HEARING LOST in a PCN dispute

Umkomaas

bergantet said:

Umkomaas said:

Would you add this to the defence?

Nope, because none of it affects whether you are liable or not for the parking charge. 

@Umkomaas thanks for the advice

Do you like the defense I wrote above? or sounds too weak? Thanks in advance

Sorry, I don't critique defences - please see my signature below every post I make. 

bergantet

Umkomaas said:

bergantet said:

Umkomaas said:

Would you add this to the defence?

Nope, because none of it affects whether you are liable or not for the parking charge. 

@Umkomaas thanks for the advice

Do you like the defense I wrote above? or sounds too weak? Thanks in advance

Sorry, I don't critique defences - please see my signature below every post I make. 

If fair enough, I was asking only because to me looks a bit poor, but I dont know what else to put in. But I understand your point, dont worry. And thanks again

Fruitcake

bergantet said:

Hi all, (@fruitcake, @KeithP, @Redx, @nosferatu1001, @Le-kirk, @Coupon-mad and all who are helping me here)

Tomorrow is the deadline to email my defence to CCBC

So far:

1/ AOS sent

2/ SAR to the DPO at CEL email sent - no answer yet

3/ DVLA email requesting who asked for my detail sent - no answer yet

4/ ABC parking solution email - no answer yet

5/ Landowner (Spot Property Company Limited - no answer yet

6/ Morrison customer service/ CEO - they deny all kinds of responsibility

defence draft:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. As a regular customer of other Morrison stores, the defendant don't have is not required to pay for parking for the first two hours. The Morrison car park located at Butterfly Walk managed by ABC Parking Solutions  has changed the parking  process without informing customers. The defendant can provide a copy of the transactions made by one of the occupants of the vehicle at Morrisons at Butterfly Walk on the date of the incident as proof that the occupant was a customer at Morrisons and therefore entitled to free parking with the landowner.

4. The claimant who is a third party to an alleged contract with ABC Parking Solutions Ltd, are fraudulently claiming they are the creditors in the matter.  They have criminally breached the GDPR in using my personal data obtained through the DVLA.

Any help will be amazing, I don't want to be the 1% who fails  

To be honest I am overwhelmed with all this matter... a bit lost too

A few minor suggestions.

I'm not sure if a GDPR breach is a criminal (illegal) or civil (unlawful) case. Personally I wouldn't use such a term unless I was absolutely sure I knew what it meant and could prove a criminal breach.

Just remember that the above is a small part of the whole template defence you will be submitting, making it much stronger overall.

bergantet

Fruitcake said:

bergantet said:

Hi all, (@fruitcake, @KeithP, @Redx, @nosferatu1001, @Le-kirk, @Coupon-mad and all who are helping me here)

Tomorrow is the deadline to email my defence to CCBC

So far:

1/ AOS sent

2/ SAR to the DPO at CEL email sent - no answer yet

3/ DVLA email requesting who asked for my detail sent - no answer yet

4/ ABC parking solution email - no answer yet

5/ Landowner (Spot Property Company Limited - no answer yet

6/ Morrison customer service/ CEO - they deny all kinds of responsibility

defence draft:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. As a regular customer of other Morrison stores, the defendant don't have is not required to pay for parking for the first two hours. The Morrison car park located at Butterfly Walk managed by ABC Parking Solutions  has changed the parking  process without informing customers. The defendant can provide a copy of the transactions made by one of the occupants of the vehicle at Morrisons at Butterfly Walk on the date of the incident as proof that the occupant was a customer at Morrisons and therefore entitled to free parking with the landowner.

4. The claimant who is a third party to an alleged contract with ABC Parking Solutions Ltd, are fraudulently claiming they are the creditors in the matter.  They have criminally breached the GDPR in using my personal data obtained through the DVLA.

Any help will be amazing, I don't want to be the 1% who fails  

To be honest I am overwhelmed with all this matter... a bit lost too

A few minor suggestions.

I'm not sure if a GDPR breach is a criminal (illegal) or civil (unlawful) case. Personally I wouldn't use such a term unless I was absolutely sure I knew what it meant and could prove a criminal breach.

Just remember that the above is a small part of the whole template defence you will be submitting, making it much stronger overall.

Thanks @Fruitcake, and thanks for the remainder "Just remember that the above is a small part of the whole template defence you will be submitting, making it much stronger overall"

I will remove "criminally" from the statement, is a good advice. And thanks for the corrections you made in the text

Le_Kirk

3. As a regular customer of other Morrison stores, the defendant don't  does not have to pay for parking for the first two hours.

Not sure about paragraph 4.  Who is the claimant?  If they are a solicitor acting for ABC Parking solutions, are they technically a third party?  Even so, is your point a defence?

bergantet

Le_Kirk said:

3. As a regular customer of other Morrison stores, the defendant don't  does not have to pay for parking for the first two hours.

Not sure about paragraph 4.  Who is the claimant?  If they are a solicitor acting for ABC Parking solutions, are they technically a third party?  Even so, is your point a defence?

@L@Le_Kirk thanks for your point. Tbh I am not sure, this is why your opinion are very important to me. The paragraph 4 was a conclusion from a similar to the following thread on PePiPoo  -  which includes a post stating:-

"There is a note at the bottom of the sign saying that enforcement will be by CEL. However the alleged contract is with ABC Parking Solutions Ltd and CEL can't enforce a contract that they are not party to. VCS and Excel found this out recently in court."

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t125655.html

But you know more than me for sure

Le_Kirk

OK, I see.  That is the problem with using two different forums; you don't get twice the advice just twice the confusion.  I only know what I have read - IANAL.

Umkomaas

That case was never concluded in terms of the PePiPoo forum being updated. To me, while it might suggest some minor strategies for dealing with this case, none has been reported back as having worked, and as it stands, there's no guaranteed silver bullet lurking within it. 

Coupon-mad

I would add this to your defence, and 100% agree NOT to accuse them of criminality:

There is a note at the bottom of the sign saying that enforcement will be by CEL. However the alleged contract is with ABC Parking Solutions Ltd and CEL can't enforce a contract that they are not party to.

bergantet

Le_Kirk said:

OK, I see.  That is the problem with using two different forums; you don't get twice the advice just twice the confusion.  I only know what I have read - IANAL.

Thanks for your point. I did not use two forums, and it was to avoid the confusion that you mentioned, I only read that publication because 1505grandad recommended it on page 9 of this chat. Thanks