Euro/gladstones PCN claimform - Chamberlain Buildings ***Claim Dismissed***

[dx100uk]

you uploaded the same pdf 3 times.

duplicates removed

[Rincon]

Dx 100uk thanks for that. I'm going to put the GLADSTONES stuff they sent me on here to try and show what the signage says, although it will be much larger than what you can see on the notice. When I get the chance I might take my third trip up to this location. 

[Rincon]

ERICSBROTHER: The sign at the entrance:-

PRIVATE LAND

    P

45 Minutes Free

.   Parking For

. Chamberlain 

Building Retail

Units Patrons Only

 

See signs on site for full

terms and conditions 

 

Operated by: Euro Parking Services Ltd

Registered in England and Wales(09370159)

 

I wil get another picture of this notice asap.

 

i read the 'Invitation to treat' and this seems to apply.

[brassnecked]

"

See signs on site for full

terms and conditions "

 

That's the Invitation To treat OK, no specific contractural terms on there so if it's ANPR  that logs people in and out as the terms aren't explicit before the cameras capture a VRN, then a contract cannot exist as the terms are unknown, and as they assume they have a contract with the driver at that point they are knackerd.

[Rincon]

Brassnecked they have provided images with different times on but there was someone (no ID) with a mobile phone taking pictures of the car as well?

 

The images from GLADSTONES are from an ANPR because they are aerial shots.

 

thanks for the info'

[Mrs O'Frog]

The "someone with a mobile phone" taking pictures could drop them in the doo-doos too. It raises serious questions over GDPR and registration with DCO. EB will be able to advise you better than I on the ins and outs of that side.

[Rincon]

Mrs O'Frog: first concern was, as a slight 25 year old female; an Unidentified male taking photo's of her and her car, posed other concerns. She was not sure whether he was anything to do with 'parking Cowboys' or some sex pest?

[ericsbrother]

 

Ok signage first- not only is it likely to be invitation to treat ( see other signs etc) it also prohibits other users so prohibitive for others as well. That means they are damned under 2 different sets of laws and as already said if it was a contract then there is no mention of anyone paying ECP a bean so they are triple damned by their own words..

 

Now as for photography.

The problem here is who is taking the pictures and whet else do they do with that phone.

Is it their own phone and they upload the pictures to ECP somehow?

if so who are they because if they arent an employee of ECP directly they will need their own ICO registration for the data processing.

 

Not wearing a badge  or uniform is irrelevant but if you wrestled them to the ground and claimed that you were suffering from fear or alarm of their likely assault ( doesnt have to be physical contact) they can get done for that  and a free kicking to  remind them you were frightened.

 

Now, I am not suggesting that anyone abuses the law but as it is written if you THOUGHT it was a firearm as far as the law goes they are carrying a firearm or an imitation firearm and can you imagine their face when surrounded by armed coppers because of their suspicious behaviour?  possession with intent to cause fear etc applies to whatever the object turns out to be

 

check the ICO register for data processors and see what they have said they do to collect and process data. If they havent ticked the box saying random blokes snapping with a phone then they are in breach of their registration and apart from a complaint to the ICO it should render any evidence gathered by such methods as inadmissable. This isnt the same for people who happen to film their neighbours and use the footage, these people are doing it for a living

 

Lastly, you could tell their solicitors you will settle for a flat £500 for the breach of the GDPR as this is much less than the cost of going to court, losing a vexatious and pointless claim and then having to pay costs as well as a claim for the same amount as per VCS v Phillip and you wont have to even mention the perjury

[Rincon]

All looking positive, however can't get back on MCOL site. Refers to access via govt gateway but keeps throwing up same error code. What sort of time should I expect any paperwork from the court.??

[dx100uk]

there isn't anything further yet to come from the court

 

next move is YOURS

 

CLAIM FORM dated 04/19 ?

just ensure you file the std 2 or 3 ilne defence by day 33 from that date 

you've still not done this link..

 

 

[Rincon]

Still trying to access MCOL account via Govt Gateway, to no avail-keeps flagging error codes, not always the same. Have emailed the courts for advice-failing that I will send a hard copy. 

[ericsbrother]

I have done a bit more reading about situations like random people with mobile phones taking pictures.

Under the GDPR they need YOUR permission to do so but this could be mitigated by having a sign saying that they employ people to go round taking pictures for a specific purpose and that you have a right to have your personal data deleted upon demand or some similar phrase.

 

We can see that they dont and even if they did it is unlikley that they have covered the actual use they are putting the images to because individual consent wouild be needed as the action they a photographing isnt a general filming of all customers and it isnt for crime detection or prevention.

 

Now these bandits havent got your permission to use the images they have taken, havent  asked you personally or by way of a PROPERLY worded notice so they are in trouble.

 

My approach to this is to let the landowner know that you are intending to use the new arbitration service that deals with data protection breaches that can  award damages of up to £25000 and that THEY are liable under the GDPR, not just the parking co.

 

there is a 2 page article on this in the "Daily Mail" today that is a good starter about this kind of behaviour.

 

Lay it on with a trowel  and dont let the matter rest when they say it is the parking co's responsibility, it isnt.

 

If you get a complaint running wit the ICO about this now you will be able to beat them with their own stick when it comes to your hearing (if they are daft enough to want to go that far)

[brassnecked]

The Daily mail article would be a good one to copy and quote in your bundle also, if the twonks actually are daft enough to go to a hearing.

[Rincon]

Ok : latest advice taken. Still unable to access MCOL however county court have kindly sent all form options which I can submit to them electronically.

I note that only two or three lines are required for the basis of our defence.

So I need to be concise and to the point.

Mountains of stuff if I need to add WS later.

