Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @FTMDave  -  Simeon's had a go at incorporating the attachments at #100 (I think?) but I think what he's done needs tidying up.  But as you say that's just an admin/clerical task and all simeon needs to do is to ensure that it all hangs together and makes sense.  Doesn't require specialist knowledge.   I agree with your comment regarding my paras 13 and 14.  You've made it clearer than I did!   I've also advised simeon to incorporate the report he got from the surveyor.  (Was it Hale Survey Limited?)  Let's see how he got on.   Oh - I also introbuced an error in my draft.  I had simeon down as paying the piling company £3300 but it was only £3000 (I think).  Simeon needs to check that the correct figure is in.  (Simeon had corrected my error* in #100.  I think you may have missed that because you've got a day job to do!)   Oh - and of course simeon needs to ensure that he has taken account of the corrections you have made to the claimant/defendant terminology.   Apart from the above and the interest, I'm not sure if anything else is required.  It's up to simeon now...    *I think the only thing simeon changed in #100 from my earlier draft was the piling bill from £3300 to £3000, and he attempted to add the attachments.  It might have been better - and less confusing for you! - if he'd left that until you'd completed your amendments.  Ah well...
    • We don't need the claim form, they are standard so we know what they look like.   We needs (a) the fleecers' particulars of claim verbatim with the amounts they are claiming, and (b) the date of the claim so we know the deadline for getting your defence in.
    • I see simeon  has several quotes for remedial work and also a report on some of the damage.  They need to be given exhibit/attachment numbers and linked to (16) and (17).  That is simple clerical work, you don't need any legal knowledge to do so.   Obviously the piling receipt has to be linked to (10).   As MiE has pointed out, the total needs to go in (18) and personally I would include the four sub-totals in (18 a b c d).  After all, the court did ask for a properly itemised counterclaim.   If simeon can do the above tomorrow we can then add Andyorch's point about interest at the end.
    • Hi, I’m really scared and nervous to write here, as I’ve never done anything like this before.    I had a telephone DWP compliance interview the other week, when I had the letter I thought I’d been called up at random as I couldn’t think what I’d done wrong.  In 2016 I started an open uni course part time as I was working, however a few months later I suddenly became unwell and was off work a year before finally becoming dismissed. I had to claim ESA while I was still employed as I hadn’t paid enough tax. My mum helped me make the ESA claim over the phone and one of the questions was ‘are you in full time education’ which I replied no to, but we said I had as at the OU part time.  I had to attends job centre visits and told them again about my open uni course, and every year I phoned up for a letter to confirm my ESA for my student fee loan and a part time grant.  The compliance officer is investigating me because I hadn’t declared my studying even though he had it down that I said I was with them. So I’ve had to send in all my information on my student grant which is £1155 a year.  I’m terrified of what is going to happen because I’m sure they had everything down about it all. I’m still claiming ESA for my illness and I’m in the support group, and I’m upset because I’m sure everything was down.  I just wondered if anyone knows what’s going to happen to me.    Best wishes 
    • OK, I've sorted out using the correct terminology to refer to the parties.   The original document was absurdly long and filled with waffle. I reduced it. Then MiE did so further – twice. I've continued on the theme and have merged (13) & (14) as I don't think we need to go into detail of why a £2000 payment because £1500, it'd just confuse the judge.  Feel free to disagree!   I've sorted out the new numbering and references to paragraph numbers.   IMO (16) needs beefing up to explain why the builder disappeared, but simeon seems to not want to explain this properly, so so be it.   Apart from that it looks about ready to go.   Counterclaim   1.      The original Claimant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the original Defendant/now Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas of work for an agreed price of £4300.  The work was:   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To replace and repair a previously-removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.   2.      It was agreed that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant and that the Claimant’s work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   3.      Between June and July in 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant provided the Claimant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the Claimant for the works to be carried out.   4.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13 August 2020.   5.      It was agreed between the parties that payments for Project 1 would be made in three instalments. The first payment would be made at the start of the Claimant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the Claimant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The Claimant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the Claimant asked the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The Claimant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the Claimant’s work but the Claimant was absent.  The inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the Claimant's work.  The inspector spoke to the Claimant by telephone, asking him why he was absent and interrogating him about the work he had done.  The inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone and also left a list of instructions with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The building inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the Claimant who agreed to follow them.   10.  The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The Claimant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant of £3300. (See receipt at Attachment1).   11.  The Claimant asked if the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580 and on similar payment terms to Project 1.   12.  As work commenced on Project 2 and was continued on the remaining work for Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the Claimant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the Claimant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the Claimant  £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.   14.  It later came to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s attention that the Claimant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property that the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant suspects either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When challenged the Claimant admitted he had done this.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   15.    On 21 September 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the Claimant (Attachment 2).  Over a month later the Claimant sent an employee to attend to this work.  It was not carried out satisfactorily and resulted in an updated snagging list being sent to the claimant (Attachment 3).  All of this snagging work remains undone by the Claimant.   16.  Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the Claimant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed at Attachment 4.   17.  During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the Claimant also negligently caused substantial damage to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in Attachment 5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   18.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant the sum of £nnnnnnn {Simeon - put in the actual total amount here) in respect of:   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the Claimant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete; (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in para 16 above; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above; and (d)    the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above.   A receipt in respect of item (a) - see Attachment 1 - and two priced quotes in respect of items (b) and (c) - see Attachments 6 and 7 - are attached in support of this counterclaim.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Forged Evidence on PCN - Smart Parking - ***Won at POPLA***


Recommended Posts

Ethel that’s perfect

 

What are the implications then of not responding by the 30 day timescale.

 

my incline is that they will just do what they want and probably reply on day 35 with little to no information so is it a case of doing as BF said and begin action

 

Slightly confusing. 
 

as you say it starts when they receive the SAR but seems to read that if they request identity documents it starts when they receive them.

 

so the 20 days between receipt and them requesting can these not be included as I can’t control when they choose to respond.

 

in what way does a utility bill confirm my identity too? Confirms my address but not my identity surely?

 

thanks 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ICO site is your friend, you should find the answer there to your questions

 

eg, this is what the say about ID requests.  It's up to the organisation to decide what ID information they need, so if they asked for Utility bill and it's in your name and current address that's what they've got.

 

They should have asked for it "promptly" and the time between them receiving the SAR and receiving the proof of ID doesn't count to the one calendar month timeframe. Although I wouldn't call 20 days "promptly" I doubt it's worth arguing about now. Calculate when you should get the information based on ICO guidance on earlier link and tell them that's when you expect it.

 

Right of access | ICO

 

Can we ask for ID?

Yes. You need to be satisfied that you know the identity of the requester (or the person the request is made on behalf of). If you are unsure, you can ask for information to verify an individual’s identity. The timescale for responding to a SAR does not begin until you have received the requested information. However, you should request ID documents promptly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading Standards may be the way for you to go. One of the matters they investigate are illegal sales  practices which is along the lines of what you are thinking. They won't be able to get you compensation for any possible wrong doing but if they can prove your allegation you can take out your own claim.

One would imagine that given the number of pictures taken of the coming and going of cars in and out of car parks that there have been incidences of the cameras not getting the full number plate. One would like to think that no action would be taken if the vehicle with a partial number had also breached the T&Cs. But we are talking about car parking companies........

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 06/11/2021 at 10:31, lookinforinfo said:

If you believe it was forgery then you should report them to the police. However the Police would surely ask you  if it was  the case that your car did overstay the allotted time then the clarification or enhancement  of the VRN  did not cover the fact that you were guilty as charged .

Even if he was over the time  that still does not allow them the powers to fake evidence.. even the police cant do that   mmmmmmm 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send a copy of your ctax bill as the posts in the sar link state

 

i believe it is 30 days from when they are satisfied its you wanting rhe info, but i also believe that only applies if you had moved?

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

good morning chaps and chapess's

 

I have finally received the data from the operator.

