NCP/BW PCN PAPLOC now claimform - New Gatwick Drop Off Zone - I thought I had paid for both visits? ***Claim Dismissed***

[MoaningCrusader]

FTMDave, 

 

Basically no mention of my phone call. So we are good there to proceed as solely keeper of the vehicle.

 

Is there anything in the fact that on all the PCNs they have clearly requested my Keeper details from DVLA well after there 14day period?

NCP-SAR07-10-22redacted.pdf

[MoaningCrusader]

God. Thanks Brassnecked. I was rushing there in the office. I thought I had covered everything. 

 

Mind you, I didn't think the make and model of the car was personal details, but noted for the next load up of any docs.

[MoaningCrusader]

Hi FTMDave,

 

Just clarify, this thread is for only one PCN. The docs supplied in the above pdf are for the same contravention on the 14th October. One is the initial PCN letter, the next is the Final Reminder before  the matter was handed over to their "Debt Collection Agent" ... er... legal team BW Legal.

 

I currently have 3 PCNs running. Although things appear to have gone quiet on the other 2. I have responded to their LoCs. I guess further court hearings are to come.

 

Can ask, in the event that I succeed and win this MCOL hearing, is their a way that I can ask the court to tell BW Legal to stop any further action against me as it will only serve to be a waste of court time on the basis that the outcome will only be the same again? Basically, can I look to have the other PCNs wiped out?

[MoaningCrusader]

OK Everyone.

 

I have received a Notice of Transfer of Proceedings dated 14th October.

 

It has been transferred to my local County Court as requested.

 

I guess we now await my case management directions once my case has been allocated.

 

Do you need me to upload this document? I assume it's pretty generic.

 

I did put on the N180 that I would not be available to attend a hearing throughout December. I didn't state any  reason, as I wasn't asked for specifics. But I will be away with work... I hope this means that we will not be looking at a hearing date before the new year.

 

However, do you think it is now worth me putting together the bare bones of my WS. I have been browsing other threads on here. Many of which, although fighting speculative invoices etc are different to my case in their specifics. 

 

Could you all supply links to recommended threads for me to visit and research WS approaches that would be most relevant to my case.

 

I have chased my mobile phone provider in regards to the SAR they are processing for evidence of my phone call made to the fleecers to find out why no payment had been taken. But it would be good to be pointed in the right direction on what government/industry guidelines are in place defining the obligation of the fleecer to operate reliable and consistent APNR/Payment systems etc. I will need that to add to my evidence that clearly something irregular was occurring with their systems at the time of the contravention.

 

I also would like to find the specific proof how the bye laws affecting airports mean that POFA cannot be used. Could this also be problem with me using POFA against the fleecers for not sending their NTK within the time limit set for when the keeper liability can be transferred from the driver. Does the exemption of POFA on airport land not mean that there is no limit to when keeper liability can be transferred?

 

I have spotted that there's also a defence that due to the time constraints within drop off zones, there's no reasonable time to read signage and in turn reasonably enter any contract with anyone. I am now unable to find the thread with the defence on it re: contract law. I am keen to re-read it and include that in my WS

 

In the response to my CPR they did not supply any of the requested evidence of their contract with Gatwick Airport, nor evidence of planning permission for signage. A quick search also showed that no planning was applied for through Crawley Council for any signage. How do I present these facts to a judge? Are their relevant laws that I can quote to use with these discrepancies?

 

Sorry for all the questions. But I think it may be time for me to start preparing. As you have all said on here, preparation and research are key to success in court.

 

Bring it on...

[MoaningCrusader]

Thanks FTMDave. The above two posts are perfect. It looks like all I need will found on your supplied links.

[MoaningCrusader]

My mobile phone provider EE have not sent through the required evidence for the phone call I made to NCP back in 2021 to find rectify the payment issue relevant to this thread.

 

The SAR was submitted by one of their customer services reps during a phone call I made on 29th September to them after I realised I could not access my itemised call records further than 3months ago...

 

I chased this up on the 19th October, when I was informed it could take up to 30days and that I should call back on the 29th October...

 

I have just got off the phone today, after being informed they only release call records to the police or solicitors...

 

Surely this policy is in breach of their statutory duty?

Is there any exceptions given to phone companies that would restrict a customer accessing the itemised call records they have held on file beyond the 90 days they show on my online account.

