any company can sign up with a CRA and eget baisc information to confirm an address they have a name for. they pay to do this and the search is a soft search so no-one else other than the person whose record it is will know it has been done. They wont be able to see any information regarding your financial accounts etc.

Surely a CRA cannot give out information to a PC for an unpaid invoice?

Should I not write to Parking Eye at all to inform them of the situation?

Is the general advice to wait for them to take me to court?

Honestly, I would prefer not to go to court. I would prefer to let them know that this is a trespass issue and then for them to leave me alone.

After letting them know, that this issue has nothing to do with them or the keeper, but rather it is between the landowner and the driver, then I would instruct them to remove my data from their records, in accordance with GDPR.

After that, my intention would be to send them a SAR. If they still hold details relating to me, then I can take further action.

Or, if they claim they no longer hold any details about me, but 5 years down the road take me to small claims, then I have a GDPR breach as ammo as well.

I want them to delete all the records they hold about me. This is the reason I want to inform them that it is a trespass issue.

no don't kick the hornet nest yet

save you arrows

do this and they wont leave you alone.

You dont wait until they take you to court

but you dont invite letter tennis or respond to any of their silly letters or those from dca's.

When it comes to the letter before action you then respond and in no uncertain terms so they know that you are no fool and their actions can then be seen as an abuse of process should they actually go as far as a claim.

The GDPR is not some magic bullet, same as the Beavis case doesnt apply in most circumstances so when the parking co's quote it they are taking it out of context

Thanks dx100uk and ericsbrother.

I was unsure as to when it would be the right time to make contact with them, but you have clarified this for me.

Hi ericsbrother and dx100uk

I have received a Letter Before County Court Claim from Parking Eye today. This is what it says:

LETTER BEFFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM

On the 24May 2018 we notified you, as the registered keeper of this vehickle, that you had become liable for the above parking charge notice, which concerned a breach of the parking terms and conditions at Cedar Court Hotel on 16 April 2018. This parking charge notice was levied for breach of contract and the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 012 (POFA) have been satisfied.

We now require full payment of the outstanding parking charge in the sum of £100.00. Payment details can be found at the top of this letter.

If you wish to contact ParkingEye then you must do so within 30 days of the top of this Letter Before Claim using the enclosed Reply Form. Please refer to the enclosed Information Sheet for more details. If further action is required to recover the outstanding amount and court proceedings are issued, further costs will be incurred. These costs will include, but are not limited to, £50 solicitior's costs and £25 court claim issue fee. Please note that no interest has accrued on the outstanding balance detailed above and that no additional recovery charges have been added at this stage.

We would further draw your attention to the Supreme Court decision detailed at paragraph 7 overleaf. The appeal concerned the value of ParkingEye's Parking Charges and the judgment, granted in ParkingEye's favour, delivers a binding precedent in respect of the sum sought as the Supreme Court found that the Parking Charge was set at a reasonable amount.

So, do I now need to tell them that the driver was a trespasser? What other info should I include?

They have attached forms where they want me to list my income and expenditure and send it to them...cheeky beggars!!

The back of ParkingEye's letter includes details of the Beavis case. They also include this paragraph:

As court proceedings have not yet begun and as no defence has yet been filed, it is impossible for ParkingEye to state exactly the document that will be relied upon. However, the essential documents will be; all Parking Charge notices that have been sent, any defence submitted by you, any reply to defence submitted by us, any document proving ParkingEye's authorisation to operate on site, and any signage plan or images of signage from the site in question.

Thank you for any help and advice you might be able to give.

Thats the PAP letter of claim The new pre action protocol pack, it doesnt apply to speculative invoice s but PE use it to frighten people

So you now do as EB said and send that letter

Am I okay to send this letter:

To Whom It May Concern at ParkingEye Ltd

I have received several speculative invoices (parking charge) from yourselves regarding a trespass issue which occurred in the car park of Cedar Court Hotel.

