ops ltd - vantage point Brighton - Claim form sent

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

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.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT][/FONT]

joeythepoey

Thank you all so far. I've unfortunately had a really tricky month with some personal issues and barely had a moment to think about this, but a note on my calendar reminded me to file my defence before the end of the week.

I've been reading the Basher52 thread and Coupon-Mad's responses to try and extract something I could use - I'm also still going through the listed defences in the newbie thread.

Anyway, a few comments and questions:
1) I've had a response to the SAR from OPS; do you need me to post copies here?
My wife's defense, when she initially appealed, was that as it was a windy day, and the ticket kept blowing off the dashboard, she stuck it to the inside of the windscreen before she left; a copy of the ticket she gave them was included in the SAR.
Is the fact that she demonstrably did buy a ticket for the time she was there part of a valid defence?

2) SAR contains various pics of the car from different angles - some contain signage of the parking lot, though most of it is unreadable. However, it contains no notes from the parking attendant - is this a legal requirement?

3) SAR contains letter for rejected appeal - it states at the back that they have 'a current valid contract with the landowner or managing agent or other authorised person(s) - however, as noticed earlier in this thread, Coupon-Mad (I believe) stated that this does not entitle them to use Parking machines (" lack of up to date ANPR/PDT machine contract") - is that another possible line of defense?

For clarity, I'm writing this defence on behalf of my wife, and any documents I've submitted so far have been in her name, as if written by her, and signed by her.

Thanks for your help so far...

Redx

1) yes , correct , but more so at WS stage , mention it concisely in the defence , expand the explanation at the WS stage

2) it's an unregulated industry , there are no legal requirements , but they have to abide by the BPA CoP in force at the time ( so not the current 2020 one )

3) no landowner authority is a main defence point in all defences , including hers

4) there is no S in the word Defence

Castle

Did you ask, (in the SAR), for:-
1) A copy of the Parking attendant's notes.
2) A copy of all the Pay & Display tickets issued that day. 

joeythepoey

Castle said:

Did you ask, (in the SAR), for:-
1) A copy of the Parking attendant's notes.
2) A copy of all the Pay & Display tickets issued that day. 

I asked for the following:

Please provide all details related to the PCN, including:

- All photos taken

• all letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier
• A PDT machine record from the day of the alleged offence (09/05/2017) and payments made
• All data held and all evidence that will be relied on in the Claim issued in the County Court Business Centre (Claim no: G9KF6720), as well as a full copy of the PCN
• A list of all PCN’s you consider outstanding against myself - under law, any claim must be for all PCN’s in one claim, not several separate claims

They say there's no date available from the P&D machine as it did not record vehicle registrations at the time the PC was issued.

joeythepoey

I asked for all data and evidence held that will be relied on; I take it this would suggest that they can't now rely on attendant's notes as they didn't provide them in the SAR?

Castle

joeythepoey said:

I asked for all data and evidence held that will be relied on; I take it this would suggest that they can't now rely on attendant's notes as they didn't provide them in the SAR?

Correct...if they produce it later, they are in breach of section 173(3) of the 2018DPA and can be prosecuted in a court.

With regards to your pay & display ticket; each ticket should have an "unique" identification ticket number on it. If it does, then it will be shown on the P & D records for that day.

nosferatu1001

You are confusing a SAR - which is all your personal data - with a request for evidence they will rely upon
For example, a picture of a sign is NOT personal data, but WOULD LIKELY BE evidence they rely upon
LIkewise, P&D data for OTHER vehicles has nothing to do with a SAR. It is NOT your personal data

joeythepoey

Thanks Nosferatu - that's strange, I'm pretty sure I got the SAR template from one of the posts here - then again, I'm a newb when it comes to this stuff:)

However, if I requested it, even though technically it shouldn't be part of the SAR, shouldn't they provide it?

nosferatu1001

It doesnt matter where you got it from. If its wrong, its wrong. 
No. Because you did not give them a reason they *must* supply it
Thisi si in part  agame. Say the right words and you pass Go. Otherwise you dont. 
So in this case the right words are: show me... because it will narrow the topics under dispute, as I state you do not have authority to offer contracts / your machine failed to record / etc. This satisfies the principle of open dealing which you are bound by, and meets the overrriding objective of the CPRs whcih si that parties should engage with eachother in all efforts to avoid court. 
See the difference?