CST Law LBC

xHarlanx

Coupon-mad said:

Oh yes, thanks!  Depends who the PPC is writing to though and I'm not sure we know for sure.

Seems to be his wife's courtesy car in her name but maybe the OP can confirm, and reassure us that HE (a stranger, a third party) is not doing the emails in his name in error.

Correct, I am researching and liaising with your good selves but i'm am writing all emails and letters in my wife's name

xHarlanx

KeithP said:

Coupon-mad said:

Oh yes, thanks!  Depends who the PPC is writing to though and I'm not sure we know for sure.

Seems to be his wife's courtesy car in her name but maybe the OP can confirm, and reassure us that HE (a stranger, a third party) is not doing the emails in his name in error.

I pointed out yesterday...

As CST are chasing your wife for money, everything must be done in her name.

And also asked...

So from that it appears that the Smart Parking Ltd have no idea who was driving the vehicle - because you/your wife haven't told them. Is that right?

...but no response.


The 'hire car' aspect was also mentioned.

I haven't formally told them unless the SAR written in my wife's name confirms that she is the driver? I couldn't find in the newbies if the SAR confirms who the driver is or not?

xHarlanx

Thanks for all your continued support guys. One important element to note at present is that I did not receive a PDT machine record of that day with all VRN's as requested in my SAR. I wrote back advising i am not in receipt and the response I got is that because it contains other people's VRN's that they cannot issue it. Is this correct? or are the playing games because it will evidence the machines were not working and that is why they do not want to send the records?

Coupon-mad

Playing games.

Ask them to provide a list with other VRMs partially redacted, as other operators do.  Tell them you require this under the pre-action protocol for debt claims.

patient_dream

xHarlanx said:

Thanks for all your continued support guys. One important element to note at present is that I did not receive a PDT machine record of that day with all VRN's as requested in my SAR. I wrote back advising i am not in receipt and the response I got is that because it contains other people's VRN's that they cannot issue it. Is this correct? or are the playing games because it will evidence the machines were not working and that is why they do not want to send the records?

Smart the not so Smart ?

As said, they can redact all the other VRN's,  a school kid could do it.
It is up to Smart to prove the machine was working or lead CST into another fine mess

Will this industry ever grow up to become adults.  That's why judges keep the cane under their desk ...... to spank these wannabee timewasters

xHarlanx

Hi guys, further update. 

I requested the PDT machine records be supplied with VRN's partially redacted and they are still refusing. There email word for word as follows.

Good afternoon Mrs ...

I hope you are well.

We do not provide PDT records to data subjects as this contains personal data belonging to other data subjects.

We can confirm that we have checked for all transactions and there is no payment for your full and correct VRN or a VRN that is similar or recognisable as relating to this vehicle.

They have therefore danced around the request to send partially redacted. Has anyone had a similar circumstance where this information has been refused. Like you have suggested, it is up to them to prove the machine was in working order. Should I just respond requesting they therefore issuing any other documentation to prove that the machine was working at the time on entry? Perhaps I try to call the relevant person from CST and explain that they need to prove this and to date they have failed. I have already written to them advising this to their info@ email but still no response hence why I said perhaps I should call?

If my wife gets a court summons through the post prior to information requested being received then would this be a technicality? Tried to find something on the Newbie's and some other case studies on here but haven't come across anything of similar scenario. 

Thanks again

Le_Kirk

No phone calls to solicitors as it will be worth the paper it is (not) printed on!  Everything in writing.  Let them try to tell a judge they cannot prove the PDT was working.  You should put this in your defence if/when it gets to that far, "the claimant is put to strict proof that the PDT was working on the day of the event."  It won't be a summons as this is a civil case, a dispute over money.

patient_dream

At least the email admits they have the records because they have chaecked them.

As said they must provide strict proof 
They may show a judge the logs but only a redacted copy otherwise it would be a data breach 

THey must also prove beyond doubt that the machone was working.  AND if they were on to prove their case, why do they refuse to show you the logs and then go on to waste the time of a judge

This is the normal rubbish we see from Smart and CST

xHarlanx

Le_Kirk said:

No phone calls to solicitors as it will be worth the paper it is (not) printed on!  Everything in writing.  Let them try to tell a judge they cannot prove the PDT was working.  You should put this in your defence if/when it gets to that far, "the claimant is put to strict proof that the PDT was working on the day of the event."  It won't be a summons as this is a civil case, a dispute over money.

many thanks, I have written to CST advising them of this to their info@ email but I never get a response, but I suppose I have done all I can in that regard then. 

xHarlanx

patient_dream said:

At least the email admits they have the records because they have chaecked them.

As said they must provide strict proof 
They may show a judge the logs but only a redacted copy otherwise it would be a data breach 

THey must also prove beyond doubt that the machone was working.  AND if they were on to prove their case, why do they refuse to show you the logs and then go on to waste the time of a judge

This is the normal rubbish we see from Smart and CST

Many thanks for the feedback, It is my understating that they must send me all evidence that they will be using in court as per my SAR so surely they can't reject my request for redacted data but then show a judge with it redacted?