Claim Form Received / Highview Parking / DCB Legal

deezee3k

Hi everyone. 
Here is a draft of the SAR I plan to send to the Highview / Group Nexus DPO. 

Does it need changing in any way? There is a sentence in bold I wasn't sure about. 

Thanks again. 

Dear Sir or Madam

Subject access request

(Data Protection Act 2018 / General Data Protection Regulations)

Name... 

Current address;... 

Previous address;... 

Email address;... 

Please supply the personal data you hold about me, which I am entitled to receive under data protection law, for:

- All photos taken of the vehicle with VRN... 

- All emails sent and received between ‘Name' and ‘Highview Parking Limited’ (from 1 July 2018 to Date of this letter)

- All data held, all evidence that you will rely on (should this read - rely on in court?) and a full copy of the Parking Charge Notice, Notice To Keeper

- A list of all Parking Charge Notices outstanding against me or the VRN...(Any claim must be for all Parking Charge Notices, not separate claims)

If you need any more information, please let me know as soon as possible.

I would prefer to receive the data back to the email address provided.

It may be helpful for you to know that data protection law requires you to respond to a request for personal data within one calendar month.

If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your data protection officer or relevant staff member.

If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you. It's website is ico.org.uk, or it can be contacted on 0303 123 1113.

Yours faithfully

Redx

No need for the bold bit , keep it simple as possible

Add a copy of the claim form as proof of I D under the GDPR law , plus add copies of 2 recent redacted utility bills as well , even a copy of the V5C if you have it, but do not add copies of your driving licence or passport because they will ask for them , but are not entitled to do so

deezee3k

SAR sent. 
Enjoy your weekend everyone 

deezee3k

Good evening everyone. Hope you all had good weekends. 

I sent the SAR to the Nexus DPO over a week ago. There was no automated response and I haven't heard anything so far.

In terms of contacting the landowner to request they cancel the charge, I tried that when I received the Letter Before Claim.

They passed my case to Highview - my case being that I hadn't received the original Charge Notice and reminders in July 2018. The landowner replied that Highview had reduced the charge from £165 to £95 as goodwill gesture, which needed to be paid within 14 days.

Is it worth contacting the landowner again (but the CEO) as they have already chosen not to cancel? Or as it is a retail park, should I contact the CEOs of the stores visited?

Or both? 

I have a letter ready to send to the stores which I can tailor for the landowner, depending on what is suggested here. 

In an email requesting cancellation to either landowner or store, do I mention the '£70 add on represents an attempt at double recovery, which may be considered an abuse of process'? Or is this only mentioned in court?

@Redx About 11 minutes being within the grace period, I have read the following from the BPA CoP, January 2018

'13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes'

And

'13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.'

Reading the above two paragraphs, was a minimum of 10 minutes allowed in addition to the parking event and also a minimum of 10 minutes allowed to leave the car park? So a minimum of 20 minutes grace period allowed? Or is a minimum of 10 minutes sufficient in this case? 

Also, I missed this initially - emailing the solicitor @Coupon-mad

Can I simply email DCB Legal with the case reference and the following?

'(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt

(b) I have sent your client a SAR

(c) I confirm my 'address for service' as...'

On the advice of @KeithP, I know I need to file the defence by 4pm on 1 June. 

Thanks again everyone. 

deezee3k

deezee3k said:

I sent the SAR to the Nexus DPO over a week ago. There was no automated response and I haven't heard anything so far.

Update on this;
I received the correspondence today. 

One of the emails from Town Centre Securities, who run the site (landowner?) was;
"This seems a bit harsh if he genuinely didn’t get it, which I think he is as trying to pay. Would a fair position be to pay the fine plus any of the associated legal costs?"

Is this an admission that the process was unfair, as I wasn't able to appeal initially?

KeithP

deezee3k said:

deezee3k said:

I sent the SAR to the Nexus DPO over a week ago. There was no automated response and I haven't heard anything so far.

One of the emails from Town Centre Securities, who run the site (landowner?) was;
"This seems a bit harsh if he genuinely didn’t get it, which I think he is as trying to pay. Would a fair position be to pay the fine plus any of the associated legal costs?"

Is this an admission that the process was unfair, as I wasn't able to appeal initially?

I'll leave it to others to guess at what those two sentences, taken entirely out of context, actually mean.

Coupon-mad

Yes it might be useful but your main (first) defence position is the POFA with these ones because the parking events are so old you can't possibly know who parked that day.

deezee3k

Hi everyone. 

I have done lots of reading on here to form my defence, I have pretty much copied the defence of @Redman2186.
That said, please can people have a look at my draft of the defence and make any comments?

1.            The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.            The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited for a Total amount of £277.21 (inclusive of £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle xxxx-yyy nearly 3 years ago on 4th July 2018 at Urban Exchange, M4.

 

3.            It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the Defendant. The Defendant was not the only insured driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on a random Wednesday nearly 3 years ago.

 

4.            The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the PoFA, Schedule 4.

 

5.            Following on from [4] where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in the PoFA, Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their Particulars of Claim (‘POC’) which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative who should know (as the Claimant undoubtedly does) that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'.  This can never be the case with a Highview Parking Limited claim because this parking firm, same as any Group Nexus company, have never used the POFA 2012 wording, of their own volition.  Not only does the POC include this misleading untruth, but the Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claims.  So sparse is their statement of case, that the Claimant has failed to even state any facts about the alleged breach or the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, because it cannot have been over £100. Which then leads to the question, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £202.21. The Defendant has excluded the £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point.

Redx

Seems ok to me but await other replies , but do not miss the email deadline 👍👍

Fruitcake

I would replace "random Wednesday" with, "unremarkable Wednesday".

If other household members, or other family members had access to the vehicle and could have been driving, then don't limit your comments to just the people who were named on the insurance. There are several million people who are insured to drive your car, including me. The more people who had access to the car on the day of the alleged event, the better.