POFA '12 not valid?

Lockable

Going over the timeline of events for my case dating back 6 years, I've discovered that my initial response letter to the first letter from BW Legal ( something they deny ever seeing ) has come back to me in an SAR request from CST Law & stamped as having been seen shortly after it was posted.
Would this be a data protection breach & is that a point worth leaning on in my WS?

Old_Slobberchops

Lockable said:

I'm trying to understand how to rebut the claim of contract and to understand why Beavis wouldn't apply here if anyone can help me arrange it into a brief way for my WS. These are excerpts from the claim and a version of the signage. 

That looks like the Claimant's witness statement. Have you not filed yours yet? Beavis applied to a retail parking site where parking management sought to limit parking in a way that maximises the turnover of customers, for the benefit of retailers. This is residential parking and quite different. There is no "turnover" of customers, quite the contrary. Therefore the case is distinguished.

FrankCannon

The Beavis sign above makes an offer to park, whereas the sign you posted does not - it is a forbidding sign.

Le_Kirk

Beavis was a case concerning a time limited free car park where Barry Beavis overstayed!

D_P_Dance

PE's signs are sometimes a cause for concern, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

KeithP

D_P_Dance said:

PE's signs are sometimes a cause for concern, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

But this thread is not about ParkingEye.

Lockable

I'm posting my first pass at a witness statement. I know it's probably not formatted correctly & some parts are cut & pasted from elsewhere but I've attempted to make each point relevant to my case even if it rambles or loses it's way. 
I expect folks here will be able to tear it apart & offer guidance on how to reassemble it in a more appropriate fashion. Thanks in advance. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EB_2BgrATpF_Nb41XF8JhSc7k_E_aqBL/view?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

Lockable said:

Going over the timeline of events for my case dating back 6 years, I've discovered that my initial response letter to the first letter from BW Legal ( something they deny ever seeing ) has come back to me in an SAR request from CST Law & stamped as having been seen shortly after it was posted.
Would this be a data protection breach & is that a point worth leaning on in my WS?

No, because CST Law are not the same firm as BW Legal, so the latter would never have seen it.

Lockable

Coupon-mad said:

Lockable said:

Going over the timeline of events for my case dating back 6 years, I've discovered that my initial response letter to the first letter from BW Legal ( something they deny ever seeing ) has come back to me in an SAR request from CST Law & stamped as having been seen shortly after it was posted.
Would this be a data protection breach & is that a point worth leaning on in my WS?

No, because CST Law are not the same firm as BW Legal, so the latter would never have seen it.

I maybe haven't been clear in explaining this.

A letter I wrote to BW Legal in response to their very first letter to me. A letter they denied receiving, was later supplied back to me in an electronic bundle from CST Law after the SAR .

Coupon-mad

Oh, sorry I misunderstood!  Thing is, the Claimant PPC can pass data to their legal firm(s).