Author Topic: BAILIFF NOTICE: City of London, Code 52M vehicle in bus/bicycle-only zone, Cornhill  (Read 551 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Rufeus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
The SAR has been sent to pto@cityoflondon.gov.uk

While I'm waiting for their response, is there anything I can do to trigger the OOT (and in turn, delay the bailiffs?)

Do the PE2 and PE3 have to be submitted together? Or is it possible to submit one that doesn't rely on any information I'll be waiting on the SAR?

Thanks

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3592
  • Karma: +82/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
If you're Out-of-Time, you have to submit both forms together; one is the actual declaration, the other is to request to submit out-of-time.
Like Like x 1 View List

Rufeus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks for clarification, Incandescent

Rufeus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I've received a very unhelpful response to my SAR from City of London PTO referring me to the PCN link on their website that contains no reference to the PCN correspondence:

https://imgur.com/ZEneQwF

This is my draft response:

Quote
Dear L Burgess, Parking Ticket Office, City of London

In my previous email sent 30/07/24, I asked for all correspondence regarding regarding PCN CL59095142.  

The web link that you provided does not reference any of the notices and correspondence issued by the council and their enforcement agents including letters, dates, and the associated address(es).

 I refer, once again, to the subject access request that I sent in my previous email and attached herein. Please supply the data about me that I am entitled to under data protection law.

If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you as mentioned in the same letter.

Do you think my response is adequate?

Thanks

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Karma: +49/-31
    • View Profile
To whom did you send your SAR?


It has nothing to do with parking services or parking/road traffic legislation as such and your reply should have come from the council department charged with dealing with all SARs.


Rufeus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I sent it to the email address listed on the letter: pto@cityoflondon.gov.uk


H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Karma: +49/-31
    • View Profile
Then IMO send another!

On *** I sent the attached email which formed a SAR.

On **, I received the attached response from Parking Services.

May I please request that the Corporation of the City of London processes my SAR in accordance with GDPR requirements and your own policies and not pass to someone who, as the reply makes clear, is not able to discharge your duty.

I would add that the time imperative which applied for my first request is now even more pressing and I trust you will therefore give my request the urgency required.
Like Like x 1 View List

Rufeus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I responded to the PTO and separately sent the SAR directly to the Information Officer at City of London (along with HC Anderson's helpful wording)

The PTO has sent me this:

https://imgur.com/TB68a0U

https://imgur.com/KEfKh5J


The Information Officer has sent me this:

 
Quote
Subject Access Request (SAR) under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA)

We write in regard to your email as initially received by the City of London’s Parking Ticket Office on the 30 July 2024, and your further email of the 31 July 2024 as received by the Compliance Team, who are responsible for the management of SARs. We note that in both email you have requested access to the personal data, as attached, in relation to a PCN.
 
Firstly, please note that your original email of the 30 July 2024, has not been passed on to the Compliance Team and as such we were unaware of your request until your further email of the 31 July 2024. As we have now been informed of your request, we log the request within our records and begin the SAR process.
 
In regard to your SAR note that you requested access to personal data in relation to the following:


(OP NOTE: My original SAR request repeated here)

 
This request will now be processed, and we aim to respond by 30 August 2024.
 
Please note that SARs are required to be responded to within one month of receipt of the request, under the regulations set out by the UK GDPR and integrated by the Data Protection Act 2018.
 
We note that you would like us to also send a copy of the SAR response by post to you, and therefore we ask that you please provide further information as to the postal address you would like us to send the response to.
 
The DPA 2018 contains some exemptions to, and constraints on, disclosure, which may need to be considered in relation to the information requested.
 
If you have any queries, please contact me on the information shown below, or see the information available on our website:  Data Protection Policy - City of London
Yours sincerely,
 
Sophie Jordan–Dicey
Compliance Manager – DP & FOI
Comptroller and City Solicitor’s Department
0207 332 1243
Information.officer@cityoflondon.gov.uk
Data Protection Policy - City of London
 

It's good that the PTO has renewed the hold on CDER's enforcement action for another 21 days. I hope I receive the data from the SAR before that.

Thanks for all the help.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Karma: +49/-31
    • View Profile
Good re CDER.

But, it's outrageous that parking have interjected in a process which has nothing to do with them at this point.

I would write back to Sophie..

Dear ****
SAR Request *****

Thank you for your letter dated *** and I am reassured that at last the Corporation is processing my request. However, I have to set this against the enclosed letter from L. Burgess which, apart from being extra-procedural as regards a SAR, could also be seen as being intimidating. This arises because my circumstances are such that an informed submission to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (which may only be submitted once and may not be amended) is predicated upon receiving the information which you will supply, albeit perhaps not before the end of the period of 30 days, and yet L. Burgess makes it clear that they will only stay the actions of their agent for 21 days.