Today I received a Letter Before County Court Claim, dated 8th June 2018 relating to this matter.

The signage in the car park states that it is a "Patron Only Car Park". The main condition of parking states that "hotel patrons must enter their full, correct vehicle registration details...in reception".

The driver of the vehicle did not use the hotel at all therefore was not a patron and therefore, there was no contract between the driver and ParkingEye.

Since the driver was not a hotel patron, and since the parking conditions only apply to hotel patrons, there is/was no contract.

The driver was a trespasser. The trespass issue is a matter between the driver and the landowner. It, therefore, has absolutely nothing to do with ParkingEye. There is absolutely no need for the driver (or for that matter keeper) to make any arrangements whatsoever to pay ParkingEye anything no matter how many letters wanting payment are sent out.

Do not contact me again regarding this matter again.

In accordance with the new GDPR regulations, you must now remove ALL data you hold regarding me, as it has been made clear to you that the trespass issue has absolutely nothing to do with you, ParkingEye at all.

Maybe I should also say

"Do not contact me again regarding this matter unless it is to request to see the evidence of the trespass, the cost of which is £100 payable in advance."

post29

making demands for money to show them evidence you will have to produce as a civil procedure protocol is not the best way of approaching this. You need to be able to show that you have done things properly regardless of what they do or have done. Please dont be tempted to send it

I have revised some of the wording in the letter. Feedback would be appreciated. Is it okay to send now?

To Whom It May Concern at parkingeye Ltd

I have received several speculative invoices (parking charge ) from yourselves regarding a parking incident which occurred in the car park of Cedar Court Hotel.

I have received a letter Before county court Claim from you, dated 8th June 2018 relating to this matter.

The signage in the car park states that it is a "Patron Only Car Park". The main condition of parking states that "hotel patrons must enter their full, correct vehicle registration details...in reception".

The signage is prohibitive to anyone who is not a hotel patron. The driver was not a hotel patron. So, the signage is a deterrent rather than a genuine offer of terms and therefore there is/was no contract between the driver and ParkingEye Ltd. The payment you are demanding is an unlawful penalty and not a proper consideration.

await dragon or eric's advice before sending anything...

Poke 'em with a stick

Mine and ericsbrothers approach tends to differ in matters like this, even though we're both working towards the same goal. I'd send that and see what happens. You know you're in the right, we know that you're in the right. But I'll almost guarantee that ParkingLie won't agree

You'll probably get the same barrage of threatening letters et al, in the hope that you'll get scared and pay up. But deep down they'll know that they don't really have a chance at court. Whilst they might think that their pet "Beavis Judgement" is some sort of magical panacea, in reality, it's far from it.

The Beavis judgement refers to a very particular set of circumstances, and this case most certainly doesn't fit 95% of them.

Get it sent

That is more like it.

My opbjection to your first draft was the daft demand for a billion quid for sending documents you would have to hand over anyways.

Anyone reading that would know that you had overreached yourself and thus be tempted to take you on.

A factual letter and a statement that you will be robust in your defence if they do try court is much better.

I have revised some of the wording in the letter. Feedback would be appreciated. Is it okay to send now?

 

To Whom It May Concern at parkingeye Ltd

 

I have received several speculative invoices (parking charge ) from yourselves regarding a parking incident which occurred in the car park of Cedar Court Hotel.

 

I have received a letter Before county court Claim from you, dated 8th June 2018 relating to this matter.

 

The signage in the car park states that it is a "Patron Only Car Park". The main condition of parking states that "hotel patrons must enter their full, correct vehicle registration details...in reception".

 

The signage is prohibitive to anyone who is not a hotel patron. The driver was not a hotel patron. So, the signage is a deterrent rather than a genuine offer of terms and therefore there is/was no contract between the driver and ParkingEye Ltd. The payment you are demanding is an unlawful penalty and not a proper consideration.

Thanks DragonFly and ericsbrother

The letter has now been posted.