Missed "Letter Before Court Action" - Please help!

_blueberry_

Just finalising before printing / signing / sending this off tomorrow (during the day).  Any final comments / adjustments?

P.S. I also noticed that the "Dreams (logo)" / "Parking Only" / "Others will be clamped" is ambiguous as it does not state what "parking only" means here, as opposed to idling / pickups / u-turns?  The logo is also on a different line to "Parking Only" and does not read as "Dreams parking only" but "parking only, by Dreams".  I have made a brief mention of this so I can use it in my w/s but please let me know if I need to add more details than "its ambiguous" at this stage. (bold below)

Finally, did I get the law right for the clamping? (bold below)

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant had parked behind the store which owns the parking bays to visit the store.  Due to covid-19 restrictions it transpired that the store was closed, however this was not clear on the approach to the store, as the store is located off a 40mph road and access to the parking is on the road preceding the store front.  The opening times had also not been updated on “google maps”.  The Defendant insists that the store was unlikely to lose out as the premises were shut.  It was not clear that parking restrictions continued during the hours where the store were closed due to the lack of clearly visible signage.  The entrance to the parking was not marked and the small and illegible writing on the signage were unreadable from the street.  The approach is also on a downward slope toward the bays, making the view of the signs high above difficult to see for the Defendant.  There was also a rather large and very clear sign visible on the approach to the store reading “Don’t lose sleep over parking – free car park for Dreams customers”, with an arrow pointing toward the parking area.

4. One of the signs states “Parking for customers / visitors of Dreams Acton whilst you remain on the premises only.  All customers / visitors must enter your Vehicle Registration Number at the kiosk inside of Dreams Acton”.  This clause would be impossible to comply with.  Although the Defendant in this case was a customer / visitor of dreams, the kiosk was inaccessible as it was inside the store, which was closed.  Furthermore, the statement that customers must remain “on the premises only”, would be impossible for any customer to comply with as the Defendant would need to leave the premises, via a public footpath in order to access the main entrance at the front of the store.  Furthermore, another sign reads "Dreams (logo)" / "Parking Only" / "Others will be clamped".  The language here is ambiguous, as well as contradictory to sign stated above.  The sign also suggests a threat of the illegal activity of clamping, made illegal under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's correct, and good.

_blueberry_

Just a quick update and suggestion for the "Court Claim Procedure" page by @bargepole.  I have received the N180 but note that section D is no longer "about the hearing", this is now section E.

There is now a question about "Suitability for determination without a hearing".  I imagine the answer is "no" but there is also a field for "if not, state why not".  Is there a template answer for this?

Coupon-mad

_blueberry_ said:

Just a quick update and suggestion for the "Court Claim Procedure" page by @bargepole.  I have received the N180 but note that section D is no longer "about the hearing", this is now section E.

There is now a question about "Suitability for determination without a hearing".  I imagine the answer is "no" but there is also a field for "if not, state why not".  Is there a template answer for this?

Search the forum for new N180 questions as this waa discussed when it happened in June.  Thread by @Grizebeck

_blueberry_

Was just looking back and it appears I sent my SAR to EPS on 13th July - and they have still not got back to me.  Should I send them a reminder or refer to ICO?  When I originally sent the SAR, I got an out of office back from the dpo, saying that the person responsible for responding is on maternity leave!

Umkomaas

Send chaser with 7-day deadline, warn in it that failure to respond will result in a formal complaint to the ICO. Carry out your threat if no response. 

_blueberry_

Hi all - my hearing is at the end of this month and I need to submit my witness statement at the latest 2 weeks before that date (so in just under a couple of weeks).  I have written a draft using the exemplar WS detailed on the newbies thread.

The link to my changes are here:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/umwm4jzp7csnmfz7hwv92/WS.docx?rlkey=6ege2dskrqyqxg6gnopfdzgi9&dl=0

I have highlighted the areas that I am not sure are relevant (I have not removed them in case I have misunderstood their relevance to my case).  These include areas covering:
-  the interest rate charged - the alleged contravention occurred mid Jan 2021 (£100) - and the claim is for £177 + £35 court fees + £50 legal costs.  Are the quoted rates in the document relevant or require adjustment?
- the Claimant WS which I have not received. Should I have expected to receive this by now?
- point 28 which related to the specifics of the case, but I am not sure what I would add for my case?

I appreciate all the help so far - could I please request some help on getting this WS right?

Coupon-mad

These include areas covering:
-  the interest rate charged - the alleged contravention occurred mid Jan 2021 (£100) - and the claim is for £177 + £35 court fees + £50 legal costs.  

Did Gladstones forget to say they were charging 10.25% interest, in the POC?  They always do...

Show us the POC.  Minus your VRM.

_blueberry_

Ah, it says its 8%.  I hadn't noticed that.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n5zty7ngqgmprivc9n5sn/poc.png?rlkey=ys8uuvgdsf1scl2dwcru6bckd&dl=0

1505grandad

You will of course be stating the correct claimant etc on your WS.