UKPCM Gladstones PCN

Smeg_Head

Hi
Last year someone driving my wife's car parked in a place not deemed to be a valid space in a UKPCM car park. She (as the keeper) received a PCN and she wrote back saying she disputed it, without giving details of who was actually driving the car at the time (we hadn't read this forum at the time but hadn't disclosed that information, but also it didn't specify she was writing as the keeper).
We've tried to follow exactly as the forum suggests, and wrote a SAR to UKPCM, and a letter to Gladstones asking for a restriction of data processing.
We've heard nothing back from UKPCM but from Gladstones we had a letter which stated:
"Unfortunately we cannot process your request because we can demonstrate compelling
legitimate grounds for the processing of your data which override the interests, rights and
freedoms of you as an individual. That legitimate interest being that we are acting on behalf
of our client for the recovery of monies relating to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice."
Am I right thinking this is incorrect? They don't know who was driving the vehicle at the time, and until they do they can't claim to have legitimate grounds for withholding anything?

KeithP

They don't need to know who was driving in order to sue the keeper.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allows them to hold the keeper liable for the driver's transgressions provided that they conform to the specific details within that Act.

Have a read of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to better understand the game you are now playing.

Coupon-mad

We've heard nothing back from UKPCM but from Gladstones we had a letter which stated:
"Unfortunately we cannot process your request because we can demonstrate compelling
legitimate grounds for the processing of your data which override the interests, rights and
freedoms of you as an individual. That legitimate interest being that we are acting on behalf
of our client for the recovery of monies relating to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice."

Am I right thinking this is incorrect?

...they can't claim to have legitimate grounds for withholding anything?

They are not. They are saying that they 'cannot' put the case on hold and stop processing your data while the SAR is undertaken by their client.

They are just refusing the 'on hold' request. Read it again. They are talking about data processing.

So get round that and get it put on hold for 30 days, by emailing Gs and saying she (the Defendant) denies any debt but is seeking debt advice.

Magic words, that get 30 days silence and a slower claim form.

But are you the more robust one and were driving?

Why not see if your wife wants to give your name and address as driver now, too, so that any claim comes yo YOU to defend? Who can cope better at a hearing? Who, of the two of you, is robust enough to see this through, no risk and no panic, and see them off at your local court?

If that is you then I suggest she gives your NAME AND ADDRESS as driver right now, in writing/email. ONLY if you were the driver, of course, no lies.

The_Deep

Am I right thinking this is incorrect?

Why not ask their regulatory body?

https://www.sra.org.uk/

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies

beamerguy

Smeg_Head wrote: »

"Unfortunately we cannot process your request because we can demonstrate compelling
legitimate grounds for the processing of your data which override the interests, rights and
freedoms of you as an individual. That legitimate interest being that we are acting on behalf
of our client for the recovery of monies relating to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice."
Am I right thinking this is incorrect? They don't know who was driving the vehicle at the time, and until they do they can't claim to have legitimate grounds for withholding anything?

Yes, they are acting on behalf of one of their own Gladstones/IPC scammers being UKPCM

No big deal but have you received a letter before claim from them or are they just sending pointless letters

And, no, they have no idea who the driver is and you are not obliged to tell them

Smeg_Head

Thank you all


Keith, I have read the newbies a few times, but didn't see this in there, I wasn't expecting it.


Coupon_Mad, they did actually give the 30 days, I was just misunderstanding the letter; and I wasn't the driver, but I don't wish to say who was. :-)



And The Deep, I will write, I just wanted to see where it went first.

Smeg_Head

Beemerguy, she has had the LBC, that's what prompted the SAR and request

Smeg_Head

Hi, it’s now getting very close to the 30 days since we requested the SAR from UKPCM and we’ve not had anything back from them? We emailed it, how would we expect a reply to be received?

beamerguy

Smeg_Head wrote: »

Hi, it’s now getting very close to the 30 days since we requested the SAR from UKPCM and we’ve not had anything back from them? We emailed it, how would we expect a reply to be received?

You could remind them of their legal obligation to reply within 30 days or they will be reported.
You need to understand that these companies are not blessed with any form of intelligence

Have you responded to the letter before claim ?

Smeg_Head

We sent the SAR and requested the 30 day period, nothing else

beamerguy

Smeg_Head wrote: »

We sent the SAR and requested the 30 day period, nothing else

When is the LBC dated as you have 30 days to reply to that