 

If not, then it appears I may have another SAR to do.

 

Also, I am assuming that because I did not personally submit the SAR, but one of their customer service reps, I will have to start the process from scratch, or can I move forwards to a LoC immediately?

 

Here we go again!

 

 

[MoaningCrusader]

Thank you for clarifying FTMDave. I will have this all off today. I am livid that they have wasted so much of my time already. I really need this proof of the phone call.

 

It's probably best I start  another SAR thread for the EE business? Yes?

 

I will be putting together my witness statement this week, as per the posts above. This has been spurred on by the arrival of BW Legal's response to my defence yesterday. I will post that up this morning for you all to advise on. 

[MoaningCrusader]

How does this read. Any corrections or additions. I have adapted the previous SAR template, as I do have a specific date. I have no need for all my itemised calls personal data from EE, only for the specific date and mobile number.

 

Customer Data Disclosures

EE Ltd

6 Camberwell Technology Park

Sunderland

Tyne & Wear

SR3 3XN

 

Tuesday 1st November

 

GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATIONS - SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST

Itemised call records held on Wednesday 20th October 2021 for mobile number XXXXXX on Small Business Account No: XXXXX

 

To whom it may concern,

 

Please supply me with copies of all the data which you hold on me in relation to the above date, account and mobile telephone number.

 

Please note that I require disclosure of all personal data including itemised phone call and sms text records which you hold on myself XXXXXX in relation to the above phone number account on Wednesday 20th October 2021.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, and as stated above, this Subject Access Request requires disclosure of ALL personal data which you hold on me for the entire period outlined above.

 

There is no applicable fee for this data disclosure – unless you feel that my request is manifestly unfounded, excessive or repetitive – in which case you have a duty to let me know without any delay.

 

Under the new GDPR regime, you must satisfy this data disclosure request as soon as possible and in any event within one month.

 

If there is specific information which you require in order to satisfy yourself as to my identity, please let me know by return. However, you are not entitled to impose any formality upon me or to require that I complete any particular form or template before you comply with your statutory duty. But I do enclose a copy of my 2022 Council Tax Bill for the purpose of you verifying my identity, without any further delay.

 

Finally, I should remind you that you have a duty to make clear the meaning of any codes or shorthand which you use in relation to my personal data.

 

If I do not hear from you then I will assume that this Statutory Request is satisfactory and that the one month timescale has started from the date above.

 

If you fail to comply with all of your obligations, I will make an immediate complaint to the Information Commissioner about your statutory breach – and without any further notice to you.

 

This may also lead to legal action in the County Court and a judgement will then be forwarded to the FCA.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

XXXXXX

 

And to the CEO:

 

 

Dear Mark,

 

I am sorry to write to you to inform you of the incompetence and total lack of customer care I have received.

 

I am currently requiring itemised telephone call records made from my mobile phone number below on Wednesday 20th October 2021. These are required for submission as evidence in a forthcoming County Court hearing I am preparing for.

 

Having submitted a SAR through one of your customer services representatives on the 29th September 2022, I was informed I would receive the required data without any issue. However following a call to customer services on Tuesday 19th October, I was informed the SAR had still not been fulfilled, but to allow up to 30days for this to happen. I have diligently and in good faith done so, only to be informed yesterday on Monday 31st October that the SAR will not be fulfilled. In fact, then to be out right lied to by your staff in relation to what records you hold on me and who had access to them.

 

The actions of your staff has wasted a month in my preparation for the forthcoming County Court hearing and is now causing me some stress.

 

I would like to remind you that under current GDPR rules failure to comply with your statutory duty can result in court action against EE Ltd. I will not hesitate to take such action should my SAR not be fulfilled within 30days. (see attached letter and documents)

 

I have to say it is wholly unreasonable that such a simple task and request is now requiring so much effort from myself, an extremely loyal customer. I really hope the matter can be rectified immediately and thus avoiding any further action my behalf.

 

I would appreciate a response from you to assure me that things are moving forwards.

 

Best regards,

 

 

OK. You can see I have now lost all faith in humanity and I am setting LoC stage as my default these days. 

 

[MoaningCrusader]

Please find attached the response to my MCOL submitted generic defence.

