PCN Received - Gladstone chasing up - SAR Now Received with attachments.

Umkomaas

Should I ask them for grace period and time of entry proof?

They are only obliged to send information they hold about your personal data. Grace periods and time of entry proof do not fall under GDPR. They will need to provide that information in due course as part of their Witness Statement should they press on with a court claim. 

colabootsgm

Umkomaas said:

Should I ask them for grace period and time of entry proof?

They are only obliged to send information they hold about your personal data. Grace periods and time of entry proof do not fall under GDPR. They will need to provide that information in due course as part of their Witness Statement should they press on with a court claim. 

I see, is it worth asking for further photos to show the Passenger side of the window?

beamerguy

They also mention about that £160 overdue charge.

Write to them saying you do now owe £160.  What is the £60 for ?   Whether they reply or not does not matter, you have tried to establish the reliability of their claim.  Ready to show a judge

Fruitcake

beamerguy said:

They also mention about that £160 overdue charge.

Write to them saying you do now owe £160.  What is the £60 for ?   Whether they reply or not does not matter, you have tried to establish the reliability of their claim.  Ready to show a judge

I'm sure you mean, not owe.

Coupon-mad

colabootsgm said:

UPDATE 22/06/20:
I've now got a Subject Access Request from Local Parking Security for allegedly not displaying a parking ticket on a pub car park. (Now I know what they are referring to)

It was such a long time ago due to them sending to my old address, I can't remember the specifics. There are no time of entry stamps and grace periods detailed.

The car park in question now appears to be run by Euro Car Parks. I've attached the documents sent to me with some specifics edited out.

Should I ask them for grace period and time of entry proof?
On the photo evidence, I cannot see the other half of the passenger window, they may have missed it.
--------------------------------------

This wording is odd, on a windscreen ticket!  How could a driver have paid £85 and this WAS the parking charge notice!  Never mind, it's just a minor observation:

 A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE OF £85.00 HAS NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL AND IS DUE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE OF ISSUE

More importantly, they haven't shown that photos were taken of all the windows, so yes, email back and say:

- where are the missing photos taken at all angles through all windows?
- where is their evidence that no P&D ticket was displayed, absent full photos through the car windows?
- where is their evidence of who was driving, absent compliance with the POFA (NTD andNTK both defective and the latter was never served anyway, due to an old address being used);
- why does the supposed contractual sign twice impersonate authority, by describing the consequences of breach as giving rise to an 'Excess Charge' which has a statutory meaning (impersonating authority of statutory enforcement being against the 2016 Code of Practice)?

Finish by encouraging them to cancel because the claim has no merit and no chance of success.

colabootsgm

Coupon-mad said:

- where are the missing photos taken at all angles through all windows?
- where is their evidence that no P&D ticket was displayed, absent full photos through the car windows?
- where is their evidence of who was driving, absent compliance with the POFA (NTD andNTK both defective and the latter was never served anyway, due to an old address being used);
- why does the supposed contractual sign twice impersonate authority, by describing the consequences of breach as giving rise to an 'Excess Charge' which has a statutory meaning (impersonating authority of statutory enforcement being against the 2016 Code of Practice)?

Finish by encouraging them to cancel because the claim has no merit and no chance of success.

So far so good, I've not heard anything since 23/06 after requesting additional photos and dodgy sign.

beamerguy

Who knows if they will continue.  The simple fact is, that after a reality check into Gladstones it turns out they are as daft as a brush and as they have added a fake £60 we will make that a bog brush ?

colabootsgm

OK, they seem determined.
This is the latest from Gladstones. They have just sent what they did originally. Still not showing the missing image angles of my car.

They have not mentioned about the sign impersonating authority 'Excess charge'.

I've not mentioned about the £160 excess charge. I might need save that for any future date right?

Shall I just repeat these points again to them?

Please find attached documents we hold in relation to the parking charge. The images provided are the only images taken at the time. The images taken are time stamped, which we believe is sufficient enough.

The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy our client's legitimate interest. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015 it was held that an £85.00 charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of £100 and our client's charges are within this level.

The decision of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the charges are not penal nor do they have to be reflective of the parking operator's loss.

We trust we have explained our Client’s position in relation to why the debt is outstanding and in view of the evidence itself, it is our Client's position that the sum of £110.00 remains outstanding within 14 days from the date of this correspondence. In the event payment is not made within this time-frame our Client may elect to issue legal proceedings without further notice.

Umkomaas

Still not showing the missing image angles of my car.

I haven't read back through the whole thread, but how do you know there are missing image angles?  But if they are saying .....

The images provided are the only images taken at the time.

...... at least they can't ambush you with anything else should it get to court. 

colabootsgm

Umkomaas said:

Still not showing the missing image angles of my car.

I haven't read back through the whole thread, but how do you know there are missing image angles?  But if they are saying .....

The images provided are the only images taken at the time.

...... at least they can't ambush you with anything else should it get to court. 

The images are in the first post. Only shows rear of my car and drivers side of the front window.
How do I know ia parking ticket wasn't in the passenger side of the front window. No photos of other windows.