Ignored from day 1

apeshifter

I was thinking of adding somewhere in that if it is usual practice for them to take instruction from a 3rd party. They stated they were acting under instruction of ZZPS on behalf of CEL. Shouldn't they take instruction from CEL. Worth bothering or leave it as is with the bold edits

Umkomaas

Stick it in, make them do as much work as possible until they realise you're too hot to handle. 

D_P_Dance

Indeed, the more work you cause them, the more it costs them.

apeshifter

First response from the notorious Jane Clarke
. Do I bother responding. Put at the bottom of my letter. Do not contact me demanding payment again unless you can provide clear evidence of the alleged  (as per 7.5.3). Also stated I was not the driver, received no photos and I was at work which can be corroborated by employer and co workers. 

apeshifter

FYI i iit the letters reference on the email i sent as subject. Its date and my email address is my firstnamelastname@gmai.com. are they just playing games?

Coupon-mad

Those few details are OK to confirm to them, as that shows you are the data subject.  That's a lot less than they used to ask for so it sounds like they've been warned by the ICO (I am guessing). 

apeshifter

Had my response from the solicitors. they have placed my account on hold while they investigate further I can guarantee they will not be able to prove that I was the driver and have statements from my employer ready for submission. would a solicitor actually take up the case without any concrete proof and statements against CEL

Ralph-y

"would a solicitor actually take up the case without any concrete proof and statements "

you have a lot to learn re the so-called solicitors in this murky world of private parking

Ralph

apeshifter

I did forget to put quotes around "solicitors". Fair point Ralph lol

Redx

I would say that as any "solicitor" takes instructions from their client, its the client that decides and informs the contractor of their decision