 

They are quoting some recent cases, have encountered these in responses elsewhere and have you any thoughts on defending against them.

 

I also assume we can claim that my car was never actually parked, as defined legally in the UK:

 

 

 

Parked means that a vehicle is standing still, whether it is occupied or not, for a short space of time and not for the purpose of loading or unloading goods or picking up or dropping off passengers.

 

 

 

BWlegalDefence31-10-22.pdf

[MoaningCrusader]

Hi Dx100

 

FYI direction questionnaire stage was completed by claimant and myself already on the 8th & 14th October. My claim has been transferred to Bromley County Court. (see above posts)

 

We are very much going ahead. I will need to deal with these current cases being quoted and have answers for them.

 

FTMDave

 

Looks like there's no further input from Caggers. Was hoping Andyorch may have rubber stamped things, in case there is anything I may have over looked in my letter and email that would be worth saying... But I think we are all good to go. I know the drill from here.

 

I will post the letter today.

 

FTMDave,

 

The EE rep I was talking to both on the 31st Oct & yesterday supplied me with both an email & postal address for the Data Disclosures department. For the purposes of speedy response, should I also email the letter and ID to the supplied address CCing the CEO?

 

 

[MoaningCrusader]

Here you go:

 

Dear Mark,

 

I am writing to inform you of the incompetence and total lack of customer care that I have recently been receiving. But I feel I need your involvement, as I have been repeatedly misled my your customer services as to their actions on my behalf and my rights under current GDPR rules. I’m afraid this is now causing me a great deal stress in my preparations to present evidence at a forthcoming County Court hearing.

 

I currently require itemised telephone call records made from my mobile phone number below on Wednesday 20th October 2021. These are required for my submission as evidence in a forthcoming County Court hearing I am preparing for.

 

I submitted a SAR on a phone call through one of your customer services representatives on the 29th September 2022, and I was informed I would receive the required data without any issue. However following a call to customer services on Tuesday 19th October, I was informed the SAR had still not been fulfilled, but to allow up to 30days for this to happen. I have diligently and in good faith done so, only to be informed on both Monday 31st October and Tuesday 1st November that the SAR will not be fulfilled. In the process I have been misled by your customer service managers and staff both in the actions they were apparently taking on my behalf in the 30days since my initial SAR and also more alarmingly in relation to what records you hold on me and who has a right to access them.

 

The actions of your staff has wasted a month in my preparation for the forthcoming County Court hearing which is the main cause of my escalating stress. I now have to start this process again personally in writing, with another potential 30days to wait for my personal data to be supplied. I have started this process again and posted a SAR in writing today to your Data Disclosure Department in Sunderland. But I feel it best that you are informed of the situation and can now over see that a potentially serious breach of statutory duty by your company does not occur.

 

I would like to remind you that under current GDPR rules failure to comply with your statutory duty can result in court action against EE Ltd. I will not hesitate to take such action should my SAR not be fulfilled within 30days. (see attached letter and documents)

 

I have to say it is wholly unreasonable that such a simple task and request is now requiring so much effort from myself, an extremely loyal customer. I really hope the matter can be rectified immediately and thus avoiding any further action and stress on my behalf.

 

I would appreciate a response from you to assure me that you are personally insuring things are moving forwards.

 

Best regards,

 

Already posted the SAR letter and got the FPOP. 

 

 

[MoaningCrusader]

I have just had a phone call with EE Customer Resolution.

 

Their representative claimed they do not keep any call records from mobiles more than 6months unless you have itemised billing. Then it can be up to 6 years.

 

However I just quickly found this info:

 

Mobile operators must by law store a year of call records of all of their customers, which police forces and other agencies can then access without a warrant using the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).

 

This means had they carried out the initial SAR requested on the 29th September 2022, the records should have still been on file.

 

I have left the SAR unfulfilled. But I feel we now could be looking at situation where the data is going to be claimed to be gone forever??

 

Any thoughts?

 

[MoaningCrusader]

I have. Posted and emailed yesterday. Hence the prompt call from their Customer Resolutions Dept within 24hrs... Very nice lady... But I left it unresolved and asked for the call to 

 

My problem now is, their time wasting MAY mean that I have no way of recalling the records. In fact their time wasting is the exact and main reason why my SAR was not and cannot be fulfilled. If they had just done it on the 29th Sept, the records should've been kept by law.

