2 X CCBC Claims from UKPC via DCB Legal

atothep

KeithP said:

atothep said:

Is anyone also able to confirm if the pictures I received via my SAR request will be the only ones that can be used in court or will they be able to produce more pictures of signs etc that were in the car park on that date?

A Subject Access Request is a request for a copy of your personal data that the company holds.

Car park signs are not your personal data and therefore they are not obliged to send you pictures of any of them as a result of your SAR.

Thanks Keith. This is really useful. So any pictures of my car they had taken would have to be included. I'm really surprised that in one of the pictures they have sent it shows a permit being displayed in my windscreen. I do remember the permit had a tear in it but it was still very much legible. Unfortunately the picture is of such low resolution that there's no way of seeing what the permit says. Would that count in my favour or theirs potentially?

atothep

I think by now I've probably somewhat diluted by initial post by asking far too many questions which I've since stumbled across answers to. If anyone can offer any input on these final few I'd be grateful so I can get started on my defence:

1) Should I be pushing for any more affirmative action in having my two claims combined? I confirmed this with the DOP officer in my SAR and plan on putting it in my defence.

2) The first claim against me shows I have displayed a permit in my windscreen. UKPC neglected to take a close-up of the permit and still issued a PCN. On the second claim I had simply forgotten to move said permit to my new vehicle. I presume I will have to enter two defences as the claims have not been combined. Would it make sense to just go down the 'Primacy of Contract' route for both cases? 

I understand the initial defence is a fairly brief legal outline of my position and further down the line I can fill in the finer details. I just don't want to miss out on putting anything in that would be useful at this stage.

Many thanks

atothep

Umkomaas said:

atothep said:

Jenni_D said:

"Please note there are 2 parking charge notices against you which are both in Legal Action."

Dear PPC,
Well DURR! That's what I told YOU - and that you should be combining them as a single claim, something I'll raise with the judge when I win the first claim, so I get the second claim struck out due to Cause of action estoppel.  

Haha. Presumably this won't go down well If this is how I respond to them?! For now do I just make sure to highlight this in my defence statement (which section?) and continue to mention it in any other correspondences? Thanks

Why do you want it 'to go down well'?  They are trying to sue you F*S (I don't think we're allowed to use the full initials any more, but I guess you know what I'm saying). Or are you looking for mutual understanding and reciprocity. 😮 

You can't sweet-talk a bully, you just punch them on the nose. That's the language they really understand!

It was an attempted light hearted response to what I (maybe wrongly?) presumed was a joke. I'm certainly not looking for any mutual understanding from a company trying to rob me of £700. I'll be sure to include a healthier does of vitriol next time!

Jenni_D

Oh my previous response was absolutely not a joke by the way (apart from the DURR part).  

atothep

Jenni_D said:

Oh my previous response was absolutely not a joke by the way (apart from the DURR part).  

Thanks Jenni. I'll get back in touch with them a press home the point in that case.

atothep

Jenni_D said:

Oh my previous response was absolutely not a joke by the way (apart from the DURR part).  

Would this press the point home?

Dear DPO,

In relation to your comment:

"Please note there are 2 parking charge notices against you which are both in Legal Action."

I had already informed you of this in my original correspondence as below:

"Please note that the CPS require multiple claims to be combined in such circumstances." 

This is something that I will raise with the judge after the I win the first claim so that the second claim is struck out due to 'Cause of action estoppel.'

Kind regards

Jenni_D

I think by CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) you actually meant CPRs (Civil Procedure Rules).  

atothep

Jenni_D said:

I think by CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) you actually meant CPRs (Civil Procedure Rules).  

Oops. Will amend accordingly

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't waste time and energy responding about the SAR, when you have a live claim (or two?) to defend.

Please follow the 12 steps in the Template Defence thread so you know what to do and when.

We are happy to critique a defence and you need to add the good news from 2022 (this month) as explained here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79013061/#Comment_79013061

Happy reading, get up to speed with the new Code of Practice from the DLUHC.  That thread explains why it matters even to existing cases and it's not even in the Template Defence yet because it's so new.

You also need to add the standard wording about Henderson v Henderson cause of action estoppel (search the forum).

atothep

Coupon-mad said:

I wouldn't waste time and energy responding about the SAR, when you have a live claim (or two?) to defend.

Please follow the 12 steps in the Template Defence thread so you know what to do and when.

We are happy to critique a defence and you need to add the good news from 2022 (this month) as explained here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79013061/#Comment_79013061

Happy reading, get up to speed with the new Code of Practice from the DLUHC.  That thread explains why it matters even to existing cases and it's not even in the Template Defence yet because it's so new.

You also need to add the standard wording about Henderson v Henderson cause of action estoppel (search the forum).

Thank you for your suggestions. I'm trying to locate a copy of the residential lease to check it's wording and once I have that I'll share my draft defence for some critiquing. I'll be sure to look at the 2022 case and Henderson vs Henderson. Thanks again