Letter of claim BW Legal - From and old thread in 2018

tangsoodo

Thanks Le_Kirk and welcome back Coupon-Mad.

I've had an email reply from BW legal just saying noted on file and they can respond when i confirm my address, name, email etc even though all of that is in the letter that i emailed acknowledging the LBC and telling them i was seeking debt advise............So i guess this is just a robo to be ignored.

Premier Park have sent the SAR and their legal department have stated that a late POPLA code can not be supplied as it is now in the hands of Legal/Debt collection companies.

Their legal department have also responded to the DPO that they hold further personal data relating to this data subject but it is subject to legal privilege. Can they withhold this data?

They have sent minimal data such as both pcn's, first reminder, final reminders and payment data showing that payment was made in the morning and in the afternoon on both occasions with a roughly 2 hour gap around midday (when the driver left site for a break between training) So it is a case of double dipping? 

Also the two pcn's are a month apart but it is very clear that they have used the same photo of the car entering the site for both pcn's but with different time/date stamps (blatantly obvious from a sun glint on a certain part of the car and a shadow). Im not sure that the ones leaving are the same though. Is this a good defence  in court, how can the court be sure which of the doctored  photos are the correct ones and considering i can show that the car had been using the car park on roughly 20 occasions for 2 months after the initial pcn then these photos could be from any of those visits and i can show that several times parking was paid for way past the alleged time of the offense so did they use an exit photo with one of these later exit times?

Coupon-mad

Premier Park have sent the SAR and their legal department have stated that a late POPLA code can not be supplied as it is now in the hands of Legal/Debt collection companies.

It can, but they mean 'we won't'.  

Their legal department have also responded to the DPO that they hold further personal data relating to this data subject but it is subject to legal privilege. Can they withhold this data?

Yes if it is merely emails between a client and solicitor about a case and legal advice about the claim against you.  But I think they are just trying to intimidate you, so ignore that rubbish.

They have sent minimal data such as both pcn's, first reminder, final reminders and payment data showing that payment was made in the morning and in the afternoon on both occasions with a roughly 2 hour gap around midday (when the driver left site for a break between training) So it is a case of double dipping? 

Sounds like it.

I'd be replying pointing that out and saying you will counterclaim for data misuse for at least £300 if they proceed to a claim in what is obviously a case of a 'double dip' - a phrase that even appears in the DLUHC's new Parking Code of Practice - imagine my surprise...!

Add these observations as well and tell them to cease and desist and stop trying to add false (now banned) 'debt recovery costs' that no court will allow now that the Government's new Code of Practice has declared the exaggerated add-ons in existing cases to be 'designed to extort money from motorists' (DLUHC's Neil O'Brien MP).

Also the two pcn's are a month apart but it is very clear that they have used the same photo of the car entering the site for both pcn's but with different time/date stamps (blatantly obvious from a sun glint on a certain part of the car and a shadow). Im not sure that the ones leaving are the same though.

OK.  Can you show us that picture, from both PCNs, so we can look at it as this is a serious accusation.

Is this a good defence  in court.

Yep, hence why I'd robustly threaten a counterclaim and tell them to do one...don't wait to get a claim.  Kill it.

tangsoodo

Photos now removed 

you can see from the glint on one headlight, the dull running light on the other, the shadows from the bollards crossing the double yellow lines, the shadow under the front of the car showing the wheel spokes and the position of the dark line in the middle of the tarmac that its the same image with one either zoomed in or captured a second later

Coupon-mad

I don't think it is the same image.

ANPR is fixed and would take similar images. The black shadow line falls in a different place compared to the headlight, which is down to the speed of your car on the second occasion.

But if these are both double visits then there was no breach, am I right or am I muddling your case with another?

D_P_Dance

ANPR is not all that it is cracked up to be and is not allowed in Council car parks, read this.

https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/18/surrey-writing-on-womans-jumper-landed-couple-with-fine-when-she-walked-in-bus-lane-15439916/

tangsoodo

But if these are both double visits then there was no breach, am I right or am I muddling your case with another?

it is my case and I’ve been doing a bit of research on what you suggested about a counterclaim for misuse of data but most of the examples that I’ve found are where the defendant has proved that they were off site at the time. They are just going to maintain that their system shows no double visit. 

Is it for me to prove that the car left the carpark?

KeithP

tangsoodo said:

Is it for me to prove that the car left the carpark?

No it isn't, but it would certainly help your case if you were able to do so.
Think about what else you did between the two visits.
Spent money elsewhere? Credit card receipts?
Google timeline used?

Neither 'prove' the car was elsewhere, but on the balance of probabilities...

Coupon-mad

Nope, this is their case to prove.

Your witness statement will be strong evidence and you can show the BPA Article about ANPR and this inherent flaw, and the fact that PPCs are supposed to carry out manual checks to avoid even issuing a PCN based on ANPR 'first in last out' pictures.

D_P_Dance

The burden of proof is on the claimant.  They have to prove that you did not. 

tangsoodo

Is this ok to send Premier Park and should i send it to BW as well

I have received some of the data that I requested under a SAR. I note that you have stated that as both pcn’s are with legal/debt collection companies that you are not required to respond with a POPLA code. You can issue a POPLA code but are refusing rather than unable to, and contrary to the Alternative Dispute Resolution recommendations you are unwilling to consider resolving this matter and are intent on wasting the courts time.

You have provided data in the SAR that shows on the days of both issued pcn’s that the driver paid for parking in the morning and then again in the afternoon with a period in between where the driver left the car park between training sessions. This is clearly a problem with your ANPR/system and is a case of ‘double dipping’ which is known to be a common occurrence with ANPR technology. I’m sure you are aware that the burden of proof is upon yourselves to prove that these are not ‘Double Dip’ events. As you are aware the Private Parking Code of Practice section 7 states that

1.      The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15). The manual check might also reveal where “tailgating” – vehicles passing a camera close together – is a problem, suggesting relocation of the camera might be necessary.

 

This is a serious breach of GDPR where you have obtained, used and shared the keepers personal data where you were not authorised to and as such the defendant will be counterclaiming for data misuse for at least £300 if you proceed to a claim which is clearly a case of ‘double dip’.

You must now cease and desist and stop trying to add false (now banned) 'debt recovery costs' that no court will allow now that the Government's new Code of Practice has declared the exaggerated add-ons in existing cases to be 'designed to extort money from motorists' (DLUHC's Neil O'Brien MP).