Forbidding signs and pre existing rights

Trainerman

Thanks @KeithP. I have had a look now myself, and the MCOL history simply states that "Claimant's DQ sent xxxxxxx". No mention of CCBC sending one.

So I will wait for them to send one, and back on to points 8 onwards on the checklist

Thanks again

Trainerman

The above entry concerns a neighbour who has had claim, and has submitted defence.

Coming to the claim against me, I have had what seems to be a slightly unusual email from DCB Legal ( Hello DCB if you are reading this, stay tuned).

Chronology is :- LoC received Feb, 30 day hold email sent late Feb. Follow up email from them 16 May, asking me to confirm "for security" various details, though they had put same details on email !

Had a bit of sport with a very strong and detailed answer to them.

Email received today setting out who they are  (doh !!), what the amount is  (£170, naturally), what it relates to ( thanks but I do have an attention span longer than the average goldfish), and making sure that I know the new CoP does not act retrospectively. 

They then offer me a further 30 days to pay or Claim will be made without further contact. This strikes me as unusual, and also makes me wonder why would they send a silly mind games email to someone who keeps giving them strong responses.

While I play with the idea of a further Foxtrot Oskar response, I would be interested to know if anyone else has had this sort of approach months after LoC.

I also need to see whether I know enough in the way of small simple words for them.

Umkomaas

Is this latest letter headed Letter Of/Before Claim?  If so leave it to near their 30 day deadline, then reply, requiring them to put on hold for a further 30 days as per the PAP. 

Trainerman

Hi @Umkomaas, thanks for the input.

No, funnily enough it is (so far) only in email format, no title at all and commences "Good Afternoon". It is signed by an 'assistant litigation case manager'. It says that if I do not pay in 30 days, a claim will be issued.

I have not heard of this approach before, and wondered whether it was common or not

Coupon-mad

Standard. I have one right here like that, in a case I am handling for a relative.

And it will be, unless you continue to play email tennis and ask for more evidence. That's the game I play.  Always respond bang on day 30 with your latest.

Trainerman

Thanks @Coupon-mad. I am happy to go to court, but I also like the idea of email tennis.

On the basis that it will cost them time and effort, I will go and get my racquet..... in about 28 days

Trainerman

A bit more advice please, if possible. This particular site is self ticketing, and the owners have also put in writing that they hold the applications etc for the permits that they have released. CCTV (not ANPR) is also used.

To my thinking, this makes them data controllers, even though they are doing it as private individuals, not a Company as such.

I was going to send SAR to tease out what they do hold ( and get others to do the same) Opinions please on whether I can just send them a straight SAR which they will have to obey. Thanks all

Fruitcake

Yes, send an SAR, but you would probably need to explain in words of less than two syllables why you want it, and why you have a right to see it. Quote the relevant section numbers, and possibly extracts from them the DPA 2015/GDPR 2018 and/or the ICO website.

Warn them that you will complain to the ICO if they fail to provide it. Don't forget to include non photo proof of ID.

You could also ask where your data is physically stored because you want to visit it and make sure it is secure as is your right. Ask if it is stored on a database somewhere, and if it is held on a server overseas etcetera.
All perfectly reasonable questions of course.

Mouse007

Trainerman said:

... the owners have also put in writing that they hold the applications etc for the permits that they have released. CCTV (not ANPR) is also used.

To my thinking, this makes them data controllers, even though they are doing it as private individuals, not a Company as such.

I was going to send SAR to tease out what they do hold ( and get others to do the same) Opinions please on whether I can just send them a straight SAR which they will have to obey. Thanks all

I am inclined to agree, the use of CCTV to capture images is regulated by the GDPR.

https://www.itgovernance.co.uk/blog/does-your-use-of-cctv-comply-with-the-gdpr

GeorgeFormby

Mouse007 said:

I am inclined to agree, the use of CCTV to capture images is regulated by the GDPR.

https://www.itgovernance.co.uk/blog/does-your-use-of-cctv-comply-with-the-gdpr

Slightly off topic from Trainerman (apologies) but if a PPC is using CCTV to capture images for the issuance of PCNs in a Private Road and/or Car Park must their signage state that fact? Or additional signage stating CCTV in force or similar?

TIA