County Court Papers Receioved

Le_Kirk

To where did you submit the SAR?  Was it dataprotection@sipcarparks.co.uk?  If so they have 30 days to respond, if they do not, report them to the ICO.

redolly

I send it to info@sipcarparks.co.uk FAO of DPO but will resend to the email address you have provided.
Many thanks

redolly

Coupon-mad said:

Okey doke - now please show us your planned facts (about the car park and app) that you want to put in as points #16 and #17 in the template defence.

And make sure you change the statement of truth to the LONGER new one (gaaah, I am overdue an edit to the template defence...sorry).

Hi
I have started my planned facts for my defence which are adapted from points 17 & 18 from your template I presume this has recently been amended as you state points 16 & 17 in your comment above. Can you advise on content I can amend etc please.

17. The Defendant is the driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago.  It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention.  A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA. 
18. The pay by phone app was used to pay for parking as has been used on many other occasions, on the date of the PCN the app was faulty and paid £7.50 for parking at a different location when the actual fee should of been £2.50 an over charge of £5. The car park is used regularly by the defendant and had no issues with the app on previous occasions.

KeithP

The first few words of paragraph 17 discloses the driver's identity.

If you meant to do that then the stuff about POFA, the last sentence in that paragraph, is irrelevant.

Conversely, perhaps that declaration of the driver's identity should be removed.

You decide.

Coupon-mad

Surely the new template doesn't say that?  Did you put this because you already admitted to driving?

17. The Defendant is the driver of this vehicle 

And yep, you can tell I edited the template defence because it now has the April 2020 statement of truth.

redolly

KeithP said:

The first few words of paragraph 17 discloses the driver's identity.

If you meant to do that then the stuff about POFA, the last sentence in that paragraph, is irrelevant.

Conversely, perhaps that declaration of the driver's identity should be removed.

You decide.

I initially appealed the ticket due to the app being faulty which I presume is me admitting to be the driver, I also had an MP send a letter stating my case about the app, should I not admit to being the driver in this instance?

nosferatu1001

If the driver has been revealed, which only you know, then admitting the driver here makes sense, surely?

Coupon-mad

Yes, if you've admitted to being the driver then re-write #17 to make consistent and honest sense and remove stuff about the POFA.

redolly

Thank you for advice to date looking at point 17 I will have to delete most of it will this be enough information as they know I am the driver through my appeal.
17. The Defendant is the driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago.
Also do I need to insert the section at the end of the defence :
Approved Judgment from Southampton Court is appended to show why claims such as this are being summarily struck out
If I need to include this can you advise where I can find this please, I have had a search with no luck.
Finally when I submit my defence do I include my information from my SAR request received.
Many thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

It's right there in the same thread where you got the template defence (where else)!