 

In short I'm not surprised. A copy of my emails to them

  • Image x1 each of front and rear ANPR camera of car (same as previously supplied - VRN not visible)
  • Copy of car parking T&Cs
  • Copy of their email in response to my appeal (upholding their charge)
  • Copy of my email appeal
  • Copy of "Ticket Details" showing details and cancelled by POPLA. Case notes have CCTV incident ref XXXXXXXX, Camera Type, Camera Serial No and  Video control unit all state not specified
  • No DVLA details have been provided as that vehicle is in my wife's name so not personal data

The correspondence is not on letterheaded paper as they say its raw data off the system and any dates displayed are reprinting dates and may not be the original date. There are emails missing between myself and them mainly the ones once the POPLA appeal was underway.

Seems very limited information but again i wasn't sure what to expect.

 

Still no comment on the only image available on the entry photo and how from that partial number plate they managed to the missing digits and supply a picture of the full VRN AA55 CON when the image shows AA55 C

Prior to the image being taken (when the full VRN would have been visible) the vehicle was not within the range of the camera. At the split second the vehicle moved into range the obstruction walked between the vehicle and the camera and the image captured what it saw as a 5 digit VRN. The image which you kind people have looked at shows the bottom right corner of the VRN (which i believe may have been manipulated) cut at an angle to replicate the obstruction on the image. If the image was a true image of when the full plate was visible, there would be no reason for the corner to be missing.

 

So am i in a position to ask direct questions in relation to this, like - from the entry photograph showing a part VRN can you provide clear evidence showing how the attached full VRN image was obtained for the vehicle which you then used to obtain personal data on the vehicle from the DVLA and issue a notice charge and threaten court action. I believe the image may have been manipulated using the subsequent "exit image" due to the two images not matching, the angle of characters and the cut of the corner of the image. (feel free to re word 😃)

 

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hello All

 

Little update after their limited disclosure they have made the following comments if anyone can help out with their thoughts. Finally got a response, after being ignored, when i said their cooperation was very low and I would be reporting the matter to Action Fraud and applying for a court order to seek compensation, 3 hours later i got a response.

 

I'm not entirely sure how credible their representative is as they again confirm they have 35 days to disclose contrary to the ICOs info and what you all advice.

 

The comment made on the DVLA was as I had requested a copy of the documentation sent to the DVLA to request the personal data as if they did not have the right to request the keepers details based on the evidence then there may have been a breach of GDPR. Although "they believe it was obtained inline with GDPR". The comment "most definitely not been photoshopped" in comparison with the comment on GDPR "I believe" is a very certain comment which ultimately they surely would not be able to state as they have no way of knowing. Playing devils advocate here but is the "photoshopped" element more "we wouldn't photoshop any image but we do use Microsoft paint"

 

I have asked for copies of the images with metadata but these haven't been supplied yet, the metadata would by all accounts show any alterations.

 

Usually takes up to 125 photos seems quite vague, and I'm not sure on the relevance of infrared technology being used to take photos either. Does this not only work in low light conditions?

 

Quote

 

On the X December 2021 I advised that there was not any identification attached to your email and the 35 day period for a SAR to be responded had not yet started, as I had not received your identity.

This was provided on the X December 2021 – therefore, the 35 day period begun.

 

 

Quote

 

regard to the comments made regarding the images on the PCN, I would firstly like to make it known that these images have most definitely not been photoshopped. It is acknowledged that the image does show people walking in front of the vehicle, however the cameras on site usually take up to 125 images when capturing a registration, and the two lenses are in slightly different positions.

Therefore, one lens is capturing the actual vehicle registration and one lens is capturing the whole image. Therefore, it is dependent on which image of the plate the camera has sent through for each lens. On this occasion, the camera has sent through an image of the plate and the whole image which would have been taken within milliseconds of each other, it is unfortunate that they just don’t match on this occasion

 

 

Quote

Please note, that the images that have been provided on the Parking Charge Notice and within the Subject Access Request are the only images we hold regarding that Parking Charge Notice.

 

Quote

I believe that the data of the Registered Keeper was obtained in line with General Data Protection Regulations – as advised, above regarding how the photographs have been taken. Please note also, that the cameras use infrared technology to take a photograph of the VRM.I believe that the data of the Registered Keeper was obtained in line with General Data Protection Regulations – as advised, above regarding how the photographs have been taken. Please note also, that the cameras use infrared technology to take a photograph of the VRM.

