DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 31338--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 26, 2024, 4:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.
OP, stick to the legal issues and CoP.
#Post#: 31352--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: b789
Date: July 26, 2024, 7:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 31426--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 28, 2024, 7:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 31445--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: johnboy1967
Date: July 28, 2024, 12:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 31448--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: johnboy1967
Date: July 28, 2024, 12:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
it is a private registration plate that belongs to the driver.
Should I go ahead anyway.
#Post#: 31459--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: johnboy1967
Date: July 28, 2024, 2:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
SAR request sent as attached pdf file. Do we go to IAS or leave
it.
#Post#: 31475--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: b789
Date: July 28, 2024, 5:41 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.
#Post#: 36246--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: johnboy1967
Date: September 9, 2024, 2:59 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.
#Post#: 36275--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: b789
Date: September 9, 2024, 6:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 36289--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: johnboy1967
Date: September 10, 2024, 3:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. I will definitely send an email to DVLA and I most
definitely want to rattle ppl cage.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page