Free Traffic Legal Advice

My question is, is it possible for Smart Parking LTD to obtain keeper details from DVLA the same day as the contravention occured and also issue it on the same day?

Theoretically yes, but in this case the timings suggest it is unlikely that it entered the postal system on the same date.

They had no "reasonable cause" to request your data from the DVLA which is a breach of your GDPR. If you wanted to really put them on the spot you could file your own claim for the breach.

Article 12 of the UK GDPR legally requires data controllers to store and process personal data accurately: clearly, any data controller issuing an invoice to you because it has wrongly recorded that you parked in breach of the alleged contract between you and the landowner (or, as in this case, an agent of the landowner) is processing your personal data unlawfully.
The precedents for claiming damages and compensation for such unlawful processing are the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Zeta Jones & Douglas v Hello! Magazine [2003] EWHC 786 and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd (CCF) [2013] EWCA Civ 333, both being binding on all County Courts in England and Wales.  In the latter claim, Mr Halliday was awarded compensation of £750 at what the Court regarded was the lowest level of award, and although this was a claim under Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, similar provisions - amended to take account of a decision by the EU Grand Chamber that the 1998 Act did not properly implement EU law into UK domestic legislation - replaced the old Section 13 provisions with Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

In short, you ought to give 21 days notice (the pre-action protocol only really requires 14 days but hey, you can be charitable!) to the data controller of your intention to seek (say) £300 nominal damages and compensation under Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for their unlawful processing of your personal data: you could say that you will not file your claim with the County Court if they confirm in writing that all references to this alleged debt have been deleted within (say) 14 days. Clearly mark your letter as a "Letter before County Court proceedings".

Anyone who is fairly confident can claim as a litigant-in-person in Part 27 proceedings in the County Court (commonly but wrongly described as "the Small Claims Court").  Each party is responsible for their own legal costs whether they win or lose and the claim for £300 can be issued online for a fee of £35 at moneyclaimonline.gov.uk which also gives useful advice if you want to have a look at what is involved.  Your claim will automatically be listed as being for a total of £335, i.e. the successful party gets their Court fees back.

Just hold on.

OP, in your first post you made no mention of the car being on an exempt list and therefore all 5 'tickets' must have been issued in error, but rather you implied that the SMART template(PCN not in accordance with PoFA presumably) would win the day.

I would have thought that you'd have been more annoyed at their repeated failure to consult this exempt list and consequently issue PCNs than, IMO, pretty left field GDPR arguments.

Anyway, if you're confident that you can get the PCNs cancelled then isn't it the case that any further matters should be referred to the Flame Pit?

I did a bit more digging into the matter. The first ticket issued was on a Monday where the vehicle was on the entered on the exemption list for that day or else more tickete wouldve come through the post via ANPR. The other 4 tickets were on another day 3 on the same day but those were over the weekend where the car forgot to register for exemption but they will be cancelled 100%. It’s just the issue with the first one for being ticketed even though it was on the exemption list. The site has 2 different set of rules. The first set of rules (main rules) every car must have a valid permit on display as it’s an authorised only car park controller via ANPR. The second set (which would apply to the vehicle in that situation) is to register the vehicle for daily exemption and mentions nothing about a permit being needed. The site has 2 hours grace between 6am and 4pm monday-friday and reduced to 10mins outside of these hours. As the vehicle was on site after hours where the 10mins apply vehicle was registered to become authorised for use of car park.

Anyway, if you're confident that you can get the PCNs cancelled then isn't it the case that any further matters should be referred to the Flame Pit?

The discussion seems (for now) to be relating solely to live cases, rather than purely theoretical discussion, so it seems fine for it to be here.

WhoLetTheScamsOut, like HC I'm slightly confused by your description of the terms and conditions. I could take a guess but that would be potentially counterproductive, we'd need to see the signs. Although probably not of much importance if you've already submitted appeals that are likely to succeed.