 

Quote

The correspondence sent to the DVLA is no longer obtainable, in addition to this, it wouldn’t have been your details we were requesting, but the Registered Keepers. I can confirm that the way in which the system operates means the request for data is created and then overwritten when the information is received.

 

Quote

I would like to address that I cannot discuss the actual Parking Charge Notice – as a Data Protection Officer, I am not to discuss the PCN it itself, just the data that relates to it. However, I can confirm, as you are already aware, that the Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think it's going to be very tough. I have flagged it up to the site team to have a look

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it’s not easy but as I say if I can expose them and help anyone else out in future then it’s worthwhile for me.

 

Operate in a manner which is a disgrace and think they have the right to do as they want.

They've got to be able to substantiate their actions. They’ve got 125 images and can’t provide one that supports the claim. What use are 125 images if they aren’t available to use? Cant provide correspondence they sent to the DVLA as it’s overwritten. Can’t have breached GDPR as they were requesting the registered keepers details rather than my personal data - assume this could mean the cars in my partners name? Can be absolutely certain an image hasn’t been manipulated which they would never know, yet can only believe they haven’t breached GDPR.

 

Their history as a company is hardly squeaky clean so I’m very skeptical on anything they say. As I say if I can help just one other person succeed against these criminals my mission is complete 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The logic which leads to a breach of the Data Protection Act is if the company requesting the information of the keeper had no lawful basis or rather reasonable cause to request the information from the outset.

This is one of the most comprehensive comments I have seen written on the subject.

It is my understanding that in order to win any claim for breach of the Data Protection Act you would also have to prove they had no lawful basis to demand payment from you.

 

What makes this more difficult is that whether there was a lawful basis to demand payment from you was never ruled on by a judge.

It would be far easier to bring a claim for a breach of the Data Protection Act if you had already successfully defended a court claim for demand for payment of the PCN.

 

It would appear the only way forward would be almost to have both cases heard at once, one of which is a case that was never due to be heard in court as the demand for payment was withdrawn. It could get very messy and while CAG clearly has a strong success rate with defending claims for payment with reference to a PCN there is still the so called judge lottery and I expect the lottery aspect of being successful in this claim would increase.

 

You also risk - should it get that far - that the judge decides there was a lawful basis to demand payment from you and now not only is your claim for breach of the Data Protection Act dead in the water you could also end up owing the PCN which at the moment is cancelled.

Your premise to help others is understandable but helping others requires that you help yourself and helping yourself requires ensuring that you will win. I think the general consensus at the moment is that is highly uncertain and would certainly need to be underpinned by substantial effort and high quality of the case you are able to present.

Edited by FruitSalad1010
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for you comprehensive feedback on this.

 

In terms of the data request then, by their own admission they have no evidence to support an entry time of the vehicle, this does not allow them to calculate the duration of stay. 
It is therefore not possible to issue a PCN as there is no proof of any breach of their terms and conditions. I would guess that as they cannot substantiate their claim it would be unlawful to request data based on this? In their submission to the DVLA they must have to provide some evidence or reasoning behind the request?

 

They upheld their PCN on appeal, it was POPLA that cancelled the charge it wasn’t withdrawn by SP, not sure if that would make any difference.

All I can say on did they have lawful basis to demand payment is that without evidence I’d hope it is not lawful. They use the technology to collect evidence, which must be needed? The demand for payment also threaten court action etc (im sure you know 😁) and I’d quite a strong intimidating request.

 

what else could/would you be requesting now or what do you suggest regarding this?

 

thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to be careful about your presumption that the parking company has no evidence to show the arrival time. The POPLA appeal was granted on the basis that no evidence was provided in response to the appeal. It is still plausible that the evidence does exist but for one reason or another it was not presented to POPLA in response to your appeal. As I have stated previously it may not be the case that their request was in fact unlawful and without a judgement to that effect you are risking a lot for potentially little gain.

 

I'm not sure whether above you have alluded that you are not in fact the keeper of the vehicle - perhaps you could clarify this. I cannot see that a copy of the speculative invoice has been made available in this thread and thus whether it was actually served to you personally or to the keeper.

 

This is important because if you are not the keeper of the vehicle then it is not in fact your data which has been requested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...