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 4519 times)

0 Members and 361 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #30 on: »
Nothing unexpected. They were never going to uphold an appeal. However, you have gone through the motions and, as you have observed, they have not addressed the issues raised in your appeal.

I would suggest responding to their rejection with the following, for the record:

Re: Parking Charge Notice [PCN Number]

I acknowledge receipt of your rejection letter dated [insert date] regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). However, I note that your response has not addressed the specific points raised in my appeal.

Also, for the record and avoidance of any doubt, in my appeal I clearly stated:

1. I explicitly informed you that there must be no transfer of my personal details to any third-party debt recovery agents. This serves as a formal notice that I will not tolerate any harassment through DRA letters, which would constitute a breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and a breach of GDPR under the Data Protection Act 2018. Should there be any deviation from this path, I reserve the right to pursue a Part 20 counterclaim against your company for GDPR breach and any distress and inconvenience caused.

2. If you intend to pursue this alleged debt, which I categorically deny, you should issue a claim in the County Court. I am fully prepared to defend myself against any claim, and I will present my appeal, your rejection, and this letter in evidence.

You have now been warned and are on notice that any correspondence from any third-party that is not a solicitor acting on your behalf to issue a Letter of Claim or issue an N1SDT county court claim form will be considered a breach of my GDPR. Any evidence where you have provided my data to a third party debt recovery agent may also be used as evidence of unreasonable behaviour in any Part 20 counterclaim. Your company is now formally on notice regarding this matter.

While I do not expect any further response from you, you must understand that I am resolute in my stance. Should you wish to pursue this matter further, you are invited to do so through the proper legal channels.

Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #31 on: »
I will send this this morning with the greatest of pleasure. I will keep you all informed of any replies. Thank you.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #32 on: »
Message sent. Thank you all once again.
Logged
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #33 on: »
They replied to email. I find this astounding, they replied to my appeal through this email but now claim no reply will be made through this email. Full reply as follows...................

Attention Re: PCN:  - VRM: [REMOVED] UNAUTHORISED PARKING
Yahoo
/
Inbox



Premier Parking Enforcement

From:
info@premierparkingenforcementltd.com
To:
[REMOVED]

Wed, 24 Jul at 15:57

Thank you for your email.

PLEASE NOTE:


THERE IS NO ONLINE PAYMENT SYSTEM. TO MAKE PAYMENT PLEASE CALL THE 24 HOUR PAYMENT LINE 01302 513249.
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO MAKE PAYMENT BY PHONE YOU CAN SEND A CHEQUE/POSTAL ORDER (WITHIN TIMESCALES)


Appeals website is
https://ppeappeals.atriahub.co.uk/
appeals will not be answered on this email please use the website above.


If you are appealing/querying a parking charge notice or enquiring about any other business please remember to include ALL DETAILS as stated on the parking charge notice. If you do not forward the drivers FULL NAME AND FULL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS details your appeal/enquiry will NOT be processed. Please specify if you are the driver of the vehicle. We will reply to appeals within 28 days if you do not receive a reply within 28 days please contact us as your appeal may not have been processed.

We are unable to answer further queries on rejected appeals.

Show original message
« Last Edit: July 25, 2024, 07:53:21 pm by johnboy1967 »
Logged
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #34 on: »
This is all standard. They accept appeals through the methods stated on the notice, and will not engage in further correspondence outside of the appeal process. The purpose of the follow up email was just to show you're not backing down.
Logged
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #35 on: »
Nothing unexpected there. We now wait and see what they decide to do. They can simply disappear into the woodwork and you never hear from them again or they pass you details to a DRA and they will have breached your GDPR which opens them up to a compensation claim or they initiate legal proceedings where they will get a spanking.

You are dealing with intellectually malnourished ex-clamper thugs. Don’t expect normal behaviour from them. Nothing to fear though and you will have the satisfaction that if they try to progress this further, it is going to cost them money.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #36 on: »
johnboy1967,

your VRM and e-mail address are visible in your last post!
Logged
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #37 on: »
Thanks guys.
Logged
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #38 on: »
OP, I suggest you go back to the sign on site which set out the terms and conditions.

