Link Parking / BW Legal - OWN residential parking bay

Coupon-mad

Sounds perfect, that's how I would do it in your case.  The key fob one is well written but the template defence covers other things too.

And you really should counterclaim so read the examples by the 2 posters I mentioned above already.  It shows how a counterclaim looks and what laws support the claim you are making for a remedy - albeit your reasons/facts would be different.

eagle5

Coupon-mad said:

Sounds perfect, that's how I would do it in your case.  The key fob one is well written but the template defence covers other things too.

And you really should counterclaim so read the examples by the 2 posters I mentioned above already.  It shows how a counterclaim looks and what laws support the claim you are making for a remedy - albeit your reasons/facts would be different.

I have read through them and particularly the UKPC liable for trespass - **SUCCESS** is of interest but the OP does not seem to have sent any response after submitting their court result, unless if I have missed it completely. 

Hoping for a response from parkingticketsfightbacksas 

The thread by @Redman2186 was a great read, I have copied what I think may also apply below (unedited) but otherwise I do not see anything which may suit / fit. 

------

4.       The Claimants’ course of conduct in pursuing this spurious parking charge, including the issue of these proceedings, amounts to harassment within the meaning of section 1, Protection from Harassment Act 1997.  Instead of recognising failing in their parking system upfront which would never have resulted in a PCN or cancelling the PCN once the Claimant discovered it was issued without merit, the Claimant embarked on a harassing course of conduct that has continued on several occasions and has plagued the Defendant, exacerbating anxiety, distress, causing loss of sleep and interfering with their peace of mind.  In all the premises, the conduct of the Claimant amounts to harassment under section 1 of the PFHA as well as harassment pursuant to the EA.  Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully seeks damages pursuant to s3(2) of the PFHA.

Damages 

5.       By reason of the matters aforesaid, the Defendant suffered distress and anxiety because of the Claimant's conduct. The 'thin skull' rules applies in that the Claimant must take its victim as they find them; the claim being served despite the PCN having been issued without merit where there is a clear and obvious failing of the ANPR system. It has taken a monumental effort to deal with the aggressive conduct of this Claimant. The Defendant has suffered substantial and exhausting distress through harassment and the multiple counts of data breach which has impacted upon family life and respectfully seeks damages in the sum of £500 or such sum as the court sees fit.

 

AND THE DEFENDANT COUNTERCLAIMS: - 

6.       a). Compensation in the sum of £500 or such sum as the Court sees fit including any award of aggravated damages at the court's discretion;

b). Court fees: £60.00 filing fee;

c). Interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984, at such rates / for such periods on the sums found due to the Defendant as the Court may deem fit;

d). Costs to be assessed.  As a result of the Claimants’ unreasonable behaviour, the Court is respectfully invited to order the Claimants to pay the Defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules, rule 27.14 (2) (g). 

------

Coupon-mad

The 'thin skull' rule applies in that the Claimant must take its victim as they find them;

If you are vulnerable, yes.

You've not copied any of the other legal grounds given in those other threads.  I think harassment is the least likely legal remedy to win out of those shown in the threads by @elaro9 and @Redman2186 - what was wrong with the additional points of data abuse/DPA 2018 breach point, backed by Vidal Hall v Google and the allegation that the Claimant breached the CPUTRs with an aggressive, misleading and unjustified commercial practice?

eagle5

Coupon-mad said:

The 'thin skull' rule applies in that the Claimant must take its victim as they find them;

If you are vulnerable, yes.

You've not copied any of the other legal grounds given in those other threads.  I think harassment is the least likely legal remedy to win out of those shown in the threads by @elaro9 and @Redman2186 - what was wrong with the additional points of data abuse/DPA 2018 breach point, backed by Vidal Hall v Google and the allegation that the Claimant breached the CPUTRs with an aggressive, misleading and unjustified commercial practice?

I don't think it applies as I ignorantly put the details into the website when viewing the PCN so in effect I volunteered my data? 

Coupon-mad

You volunteered it resolve the issue and explain that you own the space.  They then ran off with that data and processed and shared it.  You need to read the DPA principles!

eagle5

For the SAR I used a template adding my name and address. They have responded: 

'Subject: Re: Subject access request (SAR)

 Dear Sir/Madam,

Can you please provide us with the vehicle registration number(s) that your request refers too.

Regards

Link Parking Ltd'

I expected for them to ask for proof of address rather than vehicle reg, am I wrong in assuming they should already have this information? 

Coupon-mad

I'd say they need it and a copy of your V5C if you still own the car.

Le_Kirk

Looks like delaying tactics as they should already have the VRM as they are chasing you for payment of a PCN relating to that VRM but anyway you will have attached a scan of the V5C as proof of identity.

eagle5

@Coupon-mad Yes still own the car - they have not requested proof yet but will send it as I agree with @Le_Kirk about delaying tactics! Thank you both for getting back so quickly  

eagle5

Evening, the V5C is not in my name, it is in my partner's name. Should I still upload a scanned copy or wait for a response to providing only registration details?