GXS Services @ Shoreham Port and a "Fake?" Gladstone LBC

Iguana_En_Fuego

Hi all, I have agreed to help a friend who is being bothered by GXS Services, Trace and now a 'fake' Gladstone LBC (I say fake as this is a single sheet of double sided paper, and missing information on the Estimated Claim value, only the £160.00 [£100 PCN and a £60.00 add on cost for time / resources for recovery...])

Location: Shoreham Port - Non-Relevant Land as subject to Byelaws (Area in question is in the SE corner of the port Labelled as 34 on the linked PDF plan
2.1 SPA Land Ownership OUTLINE (shoreham-port.co.uk)

Reason: Parked without clearly displaying a valid ticket / permit (a permit was present in the lower LH side of the windscreen, although may have been partially obscured).

The RK received a 'Non POFA Non ANPR NTK' from GXS Services dated 28th August, for an alleged infringement on 30th June 2018. The NTK included photos of the vehicle, however these photos are date stamped 3 July 2018. The Photos also show that a NTD (envelope) was fixed to the windscreen. The driver is adamant that no NTD was fixed to the car at any time and that the NTK was the first and only correspondence from GXS Services.

The NTK was not responded to (perhaps incorrectly).

14th March 2019 Trace send debt letter, Amount increased to £160.00 (no breakdown provided) - Filed and Ignored
8th February 2021 Gallstones Debt Letter issued, Amount still £160 - Filed and ignored
8th March 2021 Gallstones Letter Before Claim issued (Received 11th March 2021)
12th March 2021 - RK sends SAR to GXS services (after some comical back and forth, received response on same day)
12th March 2021 - RK sends Debt Advice letter to Gallstones (may have been premature)

The only information that the SAR included was a copy of the NTK and details of the RK's personal data (Name, address, e-mail). I have asked the RK to check the NTK in the SAR against the original postal version.

Should the SAR also have included a copy of the NTD and the original photos?

On the weekend of 30th June / 1st July the RK and the car in question were some distance away on a family weekend camping break.

The vehicle is accessible to several drivers, with a named driver being included at the time on the insurance, so an assumption of the RK being Driver is reduced.

I (we) would appreciate the Forums thoughts on next steps, i.e.:-
1) Do nothing
2) Send a Put Up or Shut Letter to GXS / Gallstones
3) Start to Line Up our Ducks, in case a Small Claim is started, using the forum defence template as the start.

The RK is well aware that any defence / witness statements will be his / her own words.  
Edit ; Dates corrected.

Fruitcake

Sending the debt advice/hold for 30 days is correct at the LBC stage. It is too late once a LoC or MCOL has arrived.

An SAR does not apply to the NTD data as the identity of the driver isn't known, so no data about the driver can have been obtained or held.

Follow the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in the second post of the NEWBIES.
Get pics of the site and signage if possible, and/or use Google Streetview (GSV) images if required.

nosferatu1001

On the NtD - not correct. The NtD must contain the VRM, and the VRM is the RKs personal data.

Castle

Fruitcake said:

Sending the debt advice/hold for 30 days is correct at the LBC stage. It is too late once a LoC or MCOL has arrived.

An SAR does not apply to the NTD data as the identity of the driver isn't known, so no data about the driver can have been obtained or held.

The NTD would had included the VRM and therefore, would be the personal data of the RK.

Fruitcake

Castle said:

Fruitcake said:

Sending the debt advice/hold for 30 days is correct at the LBC stage. It is too late once a LoC or MCOL has arrived.

An SAR does not apply to the NTD data as the identity of the driver isn't known, so no data about the driver can have been obtained or held.

The NTD would had included the VRM and therefore, would be the personal data of the RK.

Yes, but does not apply to the driver's data, which is what I was referring to. The OP said they had the NTK that included photos of the car showing the VRM, therefore they had the data from the SAR with regards to the keeper.

nosferatu1001

The Keeper asked fore their data, which would include a copy of the NtD as THAT has their VRM in it, which is the KEEPERS personal data. 

Fruitcake

nosferatu1001 said:

The Keeper asked fore their data, which would include a copy of the NtD as THAT has their VRM in it, which is the KEEPERS personal data. 

Right, got it. 

*Fruity goes out and comes back in to start again*

Iguana_En_Fuego

Thanks, so without stirring up the hornets nest, the RK should go back to GXS and request the NTD (and any photo's).

nosferatu1001

Point out that a copy of the Notice to Driver was not enclosed, despite it incluyding personal data. They have 7 days to supply a copy, before you complain to the ICO about their failure to comply with the DPA2018

blackdog2220

gxs have got several mentions on pepipoo , I am suprised they sent you that much info , expect very little more sort of trying to follow in one parkihgs footsteps with regard to non relivant land 

the dates on the photos , interesting twist , may be fun in court 

Iguana_En_Fuego

In response to Fruitcakes first comment, Google Streetview shows this Entrance Signage in July 2018. There are further, smaller signs dotted around the car park itself, the signage has changed several times since then, especially with P&D parking having recently been introduced (it has upset the local villagers quite a bit, with a bit of ranting and the threat of flaming torches being lit  on local FB Groups)
July 2018 Basin Rd S - Google Maps
March 2019 Basin Rd S - Google Maps
October 2020 Basin Rd S - Google Maps