3. Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops  (Read 987 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

johnboy1967

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #45 on: July 28, 2024, 08:44:07 pm »
SAR request sent as attached pdf file. Do we go to IAS or leave it.
Logged

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5315
  • Karma: +218/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #46 on: July 28, 2024, 11:41:33 pm »
Doesn’t matter. Anything with the persons name and address will do. It’s usually better if they have the V5C but it isn’t a big deal.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Away from 07/05/2025 for 3-4 weeks. Limited availability to provide advice.

johnboy1967

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #47 on: September 09, 2024, 08:59:31 pm »
DVLA reply to my letter. Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd applied for the driver details on 10/07/24. I also have two letters from Premier Parking Enforcement one claims to be a Parking Charge Notice and the newer one a reminder notice threatening debt recovery agent. Premier Parking Logistics not mentioned anywhere. Should I ignore the letters or reply. Thanks. I cannot access imgur to post pics, are there other similar sites.
Logged

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5315
  • Karma: +218/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #48 on: September 10, 2024, 12:36:33 am »
A complaint to the DVLA should be made because PPE are not the company that the alleged contract was with. If the signs at the location are in the name of PPL, why has a separate registered company requested the Keepers details from the DVLA. This is a blatant breach of the KADOE contract and the DVLA must be made aware of it and you must ask them what they intend to do about it.

A private company has requested your DVLA data. That company does not operate the car park. A different company operates the car park. Can any private company simply request your DVLA data without any contractual link to you?

As for the letter, ignore them. They have already been warned twice that passing your data to a third party debt collector will be considered a breach of your GDPR and will be dealt with should they fail to comply with your request.

If you want to rattle their cage, write to PPE and ask them on what basis they had a right to request your DVLA data when there is no contractual relationship. The contractual relationship is with PPL as it is their name on the signs in the car park. Mention that you are also reporting them to the DVLA for this breach of the KADOE contract.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Away from 07/05/2025 for 3-4 weeks. Limited availability to provide advice.

johnboy1967

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #49 on: September 10, 2024, 09:08:06 am »
Thank you. I will definitely send an email to DVLA and I most definitely want to rattle ppl cage.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List

johnboy1967

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #50 on: October 24, 2024, 07:43:14 pm »
Today we received letter from Gladstones solicitors with the capital letter routine   LETTER BEFORE CLAIM   Should we ignore this or is there another way of giving them aggravation.
thanks for your help with this
Logged

DWMB2

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3195
  • Karma: +94/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #51 on: October 24, 2024, 08:10:54 pm »
A Letter Before Claim should not be ignored. It means they are planning to instigate a claim in the County Court. It would be useful to see a copy of this.
Logged

johnboy1967

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #52 on: October 25, 2024, 01:39:59 pm »
This is the letter received from Gladstones. Your advice as usual will be much appreciated.
thank you

https://imgur.com/xcPkuUS
https://imgur.com/5FtM572
https://imgur.com/os9Dxe8
https://imgur.com/tNeYaE4
Logged

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5315
  • Karma: +218/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #53 on: October 25, 2024, 01:55:48 pm »
Can't see the letter. If you're not sure on how to post images, please read this:

READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide

Did you send the complaint to the DVLA as advised?
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Away from 07/05/2025 for 3-4 weeks. Limited availability to provide advice.

johnboy1967

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #54 on: October 25, 2024, 02:49:42 pm »
Hopefully these are now visible.
https://imgur.com/xcPkuUS
https://imgur.com/5FtM572
https://imgur.com/eqDRRZA
https://imgur.com/os9Dxe8


I did get a letter from dvla stating who had asked for our details. I thought I had put it up a while ago.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2024, 02:55:25 pm by johnboy1967 »
Logged

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5315
  • Karma: +218/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #55 on: October 25, 2024, 04:18:08 pm »
Respond to the LoC with the following:

Quote
Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. 104320.10641
Gladstones Solicitors Ltd.
Claimant: Premier Parking Enforcement Enforcement Ltd

I refer to your your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address that you may have must be erased from your records:

[MY ADDRESS]

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists" [Hansard]. Don't send me your usual mendacious waffle about that.

I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I await your response.

Yours faithfully,
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Away from 07/05/2025 for 3-4 weeks. Limited availability to provide advice.

johnboy1967

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #56 on: October 25, 2024, 04:40:25 pm »
Thank you so much for all the help given to us in order to deal with this. Should I send this reply by recorded delivery or can it be done online. 
Logged

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5315
  • Karma: +218/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #57 on: October 25, 2024, 04:54:05 pm »
You send it as a PDF attachment by email. There is no better proof of delivery than an email.

Signed for post is definitely not reliable. If the recipient refuses to sign for it, all you have is proof of non delivery.

If you insist on posting anything, use the free Certificate of Posting from any Post Office. The Interpretation Act 1978 covers the "proof of posting" for deemed service of a letter in the UK. Specifically, Section 7 of this Act addresses the concept of deemed service, stating that unless the contrary is proven, a letter properly addressed, prepaid, and posted is deemed to have been received in the ordinary course of post.

In practice, this means that if you can provide proof that a letter was posted (such as a certificate of posting from the post office), it is generally assumed to have been delivered unless the recipient can provide evidence to the contrary.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Away from 07/05/2025 for 3-4 weeks. Limited availability to provide advice.

johnboy1967

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #58 on: October 25, 2024, 06:50:20 pm »
I have copied, pasted and filled in the address. Sorry to bore you but should I send it to their contact email address  enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk
thanks
Logged

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5315
  • Karma: +218/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #59 on: October 26, 2024, 12:23:25 am »
Ideally, you send the letter as a PDF attachment in an email. That address is a valid one for Gladstone.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Away from 07/05/2025 for 3-4 weeks. Limited availability to provide advice.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
« previous next »
  3. Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops