Scotland Euro Car Parks Ltd Simple Procedure Claims received

Confused962

In terms of acknowledging the SAR, do I need to send the request in writing and Recorded Post so that there is a 'paper trail'?!
I understand they have 30days but haven't heard anything from PPC or their solicitor...

Le_Kirk

Just submit a SAR to the DPO of the PPC by e-mail. Take a screen shot before you send it and keep a copy in your SENT box. If you use any form of recorded or signed for and the recipient refuses delivery, they then have proof on non-delivery, the exact opposite of what you want.

Redx

Agreed , you can even add yourself to the recipient list , so you get a copy with proof of delivery , it's the modern equivalent of "signed for" (no such thing as recorded delivery or post now)

The GDPR makes it easier for you , by making them have privacy contact details

Plus if it went to a p o box , there is no signature of receipt by the company , think about it !!

Confused962

Sent email over a week ago now, just a waiting game now....

Yet to send Claim Response/Defense form, Wanted to see SAR first...

waamo

Confused962 wrote: »

Sent email over a week ago now, just a waiting game now....

Yet to send Claim Response/Defense form, Wanted to see SAR first...

Don't wait. They have 28 days to respond to a SAR. You don't have that long to submit a defence.

Confused962

There's a last date for response (more than 30days from now), hoping to have SAR, all my points and info beforehand...

Confused962

Am in final stages of submitting defence. Here's a photo of sign at car park, does the 'forbidden signage' still apply here?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/or9q52bwnnqrbjx/AirBrush_20191117231210.jpg?dl=0

KeithP

Yes, that is definitely a forbidding sign.

By stating "RESIDENTS PARKING ONLY", clearly they are not offering parking to a visitor, and you told us in post #3 above...

Car was parked in car park as a visitor...

Confused962

**UPDATE**
July 2020
Just an update from initial proceedings from 2019.
Case management hearing had been called in Dec 2019. 
It was quickly decided during this hearing, from papers filed from both parties, the Sheriff can only proceed with a Full hearing at a later date. It was scheduled for April 2020. 

Due to a World Pandemic, the case was paused, but now a Case Management hearing has been scheduled via telephone Conference call for Aug 2020. 
The stipulations of the hearing calls for the following:

• At the hearing, the Sheriff will expect both parties to be prepared to argue their case in full. Both parties should be aware that the sheriff may make a decision in their case even if they are not fully prepared to argue their case. 
• The respondent states that it is for the claimant to prove that they were driving. 
• There is no dispute that the respondent was the registered keeper at the material times. 
• The respondent is asked to clarify whether she was the driver of the vehicle at all or any of the material times
• The respondent is reminded that the claimant require to prove facts from which an inference may be drawn as to who the driver/s of the vehicle was on each occasion the vehicle was parked outwith of the marked bay.

I have been encouraged to offer a settlement to show, not as an admission of guilt but that I want to save the court's time and more importantly, to alleviate the stress this case has been causing. 
Appreciate any advice given, thank you in advance!

Coupon-mad

I see that you said this, initially:

Keeper's defence is not/unsure of driver as over 2 years ago.

If that is true (really TRUE - can't recall because the events were unremarkable days 3 years ago now?) then I hope you have filed a witness statement and evidence saying as much, attaching proof that the car was insured (or that family members were fully comp insured) such that one of several family members could have been the driver?

And you've stated (we hope) that no lawful presumption exists regarding parking on private land, that the keeper can be assumed to be the driver and no adverse inference can be drawn (Henry Greenslade's words in the POPLA Annual report 2015 about 'KEEPER LIABILITY' should be put in evidence IMHO) plus attach the transcript of Excel v Smith (Appeal - English courts) that you can get from the Parking Prankster's case law. 

Your submissions should IMHO explain that Scotland is looking to adapt the same concepts as set within the POFA, and are just awaiting the new Code of Practice that will also apply in Scotland, before they take that lea. The releavnt point here is, the direction of travel by Scotland (re parking on private land) is to adopt the same view of 'keeper liability' (or not) as operates in England.  There is no adverse inference at all and no burden upon a keeper to name a driver - quite the opposite, the POFA was designed to protect the freedoms of the registered keeper in a case where 'keeper liability' cannot apply - such as a parking place in Scotland.

I have been encouraged to offer a settlement to show, not as an admission of guilt but that I want to save the court's time and more importantly, to alleviate the stress this case has been causing. 

Encouraged by whom?  I don't know what effect an offer has (if any) under the Simple Procedure, sorry.  

Surely the person also has primacy of contract if the keeper is a resident there?