I would hope that you are able to reassure me that the left and right hands of the council are working together and that all further communications regarding my SAR will come from your office alone.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2024, 07:55:43 pm by H C Andersen »
Like Like x 1 View List

Rufeus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Having sent a response to Sophie following the recommended approach, I received this back:

https://imgur.com/cxadiJm

Considering it'll be coming up to the 21-day deadline this week, do you recommend paying the CDER bailiffs before they contact me again (with the hope of getting a refund)? Or should I wait a couple of days to see if I either receive the SAR data or for CDER to make another demand?

Thanks

Pressman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Alina Pressman
    • View Profile
Based on the justifications provided by CDER, it is clear that issuing a Rule 6 Notice under the Pre-Action Conduct and Protocol is not just a suggestion, but a strategic move that can significantly enhance your case. This approach is more effective than relying on a Subject Access Request (SAR).

CDER has proactively set its own deadlines, underscoring the importance of issuing a Rule 6 Notice.

When CDER fails to comply with a Rule 6 Notice for the exchange of information and evidence, or they seek to delegate responsibility to a third party, it will seriously weaken any defence if you decide to pursue a claim for breaching the Enforcement Provisions. The court will view CDER's non-compliance as a sign of their unwillingness to cooperate, which could significantly impact their case.

Moreover, the deadlines under Rule 6 are more rigorous, compelling CDER to adhere to your timeline. This means that you can expect a more prompt and efficient exchange of information, which can be crucial in legal proceedings.

By contrast, the informal nature of communication under a SAR, combined with the absence of penalties for non-compliance, offers little leverage when dealing with bailiffs.

Like Like x 1 View List

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Karma: +49/-31
    • View Profile
IMO, contact parking ASP, refer to this letter and ask whether they have instructed their agent to stay further action and for how long.

Keep the dialogue going.

If you don't get a response before the deadline then IMO pay and write to parking, refer to your-yet to be written letter- say you're disappointed to have not received a reply and consequently you have paid the debt purely as a tactical measure designed to minimise any potential liability and in no way may it be construed as an admission of liability for the penalty. 
Like Like x 1 View List

Rufeus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
@Pressman: I appreciate your suggestion but having searched online about issuing a Rule 6 notice, I only find information aimed at legal professionals and is hard to understand in practical layman terms. It sounds like a good option if I was either legally savvy or engaged a legal advisor.

@H C Anderson: Thanks – I have contacted parking about the stay of action and await their response.


Rufeus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
An update:

PTO has stayed enforcement action until 2 September. Yesterday, I received the SAR from Sophie at City of London.

I’ve listed, in chronological order, what was sent and point out what is missing in the spreadsheet image below. Any reference to correspondence since the start of this forum post is avoided to avoid repetition. I think it’s important to point out a few things:
- The SAR did not contain any correspondence between City of London and the agents/bailiffs
- The SAR is missing the Charge Certificate. This is the only correspondence I did receive at the time (but have lost it since)
- I moved to a new address on 16 July 2022, which is more than 3 weeks after I challenged the Charge Certificate notice (the time frame they estimate to deal with the enquiry). The next correspondence they sent was in November which is hardly reasonable.

https://imgur.com/TOKq9vH


I’ve also attached links to the redacted versions of the original correspondence that was included in the SAR including:
- PCN Notice https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oAkDPuS4xJLZ7-TLPswQAAcAcIHj41Ft/view?usp=share_link
- Response to my Challenge of the Charge Certificate https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xx8dfwhA5oD9pZgmkqjg-yGAyC0zHfy1/view?usp=sharing
- Order to Recover https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xx8dfwhA5oD9pZgmkqjg-yGAyC0zHfy1/view?usp=sharing

Questions:
- Is the contents of the SAR sufficient to complete the PE2 and PE3?
- If so, how do you suggest I approach it?

Let me know if anything else needs clarifying.

TIA
« Last Edit: August 30, 2024, 01:12:00 pm by Rufeus »

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2648
  • Karma: +29/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
This is a shame as the PCN has serious defects and this is a GLA side road.
How do we get more people to fight their PCNs?

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917

If you do not even make a challenge, you will surely join "The Mugged Club".

URGENT!

PLEASE SIGN MY PETITION TO EQUATE MOVING TRAFFIC LAW WITH BUS LANE LAW SO LONDON COUNCILS MUST ATTEND HEARINGS WHEN REQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT. 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701491

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/petition-to-align-the-llaa-2003-to-the-llaa-1996-(right-to-x-council-witnesses)/msg56899/#msg56899