WON - Case Dismissed by DDJ! One Parking Solution Vantage Point Brighton - £95 Costs Awarded!

Fruitcake

Have a listen to the audio clips in this thread and make a note of who said what, when, and where to quote in your WS.

Appeals Charter Webinar - BPA AOS meeting — MoneySavingExpert Forum

patient_dream

95Rollers said:

OPS/ DCBL rubbish my defence as "Meritless" and rubbished my commenting of the fees being disproportionate and unfair. But the Government say differently as the big survey in which motorists agreed - and the only "motorists" who disagreed were found out to be fraudulent entries from the IP addresses of parking companies themselves. 

They will say that just as BWLegal use the word "Nonsensical"
I think they refer to themselves.   And those legals who use such words often go on to lose in court and get costs awarded against them.  

All scare tactics until they get spanked by a judge

Jenni_D

Are you saying they have some documentation holding your data that they're refusing to share with you, even though you've submitted a SAR?

Or are you saying they hold some documentation/evidence that they are refusing to disclose because it is fatal to their case?

Or is it in fact both?

95Rollers

Jenni_D said:

Are you saying they have some documentation holding your data that they're refusing to share with you, even though you've submitted a SAR?

Or are you saying they hold some documentation/evidence that they are refusing to disclose because it is fatal to their case?

Or is it in fact both?

Hi @Jenni_D - Its both.

To save backtracking- this is a case of me being double dipped within a 23 minute time frame from first entry to last exit. I went in and couldn't find a space, I waited in the aisles with my motor running then left then returned yoti find a space where I left exited the Vehicle with my wife at helm with engine running whilst I attempted to pay - but ended up leaving due to frustration of contact (couldn't get machine to take payment or pay via phone due to poor signal). I requested the ANPR log for the material time frame - but was refused because it "contains other people's data"! I emailed back suggesting it could be redacted, but if they weren't willing to supply a Redacted then I won't push any further as I've made the court aware in my WS and Exhibited the Email trail to highlight this. I'm also reporting to other relevant authorities re: the conduct in this case.  

Basically thst ANPR log would show my car going in, out, in and out.  Fir which I would have been covered by the contracts 15 min grace periods (which are not displayed on signs nor is there anything on signs/ contracts about "no returns" either). So I feel like like they are holding on to whatever little advantages they've got because they are desperate to tax me for my money.

I've covered all this in my WS.  Their WS is shocking with contradictions, poor personal attacks to discredit me and outright lies. 

patient_dream

95Rollers said:

Jenni_D said:

Are you saying they have some documentation holding your data that they're refusing to share with you, even though you've submitted a SAR?

Or are you saying they hold some documentation/evidence that they are refusing to disclose because it is fatal to their case?

Or is it in fact both?

  Their WS is shocking with contradictions, poor personal attacks to discredit me and outright lies. 

Don't you mean .. "Meritless"  and  "Nonsensical" ?
This is after all DCBL you know

95Rollers

Very much so @patient_dream

I find they have no sense shame or even basic professionalism.  As a result of this journey multiple companies are being reported to the SRA and ICO.

patient_dream

95Rollers said:

Very much so @patient_dream

I find they have no sense shame or even basic professionalism.  As a result of this journey multiple companies are being reported to the SRA and ICO.

Right now these fools are trying to play catchup with money ahead of the new code.

What will Judges do with these fake clowns, agree with a a BPA code of pracice that is nothing more than rubbish or .... agree that in the new code government has banned the fakery .... It will be a very poor judge who is not up to speed

And it will be a very very poor judge who believes the BPA code is worth the paper it is written on
I know that Judges read this forum 

Coupon-mad

I would add a short Supplementary WS telling the Judge about the new Code of Practice and point out:

When talking about existing cases in his Ministerial Foreword, Neil O'Brien MP described the false added 'damages/debt recovery' costs as 'designed to extort money from motorists' and as such, the Government has banned them forthwith, within the new statutory Code of Practice.  Tell the Judge that the Code also refers to 'double dips' (such as this case - a double visit shown as if it was one stay - a known flaw of ANPR which by default, uses 'first in, last out' images within 24 hours) and the Code states that PCNs should never be issued in cases such as this, let alone pursued to court. 

95Rollers

I've submitted a WS with those points re: the New Code, ANPR double dips (including the BPAs stance on them) and some other factors I coveted in my first WS - but revised these around the New Code/ Neil O'Brien's stance on them. Just over a week to go now. Not heard anything back from the Court, DCBL or OPS who all have my details so I'm assuming it's all going ahead.  I thought the court would of confirmed whether its in person or on videophone-link with a test link to try out...🤔 

Le_Kirk

95Rollers said:

I've submitted a WS with those points re: the New Code, ANPR double dips (including the BPAs stance on them) and some other factors I coveted covered (I hope) in my first WS - but revised these around the New Code/ Neil O'Brien's stance on them. Just over a week to go now. Not heard anything back from the Court, DCBL or OPS who all have my details so I'm assuming it's all going ahead.  I thought the court would of have confirmed whether its in person or on videophone-link with a test link to try out...🤔 

What does your notice of allocation say abut the hearing; F2F or video call?  You are right to contact the court to find out the procedures and test the link.