 

pointers would be welcome

[dx100uk]

just about any ppc claimform thread here already

[Mrs O'Frog]

Actually Rincon,

you need to be more vague than concise and to the point.

 

The thing is you can elaborate on points later, but can't introduce new ones.

 

For example

- if you say there was no contract formed with the driver, you can later go on to say that's because the signs were not there, worded incorrectly, obscured, driver left without agreeing etc etc.

 

On the other hand, if you say there was no contract formed with the driver because the signs were worded incorrectly, you can't then introduce the other arguments later on.

 

At this point more is less. Don't be so precise that you paint yourself into a corner.

[Rincon]

Ok. A vague defence, that allows one to be precise later? 

I think I've got the hang of this but I can't miss anything otherwise I won't be able to elaborate in the WS

[ericsbrother]

simple defence based on observations about signage already made.

there was no offer of a contract via the signage at the entrance to the site so there can be no cause for action  because it is not possible to breach terms that do not exist.

 

now all of the rest of the arguments about invitations to treat and the meaning fo the signs they are relying on to create a contractual condition can be added to  your WS along with examples of other cases where the parking co has failed miserably for the same thing. they willargue that the other sigsn are the contract and they are right, it is just you dont ahve to accept their terms because you were invited in to aprk by the first sign that doesnt mention any charges etc.

 

The example I give about invitations to treat is you are walking down the street an a clothes shop has a sign outside saying 50% off most items. Yoy go in, ask to try on a pair of trousers and are told they are not in the sale. now you cant force the shopkeeper to sell you the trousers for %0% off and they cant force you to by them just because you tried them on and nor can they charge you for standing in their shop if you dotn buy anything. the sign aoutside is an invitation to treat, to ake firther enquiries, to try stuff on and then negotiate. The contract is only formed when you say "i'll have those" and PAY for the item. Until that pint it is all up for offer and counter-offer.

 

I the case of the parking signs, you can read them and say to yourself "I dont like those conditions so I wont be bound by them". It is only if you agree to them that they mean anything and that usually means shoving money in a ticket machine for a car park before you can be truly said to accept the terms and if the blurb on the ticket amchine is different to the signs then the ticket amchine terms rule.

[Rincon]

Ericsbrother. I couldn't download the ICO register, so I couldn't determine whether the guy who used the mobile phone was allowed to distribute the images, I could just see that ECP were registered and pay tier 2.

i may add a bit about the data with the signage issues and leave it at that for the defence.

 

thanks as always.

[ericsbrother]

uIf you add somehting do so by saying "i believe that" or "I do not belive that" so youdont lose your credibility as a witness by asserting somehting as being true if it later proves not to be so.

 

for example, we always say that people write " the defendant does not belive the claimant has the requesitve planning permission" because they have checked with the council and know it hasnt been granted but if they wrote "the claimant doesnt have plaaning permission" and the judge doesnt understand the differences between the differenct sections of the advertising hoardings regs or that planning was obtained by the landowner then nothing else in that WS will be taken as being reliable.

 

The first example shows the truth, yo dont believe somehting is so and the judge will be asking the claimant about that or you will get to cross examine on that point.

 

now the thing about the use of mobiles is partially down to the wording of the signage as well as their permissions for obtaining different sorts of personal data so if you wnat to mention it you had better be damned sure that it wasnt flagged up in the parking contract and their ICO registration limits them to certain sorts of acquisition and processing of dat, for example number plates and not in your face images of shoppers.

 

It is somehting that is better put to the ICO initially and then take their determinations to court with you if possible otherwise it is the " I do not believe they have the authority under the GDPR to gather and process this sort of personal data (and specify what quoting the GDPR)" It may be that s170 of the 2018 DPA applies and they have committed a criminal offence and that in itself voids any contract that could otherwise apply.

 

the bod with the camera wont be the data controller but in an example we see here quite often, where a resident or shop assistnat is paid by the parking co for sending them pictures of miscreant parkers so they can be sent a ticket it is very likely that would apply

[Rincon]

Good point Ericsbrother:

 

I can see that on the Notice to Keeper it refers to 'recorded by Manual Number Plate Recognition' on foot patrol,

although the site notice refers to "may" use ANPR.

So I may steer away from that at the moment.

 

i think that the lack of info' on the signage at the entrance should suffice.

Nothing about payment and stating 45 minutes free parking for Chamberlain Building Retail Units Patrons Only.

 

As previously stated nothing about terms and conditions detail occur until the on site notice.

Therefore NO CONTRACT could exist,

as you pointed out.

 

I believe that without my permission that images obtained of me by EPS and in the abscence of any contract that they have not complied with s170 of the DPA 2018. 

 

 

 

[ericsbrother]

look this is early days so just the outline of what your defence is

- ie no contract, or no contract because..... and in any case....(POFA not created keeper liability for example)

 

If they have got the procedures wrong you can rubbish them and ask for the case to be dismissed under CPR 3.4 or others

 

the common thing that happens there is they are ordered to resubmit or risk getting it struck out

 

that will vary from court to court as some court managers use their powers and others dont, some put it in front of a judge and some just file it until the actual hearing and the judge reads it with the other paperwork the night before.

[Rincon]

Ok-I sent the defence to the County Court a few days ago.

Thanks, I'm indebted to you.

[Rincon]

Latest blurb from GLADSTONES :a copy of their Client's completed Directions questionnaire to proceed with the claim.

No oral hearing is their request.

 

i take this is for info' only and we don't need to respond to anyone?

[brassnecked]

You must respond to a DQ sent by the court, you will ask for an Oral Hearing as "On the Papers" is a Gladdys trick to get a Default judgment, as the dodgy POC will not be challenged so you make sure you reject their little plan.