Court Claim received UKCPS/Moorside

ThisIsHappening

A first go…

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3.  On-site signage at time of the alleged breach was sparsely placed, inadequate in prominence and was not apparent to the Defendant. Signage was subsequently much improved, suggesting an admission of prior inadequacy by the Claimant.

The car park had been used without penalty for several years prior, by local residents attending ******** ******, adjacent. No warning was given to users of any impending change in enforcement or restriction.

The Defendant was at time of alleged breach a customer at Costa Coffee.

ThisIsHappening

I think my first draft above is more appropriate for a Witness Statement, so I've had another go…

3.  With regard to the Particulars of Claim: Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant . On-site signage at time of the alleged breach was sparsely placed, inadequate in prominence and was not apparent to the Defendant and thus no acceptance of any alleged contract took place. Paragraph 2 is denied. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

ThisIsHappening

As an aside; the original Parking Charge Notice included CCTV photos of me and my car, allegedly showing me "leaving site". They also very clearly show the inadequacy of the signage (ie. no sign on entry, no signs on that side of the car park where my car was). They would be very useful as evidence, ironically. However, the Notice states that: "The images are considered to be personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018 (GDPR) and as such must not be used outside of the reason they have been supplied…Should you use these images for any other reason, then you will be in contravention of the GDPR."

That is very vague wording. But surely, using the imges in connection with this case in court is entirely within "the reason they have been supplied"? The images are of my car and of me, and UKPCS have not asserted any copyright over them. Has anyone ever used the other side's photos to bolster their own case?

Coupon-mad

However, the Notice states that: "The images are considered to be personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018 (GDPR) and as such must not be used outside of the reason they have been supplied…Should you use these images for any other reason, then you will be in contravention of the GDPR."

Hahaha!

Love it! They have pretended you'd be breaking the law to use images of your own vehicle and YOURSELF!

😂😂

ThisIsHappening

Um..well it would be worth going to court (and winning of course!) to beat them with a stick of their own making 😁 As I say, their own photo clearly shows there were no signs in that sector of the car park.

Coupon-mad

The stupidity of this rogue industry is the gift that keeps on giving.

😆

GrannyKate

Some useful thoughts below (This is from AI as it did explain succinctly) but there is lots of guidance available on internet. Copyright is a minefield and may or may not apply to these specific images but that doesn't mean you can't use them in court. The reason the evidence was 'supplied' was in support of their claim against you and I can't see that you are planning to use it for anything other than defending yourself anyway.

Key Legal Requirements for CCTV Evidence

• Admissibility: For CCTV to be used, it must be relevant to the case, authentic (unaltered), and obtained lawfully.
• Data Protection (GDPR/UK DPA 2018): CCTV recordings are personal data. Systems must have clear signage, a lawful basis for recording, and a retention policy (usually 30 days).
• Chain of Custody: To be reliable, evidence must have a documented chain of custody from the moment it is recorded to its presentation in court to prove it has not been tampered with.
• Content Quality: The images must be clear enough to identify individuals, actions, or events

Copyright Implications for CCTV Images

• Ownership and Protection: Generally, photographs and digital images are protected by copyright as artistic works.
• Exceptions for Legal Proceedings: Copyrighted works can be used without the owner's permission for specific purposes, such as in court proceedings or for the purpose of seeking legal advice.
• Originality Rule: Copyright applies to works that are the creator’s own "intellectual creation." In cases of simply taking a screenshot or extracting a clip from a digital CCTV system, it may be argued that this lacks the necessary originality for a new copyright to exist, although the original raw footage could be protected

ThisIsHappening

I’d say this is a green light for me to use their pics.

• Ownership and Protection: Generally, photographs and digital images are protected by copyright as artistic works.
• Exceptions for Legal Proceedings: Copyrighted works can be used without the owner's permission for specific purposes, such as in court proceedings or for the purpose of seeking legal advice.

GrannyKate

Yes there should not be any problem. There is very little potential for any breach by the subject of data protection law here - the wording they have used is really about information shared between other parties say where a charity keeps members info for a specific purpose like sending newsletters out and where they would be in breach of DPA if they shared it with a local business interested in selling things to their members. If a SAR request results in the inclusion of information relating to other identifiable persons caution should be exercised in re-use of it in the public arena where it might breach that person's rights. Parking company would however have had to blurr that part of the image out. It would not be strictly true to say that there are no restrictions on what you can or should do with information supplied to you under SAR as you could run foul of other legislation but using it in court is fine.

Good luck to them if they want to try bringing a case under DPA or Copyright law - that would be a very expensive mistake for them.

ThisIsHappening

I'm probably going to submit my defence today but im vacillating between my two versions of paragraph 3, above. However, I think I'll keep it short and sweet:-

3.  With regard to the Particulars of Claim: The Defendant does not acknowledge any debt to the Claimant . On-site signage at time of the alleged breach was sparsely placed, inadequate in prominence and was not apparent to the Defendant and thus no acceptance of any alleged contract took place. The sum claimed is greatly exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and no damage or loss was incurred by the Claimant.

How does that sound?

One question: "no PCN can be £170 on private land"? Why cant it be? I may have missed something but if i'm making that statement I'd like to know the basis for it.