 

I am now just off the phone again asking can they not help, as it was the fault of the initial SAR not being seen through that has now pushed time frame beyond 12months. She claimed the records are not there anymore.

 

She has just left that she is sending me a letter of referral to the ombudsman.

 

 

Tbh I may leave the call thing alone. As I can still prove no payment was taken, neither for my pick up on 14th Oct 2021, nor for my drop off on 18th Oct. Thus proving their was clearly a problem with their systems at that time, as by that evidence I should have received to NTKs not just this one.

[MoaningCrusader]

I devoted yesterday to researching your feed of parking cases. But may not get much time today and over the weekend as I am working solidly. But, I will pursue EE as I can't help thinking I am being palmed off. 

 

Obviously if they have genuinely deleted my data then there is no breach of statutory duty. But how do you prove this? Also, do they not have a virtual trash that you can retrieve data from? Probably not. Who knows. I think that's the difficult thing here.

 

What I do know is that they are required by law to keep all phone records for 1 year for access should it be required by police or other agencies. And had they acted on the 29th September, my call data should've been intact by law. And if it wasn't, then EE have acted illegally by deleting it after 6 months.

 

[MoaningCrusader]

I received the following from EE on the 7th November...

 

Nearly all the dates mentioned on the letter are wrong. I made an initial call on 29th September 2022 to request the proof for the call on the 20th October 2021, and then called again on 19th & 31st October

 

Am I to understand that the line "...due to the above reason this information is not available to you." means that it is available to them? Just not to me?

 

Also do they admit to no fulfilling their statutory duty here? "This agent did advise that they would complete a DSAR request for you, there is no record to show this was completed."

 

Anyway the whole thing smacks of BS... I am speaking to an old uni friend who works in the shady world of corporate cyber security this afternoon to see what he thinks. I really can't waste time going on wild goose chases. But if they are required to keep info for a min of 1year,  then I will issue a full SAR on them for all data & recordings they hold on me. To firstly evidence their incompetence in dealing with my complaint and to potentially evidence their failure to complete an SAR within 30days?? If I go for the latter should I send LoC? 

 

 

EEDisputeResponse04-11-22.pdf

[MoaningCrusader]

You won't believe this. But having just took a break from my home office, I have just received a letter from the Customer Data Disclosures Dept with a USB stick apparently containing the requested info?

 

However, the USB stick appears to be blank???? This may be due to the fact that I use Mac and not PC. If so, bloody daft supplying info not accessible to both formats!

 

I will get to the bottom of this and report back. 

 

Potentially I have been blatantly lied to by their Dispute Resolution Team! Who said the info was not accessible!

[MoaningCrusader]

It's not Mac compatible.

 

I went to my local library where it prompted me for my password, which didn't happen when I put it into my MacBook. The letter told me to use my acc number as the password. Needless to say, it didn't work!

 

Still there's hope that they have included proof of the call. They seem to suggest they are happy to provide me with the personal information they hold on me as requested. However, something tells me that will only be billing records and customer service call recordings, not the itemised calls I requested. 

 

We can only wait and see. 

 

The good news is I also got sent confirmation that they are giving me £30 credit for my next bill as a goodwill gesture....

 

In other news, I spoke to my friend who works in cyber security. He says never mind for law enforcement, they'll keep all billing info for 6 years for purposes of auditing. He reckons that should include itemised call records of outgoing calls in case some of those calls are chargeable on my phone plan.

 

Basically, the big companies weigh up the expense and effort in getting the info, with the expense I could be them... So once an LoC arrives and then a MCOL Small Claim, they'd soon start to play ball.

 

He did suggest playing nicely and saying all you want is confirmation that call in question happened for presentation to the court, and that I don't require all the itemised calls from the requested date. The data extraction can be tricky, but writing a letter confirming the call took place would be easier for them to supply and suffice for my evidence to present to the court.

 

 

[MoaningCrusader]

Thanks for checking in FTMD.

 

Yes, they messaged me today on their secure server and provided the download to me.

 

Sadly, it didn't contain any proof of a phone call. Tbh as my plan includes calls & texts I kind of worked out that they probably don't keep the records for auditing as I am no longer charged by call, but by billing period.

