DragonFly1967
-
Posts
2,225 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by DragonFly1967
-
DPA/GDPR breach or not?/
DragonFly1967 replied to newmoses's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
I'd agree with that completely if it was uploaded for a commercial purpose, then I do think the GDPR (at the very least) would apply. But what we're talking about here (basically) is: A member of the public, uploading footage of other members of the public, that was filmed in public, for no commercial gain. I'm just not convinced that there's a breach, or at least, not one that could be proved/actioned. -
DPA/GDPR breach or not?/
DragonFly1967 replied to newmoses's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
OK, to start, I should say that I have also seen the video on youtube. This is not a breach of the DPA and/or the GDPR for many reasons. Although the drivers face can be seen, there is nothing contained in the video (with the exception of his face) that identifies them personally. As the incident took place in public and was filmed in public, there is no right to or expectation of privacy. Anyone can film anyone else in a public place and they do not need the permission of anyone else to do so. Annoying? Sometimes yes, especially when you're just trying to do your job, but it's just one of those things when every man and his dog is carrying around a broadcast quality camera in their pocket I'm afraid. I really can't understand why the bus driver is embarrassed by this incident. It's not like they got off the bus and provided them with a set of steps to help them climb on top. There was nothing that the driver could have done to prevent this from happening apart from mowing down countless idiots that were standing in the road (which, after watching the video, I'm sure was sorely tempting) so they have absolutely nothing at all to be embarrassed about. -
Remember, your full witness statement does not have to be served on Gladrags and sent to the court until 14 days before your case. Don't send it in too early as doing so would give Gladrags a chance to change theirs, and don't think they wouldn't. They do not play with a straight bat.
-
With what you already have, you should be able to make short work of this in court if Gladrags are daft enough to go that far (I know, who am I trying to kid? )
-
I take it that you now have a hearing date then? What date?
-
This is typical of Gladrags and their shoddy work as well as IPC members Link Parking. There's no way on earth that they're going to win a defended court claim, so please do make sure you acknowledge and then defend it. The IPC Code of Conduct for AOS Members, of which Link is one, says quite clearly (at 15.2 of the code) (my bold) So, a claim for an 11 minute overstay is likely de minimis and would not be looked at very kindly by a Judge. In fact, I dare say the Judge would be far more likely to tear them a new one before throwing their representative out of the court with a Judge shaped boot print on their backside. The problem is that Gladrags don't care about that, they get paid win or lose. Either you pay them (if you lose) or Link Parking foots the bill (if you win) so the only real 'winners' are Will & John. Nice work if you can get it I suppose. Anyway, fill in the link that HB posted in post #2 and we'll see where we are and what can be done.
-
But then, even Google is more useful than someone saying... However, I wasn't suggesting that the OP go in to the dealer having printed ½ the internet . But the OP could've gone in armed with the information that they have been reading technical bulletins, and go down the lines of 'have you thought of x, y or z'. Just trying to cover all bases for the OP really.
-
I've been having a bit of a Google, and I did manage to find a Jaguar Technical Bulletin regarding the AEB sensor(s)/controllers. In case it's any use to you, it's SSM73019, Dated: 19/10/2016 and/or NHTSA ID: 10127112 - TSB ID: JTB00576NAS1, Dated 16/01/2018. It looks like the XF and F-Pace also have issues with the sensor/camera/control module. It may or may not be related, but should be worth the dealer investigating.
-
Out of interest, do you have any record/evidence (email perhaps) of the dealership refusing to return the car to you as there were "errors" found and the car was too dangerous to drive? Those last few words "too dangerous to drive" scream FAULT to me, not "error" An 'error' to me would be things like a minor CANbus error/fault. Things like bulb failure etc, not a complete shut down of the vehicle on a dual carriageway.
-
I'm assuming that these have been acquired over quite a period, or are they all recent? Have a go at completing the relevant parts of this post (copy and paste (with your answers) back to this thread). What does your lease say about parking?
-
Waste of ink. "I'm not liable. This is an appeal. Now give me a POPLA code." will do just fine. ParkingLie will reject it even if you re-wrote War & Peace, so it's pointless. All you need is the POPLA code.
-
From the ICO website. The Data Controller for EE can be contacted at... The Data Controller. EE Trident Place Mosquito Way Hatfield Hertfordshire AL10 9BW https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/Z7510687
-
Moved to Bailiff forum.
-
PPC Successes (No Questions please)
DragonFly1967 replied to ploddertom's topic in Private Land Parking Enforcement
https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?487895-One-Parking-Lewes-Again-***-Cancelled-by-PPC-*** -
I'll amend your thread title. Well done
-
Let me put it another way and tell you why you shouldn't send too much information too early. The more you say now, the less room you'll have for manoeuvre letter on if it gets that far. The more information you give the likes of the PPC and Gladrags now, they will tailor their claim to take account of absolutely anything that you've already said to try and convince/bamboozle any Judge in to thinking that they are right and that you have to pay up. Keep your powder dry and choose your battles. Ultimately it's all about winning the war and individual battles aren't important
-
Just a small thing, but it's personal cheque (rather than check) and adding king12345's suggested line to cover yourself a little more.
-
You can cross a solid white line to turn in to a side road etc. Highway code rule 129
-
I believe it was considered, if only in passing, as as you say VCS had no rights to bring the case in the first place and it was dismissed on those grounds alone. I was first mentioned on Page 4 @ 7 of the judgement, touched on again on page 6 @ 16, and then on Page 8 @ 16 where the judge pointed out that if there was a warden on site, a part of his job would be to mitigate losses to the company by telling drivers that they should not leave the site. (paraphrasing). Here is a full copy of the judgement. http://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966c72de63ec1f98605c2954?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
-
Ibbotson... Wasn't that the "toothbrush" case?
-
Oh, that's a whole new can of worms. POPLOL can't adjudicate on Byelaw offences, it's outside of their remit. This means that apart from Indiglo themselves (who will 99.9% of the time dismiss appeals without even considering them (there's no profit in allowing appeals)) there is no route of appeal unless and until the TOC take you to Magicourt. Doesn't sound fair, does it?
-
PPC Successes (No Questions please)
DragonFly1967 replied to ploddertom's topic in Private Land Parking Enforcement
https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?488219-Athena-ANPR-PCN-overstay-LIDL-Manchester-Ashworth-Street-Denton-M34-3LJ-***-Cancelled-by-Lidl-*** -
Their email probably confirms (in a round about way) that the actual planning consent for that store specifies a free time limit of 3 hours. Useful to know I've updated the thread title.
-
Well, there are never any guarantees, but if they can't/don't/won't justify their own actions, then the chances of them actually winning a court case 'beyond reasonable doubt' start to get quite slim. And if the law that they are attempting to prosecute you under does not allow them to increase the penalty (and it doesn't), then the whole thing starts to unravel.
-
See Post #31
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS