iParkSmart PCN - Court Claim Form Received

Guy1195

KeithP said:

Why did you do that?

Apologies! I just remember reading your original post as "there is nothing to be gained by delaying it."  and filling it out haha. 

Turns out IParkSmart are a part of the IPC Approved Operator Scheme, but the PCN states that "payment is now due to Parking And Security Solutions LTD" These are a member of the BPA but not a member of the IPC..

Also after having speaking with DVLA, there was no request to get my information from them back in 2019. So it appears they have used my details from the appeal form which I never got a reply to, but clearly it has been read/used for my details.

Guy1195

In order to get a SAR, IPS are asking for the following information which I think is excessive.

Before we can disclose any information in relation to the data we hold we need the following information in the form of a signed letter scanned and emailed along with photographic ID which will confirm the applicant and the signature.

Under data protection laws we have to ensure that only the correct person receives the data.

You must confirm the vehicle registration, the parking charge reference number and confirm if you were the driver or the registered keeper. If you were not the driver then please also complete the attached document and again complete, sign and return via email.

Once we have the information and have carried out our due diligence checks we will respond within the required timeframe.

And the PDF they sent is just comical

Coupon-mad

Wow, this reasoning to withhold a SAR from the rk is ludicrously stupid and must be reported to the ICO, along with the fact they are wanting excessive ID including a document with a photograph and signature (errrrm...no)!

Or PART B I reserve my right to withhold the driver details for which a parking charge reference number (PCN Number)……………………..…………………………………………….. has been issued.

As I have not obtained the permission of the driver I understand that I relinquish any responsibility of I Park Services Limited in releasing the data held against the vehicle registration identified above under the Data Protection Act 2018 (GDPR) and I accept full responsibility should the driver make a claim of breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 (GDPR)

Basically they are saying that a VRM is only the personal data of a driver, not the data of a rk.  They have that ars3 about face!

Le_Kirk

Looks like a try on (never mind the excessive ID requirements) to get the RK to divulge the driver.  Shame!

Guy1195

That's what I thought also! Quite comical! 

Guy1195

Struggling with the Defence statement, Is the Defence statement purely about the day in question, or do I include anything regarding the PCN process such as ignored appeals/misuse of data? Or is this used at a later date?
What I have so far:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time.

3.  At no time on the date in question did the Defendant see any signage which outlined a contractually binding agreement, within or near the car park, from the entrance to the bay the Defendant was parked in. The Defendant saw no lighting installed on the site to aid with navigation during dark hours and/or for viewing signage, if it was present at all. The site in question relies on nearby ambient lighting from Offices/Street lights which is not sufficient. The Defendant also states that massively overgrown trees were not properly maintained and thus potentially leading to signage obscured and not seen, if it existed at all. Signage that did exist and was legible had no information relating to a binding contract or potential fees for parking within the site. 

Cheers

Were_Doomed

Are they pursuing you as an admitted driver? If they don't know yet who the driver is then you're giving away one of your trump cards ... unless you have other good defence angles. (Signage is one such angle, but having the POFA defence is something enshrined in Law).

Guy1195

I'm just going off of what is within the Defence template, it says the following:

^^^ CHANGE THE ABOVE IF NOT TRUE, OBVIOUSLY! ^^^ 
(Also, continue here in your words, by either also admitting to being the driver, or hirer/lessee, if you were.   Alternatively, deny being the driver in #2, but ONLY IF TRUE.  If you DON'T KNOW, say so).

Have I misread this? 

Le_Kirk

Ask yourself a question - if the judge asks you in court (or at a telephone hearing) "were you driving?"  What are you going to say?  That's why the Template Defence says only if true!  A defence is a series of succinct, to the point legal and technical arguments.  The time for all the other "story of what happened on the day and subsequently, including misuse of data" is for the Witness Statement stage.

Coupon-mad

Usually, it's best to defend as driver, if you were.  It is a more honest stance and easier for the person at the hearing (or by phone) to be able to talk freely as a witness about how crap the signs were, etc.  There are exceptions - that would include cases where the PPC has clearly not complied with the POFA 2012 and where the person may not have a strong defence on other points.