PPS - dark car park

Following receipt of the SAR info, and your replies to my post giving details of the NTK, I wonder if the experts would mind advising on a couple of other points please? I received copies of 2 further demands from PPS a few weeks apart about 8 months later. Does the hive find it useful to scrutinise these, or is the only relevant bit the extra £30 they bolt on? Also there was no copy of the original ticket that was placed on the windscreen. Surely they should have a copy of that? Thanks again all.

Edit - Since writing this I've noticed that the template SAR which I used asks for either the NTK or the original PCN. In the final demand, they use the line 'This could lead to a County Court Judgement being issued against you which, if not satisfied would adversely affect your credit rating and ability to get credit in the future'. Is this grounds to accuse them of threatening behaviour, because it seems like a threat thinly veiled as advice to me?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, call their DPO out on this omission and ask them to confirm that have sent you every letter, PCN, photo and all data held & processed in any format including electronic or human notes, case updates/status records and emails or other communications internally or with third parties.

Done, thanks CM.

I guessed there probably wouldn’t be much leverage with their follow up letters and as you say their statement is true, even if the wording and bold print are clearly designed to scare people into paying.

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

No

What you do is dob them into the ICO
Either theyre lying or their data handling processes are flawed
Either way they are in breach of the DPA2018.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No. You can certainly complain to the ICO now that this trader is withholding data and information that MUST exist, and you fear they will spring it on you as court evidence by way of later ambush.

I would mainly use it against them in the later Witness Statement, pointing out that the C has not produced any copy of the alleged PCN when required to do so under a SAR, and even when prompted no such document was produced.

And the only document that could be described as Notice to Keeper neither meets para 8 nor para 9 of the POFA, hence why the matter was ignored by the recipient as this was considered to be a scam as outed by Watchdog.

You are fabulous, thank you. I will take great pleasure in dobbing them in! Interested to know why you would save this for the WS stage rather than the Defence CM? Would this likely not be enough to get them to drop the case? Better not to play this hand too early?

Won't they get a heads-up anyway if ICO investigate?