Paintbrush vs DCB Legal - Writing Defence

nosferatu1001

Indeed. are you sure you were the driver or are you just taking a guess? Dont do so! If htere are multiple regular drivers, and it COULD have been one of them, then state so. 

Le_Kirk

Good Evening, Dear Sirs
I would like to see a submit a Subject Access Request for the following of my vehicle registration number mark (VRM): “XXX”. I have attached proof that I am the correct data subject.
- ALL photos taken
- all letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier
- IF the car park is Pay and Display, a PDT machine record from that day, of payments made – if the car park is not pay and display please confirm
- all data held, all evidence you will rely on and a full copy of the PCN, NTK
- a list of all PCNs outstanding against me and/or this VRN. Reminder that any claim must be for all PCNs, not several separate claims.
Thank you in advance! yours faithfully

Adjustments as above.  You don't ask for a SAR you submit one, it is a request and what you are asking for is YOUR data.

Coupon-mad

Clearly a non-POFA NTK. 

No idea why people find it so hard to spot that the wording that is mandatory under para 9 of the POFA isn't there. 

You don't have to be legally qualified nor a parking law expert - nor even have done this before - to play 'spot the difference' and see no trace of 9(2)f, for example, the POFA warning that the keeper becomes liable.

Redx

Highview never complied with POFA so this would have been easily seen off at the first appeal after that pcn NTK arrived , or at POPLA, on no keeper liability , so 2 more chances missed due to inaction

2 should be short and sweet , keeper admitted but liabilty not proven under POFA and driver not proven eitehr, see other defences , remove the waffle about getting up to speed , save any guff for the WS in several months time

Paintbrush123

Hi All, Thank you all once again for your responses.

Firstly, I have amended my defence per the below and I am keen on getting this submitted now with plenty of time. Is this enough or should I be adding more defence to this such as signage etc.?

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but due to the Claimants complete disregard for Protection of Freedoms Act of 2012, liability is denied.

3. The driver has not been identified by the Claimant and although there is a provision in law under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act of 2012 to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s keeper, the Claimant has made little to no effort to comply with the requirements of this act. Most notably, they failed to deliver any notice within the NTK that the keeper would become liable. (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 9, paragraph 2, subparagraph f. As such, the Defendant has no liability in law.

Secondly, Group Nexus came back requesting I fill in their document on the SAR. I know having read the newbies thread not to do this – At the time of requesting the SAR I realised my V5C was for my old address which I have now changed and received through my new one. If I scan this and send them a copy is that bulletproof evidence that I am the “data subject”. Also, they are stating that they have 30x days from the date that that evidence is provided. Is that correct and should I highlight anything else to them in my mail? Please see their exact mail below (excluding the form asking for all kinds of nonsense):

In order for us to process your Data Subject Access Request efficiently and locate your data quickly we ask you to please complete and return the attached form.

Whilst we appreciate that completing an in-house form is not a requirement under the legislation, we find that it helps individuals formalise their requests and focus on what is required which assists us in locating and processing your request as quickly and efficiently as possible.

We are also required under GDPR to validate your identity prior to releasing personal data so we ask for proof of address and proof of ID. The below is not sufficient as proof of address.

Please note that your DSAR 30-day timescale does not apply until your identity has been validated.

Coupon-mad

You know not to fill that form in, because we've spotted on other Group Nexus threads that it asks a question it must not ask.  

1505grandad

Also the Defence is written in the third person i.e.  "Defendant"  -  so no "I", "me", "my" etc.

Paintbrush123

1505grandad said:

Also the Defence is written in the third person i.e.  "Defendant"  -  so no "I", "me", "my" etc.

Hi Grandad / anyone reading the thread. Apologies everything from “secondly” onwards is in relation to an SAR email from group nexus rather than my defence. 

1505grandad

Understood.

Paintbrush123

SAR response has been dealt with, any feedback on the Defence part would be appreciated - is it enough? 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but due to the Claimants complete disregard for Protection of Freedoms Act of 2012, liability is denied.

3. The driver has not been identified by the Claimant and although there is a provision in law under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act of 2012 to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s keeper, the Claimant has made little to no effort to comply with the requirements of this act. Most notably, they failed to deliver any notice within the NTK that the keeper would become liable. (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 9, paragraph 2, subparagraph f. As such, the Defendant has no liability in law.