 

The pack of recordings conveniently seems to be missing the original call on the 29th Sept and the follow up on the 19th Oct. I am going to have a good look through it all tomorrow, as I have had a pretty hectic day with work. So have only had a skim read through it all.

 

 

[MoaningCrusader]

Currently researching further for my draft WS.... When I went to look at the government guidelines for private parking firms... It states the following:

 

This guidance was withdrawn on 7 June 2022

Private Parking Code of Practice is temporarily withdrawn pending review of the levels of private parking charges and additional fees.

 

As the guidance has been withdrawn (temporarily) can we use it against the PPCs in court?

[MoaningCrusader]

I will await further guidance. However, it certainly appears the area of 'double recovery' or escalating charges is the part withdrawn and under review. Does it not? I can only assume meaning it is not there for use against PPCs. 

 

Here's hoping this is not the case.

 

 

[MoaningCrusader]

Hi Guys,

 

I am editing together my WS here

 

I have noticed that on both initial NCP NTKs and all the letters from BW Legal including the LoC do not use the word 'contract', only breach of 'terms & conditions'.

 

Only on the letter before the N1 Claim Form arrived states "you breached the Terms and Conditions of the contract which you entered into, by no payment"...

 

However in their PoC on the N1 Form, they revert to not using the word contract only "On 14/10/2021, the driver of a vehicle.... breached C's terms and conditions of parking..." no mention of breaching any contract, or that I am entered into one?

 

Is this normal.

 

I just noticed that the VCS PoCs specifically mention breach of 'contract'... It makes the wording for me a little tricky when I can't quote them saying I breached a 'contract' on T&Cs... which are not binding unless in the frame work of a contract, surely?

 

Thoughts?

[MoaningCrusader]

As for stuff specific to your case, there is bound to be something in the fleecers' trade association's CoP about (a) making sure equipment is in working order and (b) predatory practices  https://www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring  and the same two things will be in the government CoP  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

 

Having scoured through the above codes of practice, I can't seem to find anything in regards to maintaining equipment, nor on online payment systems. Can anyone suggest where I am not looking?

 

WS is coming together nicely here. Nearly there.

 

Ok... Here's my 1st draft of my WS. I hope I have took out all personal details and any details that may pinpoint my case.

 

I have not compiled my list of evidence docs yet. Indeed it would be helpful if you could tell me where in the WS ref to evidence is required to support my case. I think I have a good idea what needs scanned. But it would be good have further suggestions.

 

I would like to get this pretty much sorted to have on file, if and when a court date comes. As my work schedule kicks off from now until the end December.

 

 

 

 

WSNCPBWLegalRedacted1strDraft.pdf

[MoaningCrusader]

Ah right dx100. That's everything is in pdf on here. Thanks for sorting.

 

 

No worries Dave. As I said, I am just getting this done now so that it's ready and in the locker, if and when it's needed.

 

I look forward to your feedback and input.

[MoaningCrusader]

Thanks to you all for your comments. I will be getting this all tweaked fully tomorrow.

 

Just a quick question to FTMDave, would it not be better to group together sections on the legality of entering someone into a contract, as the circumstances are not fair in airport DOZs as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015, then a bit about the signage and it's illegal status and then finally put the argument forward for Frustration of Contract? That would then be followed by the NO KEEPER LIABILITY section in to the final DOUBLE RECOVERY bit.

 

How does that sound? If you think that's a good idea. I'll get that sorted and tweeked tomorrow.

[MoaningCrusader]

Yep. I hear FTMD. Makes total sense.

 

I'm afraid, my section numbering went out of sync in the draft I posted up. So, the keeper liability section is currently starting from 12. Should I put this top of the Locus Standi with arguments around PoFA and fishing for liability, before moving into the issues with contract between Gatwick & NCP, then illegal signage and then the questionable legality of the contract between keeper & NCP and then finally the issues around the frustration of contract?

 

Currently, the first section of the Locus Standi (sections 6-9) deals with the contract between NCP & Gatwick and the lack of evidence of it, and then it currently goes on to deal with the contract they claim that I entered into (sections 10 & 11) and which I argue is not legal, as it's not a fair contract as per the Consumer Rights Act. I think these need breaking up with titles. How do you think I should title these two arguments? I would then add in a section on the illegal signage either after or in-between the arguments?