Update Judgement - Both struck out (29th Feb) - Victoria Quays - Sheffield, S2 5SY

Anto_28

Grizebeck said:

Coupon-mad said:

Delay their claim by saying you are seeking debt advice and they must put the case on hold for 30 days (under the pre-action protocol for debt claims).  DO NOT REMIND THEM ABOUT YOUR LBC.

They can't do the same to you (delay your claim) as they aren't an individual.

As this nasty outfit they will ask for proof of this, unlike any other parking firm.  They seem to think they are above pre action protocol

Just reading the PAP in detail, if I request a document, they have to give me 30 days from the point of the request being served. So I'll just request some random docs

Coupon-mad

Yes that works.

Anto_28

This is what I've come up with as a first draft

IN THE CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE                                                                 Claim No.

 

BETWEEN

 

**********

Claimant

- and -

 

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED

Defendant

 

 

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

Parties

1.       The Claimant is the driver of the vehicle alleged to of been parked against the terms and conditions of the car park.

2.       The Defendant is the agent appointed by the landowner of the Victoria Quays Car Park whose sole purpose is to manage the parking of said car park via the use of parking permits.

The Facts, Breaches of Contract, and Summary of Events

3.       As a litigant-in-person who’s routine daily responsibilities are not that of a law background I have done all in my power to research and abide by the Civil Procedure Rules and the Practice Directions required to bring forth this claim against the Defendants.

4.       On the 15th June 2023 the Claimant parked his vehicle outside his place of work at the Victoria Quays Car Park, an action the Claimant has done on a regular basis for the 5 years he has been employed by his employer.

5.       At 14:55 on the day stated above, ***********, a parking officer of the Defendant was seen taking photos of the Claimants vehicle by one of the Claimants work colleagues. The Claimant went to speak to the parking officer immediately.

6.       The Claimant made the parking officer aware of the valid parking permit that was on display inside the vehicle that the parking officer had missed on first inspection.

7.       The parking officer informed the Claimant that due to the details being sent to the Defendant already, he advised the Claimant to contact the Defendant to have the ticket cancelled. He also informed the Claimant that he would take further evidence photographs and provide them to the Defendant.

8.       8 minutes after sending the initial vehicle details to the Defendant, the parking officer sent an update to the Defendant making them aware there was a parking permit.

9.       During this time, the Claimant used the contact form on the Defendants website to make them aware of the contact he’d had with **********.

a.      During the SAR request, the Defendant has failed to provide this document, and the Claimant has made further requests to obtain this document, so far to no avail.

10.    5 days later, the Defendant used the Claimants Vehicle Registration Mark via DVLA KADOE to obtain the Claimants personal details.

a.      The Claimant argues that the Defendant had no reasonable cause to access said personal data given the Defendant knew the Claimant had a right to park.

                                               i.     This is a clear breach of the DVLA KADOE rules which requires any request for information to be made with reasonable cause.

b.     The Claimant further argues that there was no legitimate interest in pursuing a Driver who the Defendant knew had the right to park.

11.    The Defendant issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the Claimant on 21st June 2023.

a.      The Claimant argues this was in breach of Article 5 of the GDPR (Principles relating to processing of personal data) and therefore under Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 is entitled to compensation for the breach of the GDPR.

12.    The Claimant appealed the PCN on the 28th June 2023.

13.    The Defendant responded to the appeal on the 5th July 2023 asking for a copy of the permit to be sent to them.

14.    The Claimant complied with the request, sending a copy of the permit the very same day.

15.    On the 17th July 2023, the Defendant wrote to the Claimant informing him that the appeal had been rejected.

16.    The Claimant refused to pay the charge he believed and further demands have been issued by the Claimant directly from the defendant on 17th August 2023 (DEMAND FOR PAYMENT) and 4th September 2023 (FINAL DEMAND).

17.    A letter before claim was issued by the Defendant to the Claimant on the 14th September 2023.

The Claimant Claims

18.    The Claimant seeks from the Defendant

a.      The Claimant has suffered stress and anxiety caused by the actions of the Defendant and therefore seeks non-material damages of £500 in compensation from the Defendant in accordance with Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

b.      To pay all the costs of the proceedings

c.      To pay my fixed witness costs under Practice Direction 27

Statement of truth

 

I believe that the facts stated in this Particulars of Claim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Signed

...........................................

 

*******************

2nd October 2023

Coupon-mad

IANAL so can't help with drafting POC.

But don't call their goon a 'parking officer'.

1505grandad

Not able to comment on contents of above but this para does not appear to read clearly:-

"  16.    The Claimant refused to pay the charge he believed and further demands have been issued by the Claimant directly from the defendant on 17th August 2023 (DEMAND FOR PAYMENT) and 4th September 2023 (FINAL DEMAND)."

Grizebeck

Sorry that is far to wordy for a POC
You need to be concise
You simply need to stick to the facts around the obtaining of your data

UncleThomasCobley

Anto_28 said:

1.       The Claimant is the driver of the vehicle alleged to of have been parked against the terms and conditions of the car park.

          

Anto_28

Coupon-mad said:

IANAL so can't help with drafting POC.

But don't call their goon a 'parking officer'.

😂 will have to come up with a new term

1505grandad said:

Not able to comment on contents of above but this para does not appear to read clearly:-

"  16.    The Claimant refused to pay the charge he believed and further demands have been issued by the Claimant directly from the defendant on 17th August 2023 (DEMAND FOR PAYMENT) and 4th September 2023 (FINAL DEMAND)."

Changed my mind mid-writing and made a right butchers, i've amended it

UncleThomasCobley said:

Anto_28 said:

1.       The Claimant is the driver of the vehicle alleged to of have been parked against the terms and conditions of the car park.

          

Update! Good spot.

Grizebeck said:

Sorry that is far to wordy for a POC
You need to be concise
You simply need to stick to the facts around the obtaining of your data

I just looked at a few examples on google and tried to follow their example. Hoping David gets in touch soon to help out with them. I'm just aware if you miss something in POC you cant then put them in the WS

Umkomaas

3.       As a litigant-in-person who’s routine daily responsibilities are not that of a law background I have done all in my power to research and abide by the Civil Procedure Rules and the Practice Directions required to bring forth this claim against the Defendants.

Should read 'whose'.

Grizebeck

Anto_28 said:

Coupon-mad said:

IANAL so can't help with drafting POC.

But don't call their goon a 'parking officer'.

😂 will have to come up with a new term

1505grandad said:

Not able to comment on contents of above but this para does not appear to read clearly:-

"  16.    The Claimant refused to pay the charge he believed and further demands have been issued by the Claimant directly from the defendant on 17th August 2023 (DEMAND FOR PAYMENT) and 4th September 2023 (FINAL DEMAND)."

Changed my mind mid-writing and made a right butchers, i've amended it

UncleThomasCobley said:

Anto_28 said:

1.       The Claimant is the driver of the vehicle alleged to of have been parked against the terms and conditions of the car park.

          

Update! Good spot.

Grizebeck said:

Sorry that is far to wordy for a POC
You need to be concise
You simply need to stick to the facts around the obtaining of your data

I just looked at a few examples on google and tried to follow their example. Hoping David gets in touch soon to help out with them. I'm just aware if you miss something in POC you cant then put them in the WS

David will charge a reasonable fee to do so but.  If you decide not to pay the fee then just be concise ,