PCN - Premier Parking Logistics

akramir

KeithP said:

It does say in their Privacy Policy...

Hi

I have just heard back on my SAR below and they are requesting further information to confirm my identity. I assume there is no harm in providing a copy of a utility bill but not sure why they are requesting name, address and vehicle registration details as they should have that already -  no?

KeithP

akramir said:

KeithP said:

It does say in their Privacy Policy...

Hi

I have just heard back on my SAR below and they are requesting further information to confirm my identity. I assume there is no harm in providing a copy of a utility bill but not sure why they are requesting name, address and vehicle registration details as they should have that already -  no?

Yes of course they have that information.
Just supply it again together with a suitably redacted utility bill - definitely no photo id.

houndsoflove

They are duty bound to ensure the information is released to the right person.  Do as @KeithP says and send a redacted utility bill so that you are not giving away more information than necessary.  Then keep an eye on the dates to ensure PPL reply in the required timescales.

akramir

houndsoflove said:

They are duty bound to ensure the information is released to the right person.  Do as @KeithP says and send a redacted utility bill so that you are not giving away more information than necessary.  Then keep an eye on the dates to ensure PPL reply in the required timescales.

Will do! When you say keep an eye on the reply of PPL to be in the required timescale, if they don’t reply in the required time what do I need to do next?

KeithP

akramir said:

houndsoflove said:

They are duty bound to ensure the information is released to the right person.  Do as @KeithP says and send a redacted utility bill so that you are not giving away more information than necessary.  Then keep an eye on the dates to ensure PPL reply in the required timescales.

Will do! When you say keep an eye on the reply of PPL to be in the required timescale, if they don’t reply in the required time what do I need to do next?

Give them another seven days to comply then report their failure to the Information Commissioners Office.

akramir

KeithP said:

akramir said:

houndsoflove said:

They are duty bound to ensure the information is released to the right person.  Do as @KeithP says and send a redacted utility bill so that you are not giving away more information than necessary.  Then keep an eye on the dates to ensure PPL reply in the required timescales.

Will do! When you say keep an eye on the reply of PPL to be in the required timescale, if they don’t reply in the required time what do I need to do next?

Give them another seven days to comply then report their failure to the Information Commissioners Office.

Thank you! They already replied back to me asking for my vehicle registration number when I sent the redacted utility bill. They should already have this information - no!?

KeithP

akramir said:

KeithP said:

akramir said:

houndsoflove said:

They are duty bound to ensure the information is released to the right person.  Do as @KeithP says and send a redacted utility bill so that you are not giving away more information than necessary.  Then keep an eye on the dates to ensure PPL reply in the required timescales.

Will do! When you say keep an eye on the reply of PPL to be in the required timescale, if they don’t reply in the required time what do I need to do next?

Give them another seven days to comply then report their failure to the Information Commissioners Office.

They already replied back to me asking for my vehicle registration number when I sent the redacted utility bill. They should already have this information - no!?

Yes. Do you have a major problem with supplying that information again?
If so, then don't supply it.
Your choice.
Do what you think best. I've given you my view.

Snakes_Belly

I would do what Keith says regarding the SAR.  I would also alter the heading of your thread to Premier Parking Logistics.

When you respond to the Letter Before Claim it needs to be robust. You might see it off as the signage is really poor. Walton Wilkins car parks are very badly managed and there is a history of this on this forum.  

A number of people have won against this company.  They are not hard to beat because the maintenance of their car parks and equipment (ticket machines) is so bad. In your case the signage is so small that it could easily be missed. The signage forms the contract so what looks like a A4 size sign nailed to a fence is what they are basing the breach of contract on. 

I can't believe that the IAS thought that sign was adequate. That demonstrates why there is so much need for change.

D_P_Dance

Amount due £160

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

Coupon-mad

Please do edit your first post (go advanced) to change the thread title as PPS are a completely different firm and it is confusing us every time we click on your thread.