UPDATE: Email received post 6 months. Letter received from SABA Parking

Umkomaas

Plus its making me so angry im struggling to type cohesively.

Or coherently? 😊

del1rious

Umkomaas said:

Plus its making me so angry im struggling to type cohesively.

Or coherently? 😊

Case in point haha

del1rious

Ok- two updates!!
Most excitingly, I received a letter from QDR Solicitors today advising me that my "account" with them has been closed and referred back to ZZPS - a potential win?

Another brilliant email from SABA as well - "There is nothing preventing Saba from enforcing recovery of the penalty through the civil courts. It is correct that the car park is governed by Railway Byelaws. An option to enforce the strict liability offence of breaching the Byelaws is to seek a fine of up to level 3 on the standard scale via a private prosecution through the Magistrates Court.

An alternative route open to Saba when working with Railway Byelaws is to seek enforcement of the penalty notice of £100 through the county courts. That is an option that remains open in this instance.

 

I would recommend you get further legal advice if you are still unsure of the process."

nosferatu1001

Or theyll pass along to the next piece of scum.
Respond back
State you are completely aware of the process, and it is you that is in error. You cannot claim a criminal offence can be remedied as a civil contract dispute. You cannot offer a contract to permit a criminal act, which is what you alleged for 6 months, and so your claim is laughable and misleading. 
Erase my data, within 14 days, and confirmed via email / letter, else I will file a claim against you with no further notice. This wil lbe for:
- breach of the DPA2018; damages according to Vidal-Hall v Google (2015) 
- harassment and false representation, in breach in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
and wil be for a sum of no less than £500. 
I hope for no further communication from you other than hearing you have erased my data, as you have wasted enough of my time, but I do expect that some more drivel written by the office intern will wing its way to me. 
If you are still confused about your companies potentially criminal activity under the Fraud Act 2006, I suggest you seek legal advice.

Castle

del1rious said:

Ok- two updates!!
Most excitingly, I received a letter from QDR Solicitors today advising me that my "account" with them has been closed and referred back to ZZPS - a potential win?

Another brilliant email from SABA as well - "There is nothing preventing Saba from enforcing recovery of the penalty through the civil courts. It is correct that the car park is governed by Railway Byelaws. An option to enforce the strict liability offence of breaching the Byelaws is to seek a fine of up to level 3 on the standard scale via a private prosecution through the Magistrates Court.

An alternative route open to Saba when working with Railway Byelaws is to seek enforcement of the penalty notice of £100 through the county courts. That is an option that remains open in this instance.

 

I would recommend you get further legal advice if you are still unsure of the process."

I'm pretty certain that any private prosecution must also be commenced within 6 months as well.

nosferatu1001

Yep, it would have to be. Same offence so same limitation. 

Fruitcake

You are banging your head against a brick wall. The scammers will tell you all sorts of half truths and lies in order to scare people into paying, or trying to justify their scam.
They have agreed that byelaws apply so they are out of time to pursue this as a penalty because the Magistrate's Act says so, the keeper cannot be held liable for a byelaws breach because railway byelaws say so, and since it is not relevant land they cannot pursue the keeper for a breach of contract because the PoFA does not allow it.

They cannot therefore have a legitimate reason to hold or process the keeper's details.

I would let the ICO know what is happening and see what they say.

Please come back to this forum in the next week or two when the new mandatory government parking CoP will be available for public consultation. We need as many people as possible to read and comment on it before it becomes law.

del1rious

Thank you all. I have already made a complaint with the ICO about the personal data issue so I will report back on that.

I asked them to clarify what exactly the charge was for - to avoid criminal prosecution (fact) or as some civil contract dispute as with other private car parks (which they are now trying to indicate)

response I received was - "the £100 was the parking charge fee" 

so they really have no clue or are being intentionally obtuse, which we already all knew anyway!

100% will be back for that!!

Fruitcake

I suspect they are being deliberately obtuse and evasive.

It depends on how much of your own time you want to waste on this. If you keep poking them, at some point they are likely to say that they will not enter into any further discussion.

There are loads more relevant questions you could ask if you wanted to, but don't expect to get anything useful out of it.

Castle

del1rious said:

Thank you all. I have already made a complaint with the ICO about the personal data issue so I will report back on that.

I asked them to clarify what exactly the charge was for - to avoid criminal prosecution (fact) or as some civil contract dispute as with other private car parks (which they are now trying to indicate)

response I received was - "the £100 was the parking charge fee" 

so they really have no clue or are being intentionally obtuse, which we already all knew anyway!

100% will be back for that!!

And have you contacted DVLA to find out what exactly SABA put on their request for your details?