According to IPC, Premier Parking Logistics is not an Approved Operator, neither is Walton Watkins - see IPC website:

https://portal.theipc.info/aos-members/p/?page=2

As such, they have no authority to request your info from DVLA. Similarly, they are not able to access IAS nor IAS to consider.

PPE have no legal standing because they are not a party to the alleged contract.

Just stick to the facts of the sign, IPC Code of Practice etc. when you appeal to IAS. Less cage rattling for fun, just stick to the basics...

...IMO.

And if PPE were a party, then as they are an AO and they may institute debt recovery procedures pursuant to their CoP. You cannot tell them to naff off or take you to court..well you can tell them but this has as much legal force as a PCN from PPE ...

...IMO.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2024, 10:01:59 pm by H C Andersen »
Logged
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #39 on: »
Quote
As such, they have no authority to request your info from DVLA
This is why I suggested a SAR to DVLA. My assumption is that the company that is an approved operator are the ones who did this, but as their company is seemingly not offering contracts in their name on the site, it's difficult to see what reasonable cause they would have for accessing the OP's data in the first place, much less passing it on to a third party debt collector.
Logged
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #40 on: »
Agreed.

OP, stick to the legal issues and CoP.
Logged
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #41 on: »
And where is the OP not “sticking to the legal issues and CoP”?

An appeal was made pointing out that the OP denied any debt and informed the operator that if they want to pursue the debt in court they should do so. The operator does not simply have “permission” to pass the keepers details to a third party DRA simply because their unregulated CoP says they can. Where on earth do you get the notion that they have some sort of statutory right do that?

They have been put on notice that the keeper is aware of their GDPR rights and that if they wish to pursue the alleged debt then they should take it to the ultimate dispute resolution service... court. If the operator decided to ignore the keepers GDPR rights then they are aware of the sanctions that the keeper has a right to take.

It really is a simple as that. If the operator chooses to pursue the alleged debt, they should respect the GDPR of the keeper and not pass their data to a third party that cannot change the ultimate outcome, should they be prepared to progress it that far.

I find it astonishing that someone can give weight to the actions of these companies as though they are respectable followers of the law. We all know their reputations and the underhand, vexatious and unreasonable behaviour they resort to.

For now, the OP has appealed and stated their position, especially with regard to the handling of their personal data. The keeper has pointed out the legal position of why the PCN is invalid. The operator has rejected the appeal which was exactly as expected and the normal modus operandi of these cowboys.

A second response, reminding them, in no uncertain terms, where the keeper stands on this and has invited them, if they are confident that a debt is owed, to proceed to the ultimate debt resolution service and to send a Letter of Claim and then file a claim where a judge will decide whether the debt is owed or not.

Now all the keeper has to do is wait and see what the operator does. The ball is in their court and waffling on about sticking to the legal issues is superfluous.

If the keeper wishes to put the effort into an IAS appeal, good luck but based on experience, I would place money on them being back here once that effort is rejected and they are waiting to see if the operator decides to pursue it further.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2024, 01:08:31 am by b789 »
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #42 on: »
Prima facie, the legal issue is that the OP has not received a notice from the other party to the driver's contract. However, this unentitled person has offered the keeper the opportunity to plead their case with an independent assessor, so it makes sense to do so. If there are angles to this that the OP and we haven't seen then these would be aired at this time. Why should a keeper not take advantage of what on the face of it is a step in accordance with PoFA just because some people on a website are of the view that they're wasting their time?

There is nothing in statute which requires a creditor to immediately proceed to court, and there is nothing which enables a debtor to instruct a creditor on the methods they must follow, and given that this option is specified in the CoP, then it seems an obvious step for a legitimate creditor to take.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2024, 01:06:20 pm by H C Andersen »
Logged
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #43 on: »
Sorry to waste your time guys but just trying to fill in the sar and the driver tells me they do not have the log book as it is a motability vehicle. They have insurance documents. Can you tell me how do we proceed.
Logged
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
« Reply #44 on: »
it is a private registration plate that belongs to the driver. Should I go ahead anyway.

								

							

							

								

								

								

									
									Logged
								
					

						

					

					
				

				

        

							

	


	


	







	


	


        		
				

			

			
			

				
		

			
		

				
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 

				
« previous next »

			

	

		
    
			
  1. 
				
			
    2. 
			
  2. 
				
				
			
    3. 
			
  3. 
				
				Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
			
    4.