Worried and need some guidance...

cameron93

Coupon-mad said:

They need that to know it’s you. Anyone could email. 

I gave them my name and claim number. Thought that would suffice...

Redx

cameron93 said:

Coupon-mad said:

They need that to know it’s you. Anyone could email. 

I gave them my name and claim number. Thought that would suffice...

Data protection requires that you provide proof , what you supplied is not proof that you are you , and not an impostor.  Data protection is a 2 way street !

cameron93

Redx said:

cameron93 said:

Coupon-mad said:

They need that to know it’s you. Anyone could email. 

I gave them my name and claim number. Thought that would suffice...

Data protection requires that you provide proof , what you supplied is not proof that you are you , and not an impostor.  Data protection is a 2 way street !

Redx said:

cameron93 said:

Coupon-mad said:

They need that to know it’s you. Anyone could email. 

I gave them my name and claim number. Thought that would suffice...

Data protection requires that you provide proof , what you supplied is not proof that you are you , and not an impostor.  Data protection is a 2 way street !

I am not submitting a SAR to the legal entity, I'm submitting it to their client (UKPC). It is the legal entity asking...

Redx

It's still data protection , they require proof that you are you before they will correspond with you

But if you want to be awkward , then I will bow out , I told you what you need to know , argue with them , not us

Shooting the messengers usually results in no further replies

Every company must comply with GDPR , especially their legal entity

cameron93

Redx said:

It's still data protection , they require proof that you are you before they will correspond with you

But if you want to be awkward , then I will bow out , I told you what you need to know , argue with them , not us

Shooting the messengers usually results in no further replies

Every company must comply with GDPR , especially their legal entity

Right, I wasn't arguing with you, I was trying to get to the crux of it... now that you've mentioned that they need it just to correspond it makes sense - I'm a little naive when it comes to these things and I don't trust UKPC or their legal representatives. I appreciate your help mate.

Redx

We don't trust them either , so we don't agree with them asking for telephone numbers or photo I D etc

Reasonable measures on both sides are ok , so you will find that all companies , solicitors etc require proof that you are you , I rang my bank a few weeks ago and a travel company today , they always go through the prove that you are you hurdles , plus sometimes the 2FA too. It's the law , but they have to be reasonable about it too , obtaining minimum information and data and only what is deemed reasonable to the circumstances and account

You are right to be cautious , and double check first

Name , address , postcode , valid email ,  sometimes a security question too , copies of 2 recent redacted utility bills , etc , all standard stuff

Le_Kirk

Redx said:

We don't trust them either , so we don't agree with them asking for telephone numbers or photo I D etc

Reasonable measures on both sides are ok , so you will find that all companies , solicitors etc require proof that you are you , I rang my bank a few weeks ago and a travel company today , they always go through the prove that you are you hurdles , plus sometimes the 2FA too. It's the law , but they have to be reasonable about it too , obtaining minimum information and data and only what is deemed reasonable to the circumstances and account

You are right to be cautious , and double check first

Name , address , postcode , valid email ,  sometimes a security question too , copies of 2 recent redacted utility bills , etc , all standard stuff

It is so annoying that they ask for this information; they have corresponded with the OP (in fact ALL OPs) when they sent their PCNs/debt collector begging letters or letters before/of claim and they sent them by post to Name, Address, Post Code!  Therefore there is no harm in reminding them of that data.

cameron93

So nothing back from them yet but I've drafted a few paragraphs for the defence doc, any feedback would be awesome:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle, but liability is denied.
3.       The nearest UKPC sign from the area of the alleged contravention states two rules in the ‘terms of parking’:
(i)                 All Vehicles must be parked only within marked bays.
(ii)                Disabled badge holders only in disabled bays. Valid disabled badge must be clearly                             displayed at all times.
The Defendant denies parking in a disabled bay and witnessed no visible bay markings underneath or around the position of the vehicle in question, or anywhere else in sight. As such, the terms prohibit parking for both permit holders and non-permit holders. The terms are incompatible with the parking area and the Claimant appears to be operating a parking area which is clearly open for business but where nobody is permitted to park.
4.         The Defendant interpreted the terms written on the nearest UKPC sign as permissive due to this confusing rule. His interpretation was that the vehicle should be parked within the bounds of the paved space and not to overhang onto the road and to not encroach on the disabled space.
5.         Many signs are located around the premises with varying terms of parking. There are permit only spaces, staff only spaces, pay and display spaces and some that are only time restricted. It would be wrong to redirect or amend the terms via a different sign at a location further away. It would not represent the terms of which a motorist would understand to be bound by.

(I wrote para 5 because there is a sign at the entrance that states permits are required, and signs in other areas saying other things... the sign nearest me did not say this.)

Thanks guys...

Redx

Seems reasonable to me but await other comments too

Fruitcake

State that the signs on site are confusing and contradictory.

If there are no marked bays, then say so rather than say they were not seen.
If a sign says, park only in a marked bay and there are no marked bays, then that is a clause of impossibility and therefore an unfair contract term.