would suggest it is OK. I assume you can check it yourself for typos and grammar.

BTW you seem to have co-joined Le_Kirk and KeithP!

1505grandad

Should the Abuse of Process paras (touched on in post #23 - Defence para 5.2) be included in full to include the latest Court successes?

amateurgirl

Thanks for your post 1505grandad. Can you point me in the direction of some successes please and I'll include them.
Thanks.

Le_Kirk

If you use the Forum Search function (it's a powerful tool) you will find this link - oh too late, I've done it for you. Post # 14 of that thread is the best place to start. If you add any text from that post by Coupon-mad MAKE SURE you number EVERY paragraph

Redx

use the forum search box and the words to a well known hit by QUEEN

AOBTD

those are the successful and recent court cases on here