Private Parking Ticket. Ardpark.

nigsy1

Its in the small print as a collection fee for non payment, for costs incurred as a result of debt/legal recovery, then goes on about interest etc.
Any advice gratefully received 

nigsy1

They also have this sign dotted around the car park for non hotel visitors. So 2 signs. This one pay by phone, the other previously posted picture,  to pay in hotel presumably, as there is no machine to purchase tickets outside.
Is this usual? I think it may help as if is confusing.

Coupon-mad

Yes, two different contracts on offer from two different companies in the same car park is confusing and something to include in any defence facts.  Re the other sign, even if the sum is on the sign, it is still unrecoverable for all the reasons stated in the template defence that already covers it.

nigsy1

Thanks for the ongoing help. Much appreciated.

MothballsWallet

ARDpark? I think their company name is missing one or more letters - they should be called "Hard 2 Park", imo.

nigsy1

Hello All, quick update. Received my SAR back with a couple of things missing I had asked them to send 1. An 'investigation' they said they had carried out in an e-mail to me. 2. No CCTV images sent which I referenced to them as it clearly states on their signs that they use ANPR and CCTV for recording purposes.
Question- Is it worth going back to them re these 2 items ? Can I use it in my defence at Paras 2 & 3 when the time comes?

Fruitcake

They are only required to supply information they hold about you.

If the investigation did not identify you then they are not obliged to show it to you. Even if you were identified, it would take a judge to force them to give it to you, and they would be within their rights to redact anything not relating to you. If they said you weren't identified, just an investigation into payments made etcetera, then the judge would probably accept this.

If there were CCTV images of you then they would have to supply it, but they would need to know what you looked like, and you are never going to supply that information. If there were no CCTV images of you at that site (how would they know it is you?) then the question is irrelevant. They said ANPR and CCTV. If there was no CCTV of an unknown person, then they only need to supply the ANPR images of your vehicle.

Umkomaas

nigsy1 said:

Hello All, quick update. Received my SAR back with a couple of things missing I had asked them to send 1. An 'investigation' they said they had carried out in an e-mail to me. 2. No CCTV images sent which I referenced to them as it clearly states on their signs that they use ANPR and CCTV for recording purposes.
Question- Is it worth going back to them re these 2 items ? Can I use it in my defence at Paras 2 & 3 when the time comes?

1. Not clear what you are expecting re 'investigation'?

2. What are you hoping to obtain from CCTV footage?

You can add to your defence, but unless it's clear what your objectives are in terms of the outcomes, the fact that they have not produced their 'investigation', or any 'CCTV footage', it's not likely to count for much. 

Castle

If the CCTV covered the car park and/or its entrance/exits, then the OP's vehicle should be identifiable, which would make it personal data.

Umkomaas

Castle said:

If the CCTV covered the car park and/or its entrance/exits, then the OP's vehicle should be identifiable, which would make it personal data.

I understand, but the OP doesn't say what they want it for. At face value it appears to be an attempt at a 'gotcha' because the signage said that ANPR and CCTV and as they can't provide it, they mustn't have it, ergo charge not legit. 

Even if CCTV is in place, it's doubtful whether the PPC will still have footage from the time of the parking event, some weeks/months previously (I'm not sure how old the PCN is) - many systems auto-purge within a very short timescale.