I got "Notice of Transfer of Proceedings" - Parkingeye

WhiteGlove

Thanks Redx,

I will send a SAR to their DPO (ico), I have that clear now. However, the letter to ParkingEye is advised on the "Small Claim?" post not to email it to ParkingEye but to use their web form instead. Therefore there is not email sent copy proof for that? I could surely make a copy for myself but would be that admited as a proof of sending the SAR letter? Not sure if I am explaining properly.


At the bottom of the LegalBeagles Subject Access Request letter template there is a link to "Rob's List of Templates" were on point 3. can be found 2 more long SAR letter templates and at least in the long one it mentions foto and video aswell. I think I have read that in the GDPR itself as well. It is about everything they have about somebody.


I'm really surprised that you told me I still could send a defence? I will try it. Thank you and goodnight

KeithP

WhiteGlove wrote: »

Thanks Redx,

At the bottom of the LegalBeagles Subject Access Request letter template there is a link to "Rob's List of Templates" were on point 3. can be found 2 more long SAR letter templates and at least in the long one it mentions foto and video aswell. I think I have read that in the GDPR itself as well. It is about everything they have about somebody.

Absolutely right. A SAR is "about everything they have about somebody".

Ask for video if you wish. They don't have any.

waamo

WhiteGlove wrote: »

Yes I could, but that could potentially identify me if there is somebody from ParkingEye reading, don't you think? I'm not sure what I would loose at this point though...

It's gone way past that. They've already seen it. Post it up

Le_Kirk

WhiteGlove wrote: »

I will send a SAR to their DPO (ico), I have that clear now.

The DPO = Data Protection Officer and is the role that should provide all the data held on you and your car and the alleged parking infringement.

The ICO = Information Commissioner's Office and is the Government office that regulates the flow and storage of data and the office to whom you complain if the PPC do not send your data within 30 days of your request.

Redx

WhiteGlove wrote: »

Thank you Redx. My English is far away from being perfect yet...


I wanted to ask something about a SAR letter to Parkingeye:

I was reading Bargepole's post and "Small Claim" post. It is adviced to send a SAR letter to ParkingEye using the form on their Privacy Policy on their website and also to the Data Protection Officer (DPO). My question are actually 2 questions:

1- If I do that how can I have a copy or a proof of that?
2- I'm not sure if Parkingeye's Data Protection Officer (DPO) is the Information Commissioner’s Office they mention on their web. Is it? English is not my mother language and I am strugling with so many different names...

Their privacy page has an online form , so you could take a screenshot just before submission , then another screenshot just after confirmation of submission

The alternative is post a letter at the post office and ask the counter staff for a free certificate of posting , so not using the signed for service , just proof of posting

Do both if you wish , but attach a copy of the claim form plus a copy of the V5C log book in both cases if possible , the ICO is not involved at this stage , only Parking Eye and their DPO section

They will only supply your own data , they will refuse to supply anything else , even if you ask

Their evidence will be supplied a couple of weeks before the court hearing

WhiteGlove

Thank you guys for your help.
After a 15 hours work journey I got finally home and I am now finishing my SAR letter draft that I will send probably both by normal post and using the form at the bottom of their Privacy Policy. They say "Your query will be submitted directly to our Privacy Team". I have to think that "the Privacy Team" is their DPO because I can't find the Data Protection Officer (DPO) words in their privacy policy.

In the newbies thread it is advised also to send an email to the litigation team what is supposed to be this: enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk. I did days ago some research with google and duckduckgo and I believe I only found that email on MSE forums so I am not sure if that email works yet.


Once the SAR is sent I will start with my defence? I know you probably think I shoud do that straight away but I can't do that now. If it's lost, it's lost.

Sorry Waamo I am still shy about posting my first "defence", also because I am a bit ashamed about it. However I wonder why you're still interested in it if what I did was just, like Redx said, actually only my story. Reading again some parts of Bargelope's post "Court Claim Procedure (updated October 2016)" my "defence" was completely rubish.

waamo

I'm interested in it to see if anything can be rescued from it. Sometimes things can be salvaged at the witness statement stage. Unfortunately it looks like we may struggle to help with that as we can't see the defence.

WhiteGlove

This was my defence made on the "Admision (Specified amount)" form:

The claimant says the driver breached some terms and conditions
when going into the Lee Valley Hockey and Tennis Centre car park
due to by entering the car park the driver had accepted a contract
but did not pay the amount stated on several signage around the
car park.
I would like to say that there is no signage at the entrance of
the alleged car park advertising the claimant is trying to run a business there. There is not any ticket machine either in the area
that could have alert the driver of the need to pay for the usage
of the car park. Apparently there is 1 ticket machine close to the
entrance to the centre, not the the car park, that can not be seen
from most of the car park. On the alleged day the car park was
almost completely empty and only few cars could be seen far away
close to the entrance of the centre. On those circumstances the
driver, that had not notice any especial signage at the entrance
of the car park and neither any ticket machine around, couldn't
imagine was going to disturb anybody with the usage of the car
park, and thought that if anybody requested him to leave the car park, he would. The driver did not leave the car unattended in any
moment as his intention was not to park the car there, but just to
make a stop for, amongst other things, to consult his cell phone.
When the driver was about to leave noticed the signage on some
lampposts but could not imagine the kind of abusive business
ParkingEye Ltd was trying to run and thought that, providing the
car park was almost completely empty and could not have stopped
another driver genuinely willing to park and pay a fee, was fine
to leave.
I genuinely think that ParkingEye Ltd should alert of their
business at the entrance of the car park but, because England is
not my home country and I may not be aware of some rules and
because my car certainly did use the alleged car park and could
have contributed to the wear and tear of the pavement, I
considered sending ParkingEye a postal order for £5 for the
usage and any interest that could have been incurred.


Goodnight

Coupon-mad

"Admission (Specified amount)"

Oh no, you admitted part of the claim? Whaaat?

waamo

Whilst being a bit light on legal points that isn't a hopeless defence. Poor signage is often effective. You cannot be held to a contract you can't read.