Jump to content


UKPC Windscreen PCN - 1 to 21 The Martletts, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1ER - NCP Car Park?


Recommended Posts

Thank you for posting your thoughts on the situation.

If I may I would like to explain my thinking on your views.

 

Your first point is only valid if the Judge accepts that the signage is inadequate. Some might agree , some might not, but if it has not appeared as a relevant reason for dismissing the claim in the past, it is unlikely that a Judge would rule that your GDPR was breached even if your  Judge ruled that the signage was inadequate.

 

My next point is that unless you were present with the driver, it may be that the driver was mistaken as to the placement of the car rather than the parking crooks being wrong. Your presence at the time  may perhaps have confirmed that the crooks were wrong. Less likely of course could be that the driver may have misled you as to where the car was parked   in order to deflect the blame from themself.

 

So there is a possibility that UKPC believe that either you are being correctly being pursued as the keeper and/ or the driver.  And if they are right, so far  your GDPR has not been breached. Your Cease and Desist  letter would disabuse them of that belief and any further correspondence would only then be a breach of your GDPR in the eyes of UKPC and the Judge if they had not been convinced of any breach prior to your letter.

 

If UKPC genuinely  believe that you breached their contract then they are lawfully allowed to apply to the DVLA  for your data without any infringement of your GDPR. What the letter does is to put them on notice that even if  they were in the right prior to the  letter, they are on dangerous ground after the letter.

 

DRP would have been informed of your data by UKPC rather than DRP applying to the DVLA which is lawful . What is disgraceful is the content of Abigail's letter is why she thinks that there is clear evidence of a breach or the idea that UKPC comply with relevant legislation. And how does she know that there is clear signage in the car park. Has she really visited that car park and what training has she had on the correct wording, font size, positioning, council permissions etc etc to be able to aver such rubbish. Her advice to any motorist is total garbage and should be reported.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That letter also seems to be underhand coercion by pretending to be helpful in deciding to pay.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Under GDPR Article 14. DRP have the following obligations (and the list continues):


1. Where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject, the controller shall provide the data subject with the following information:

 (a) the identity and the contact details of the controller and, where applicable, of the controller’s representative;
 (b) the contact details of the data protection officer, where applicable;

 (c) the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the processing;

I am not entirely clear who exactly 1 (a) refers to, whether it be the details of the controller where the data originated, from whom it was received or the controller of DRP themselves.


DRP have only provided the details of the DVLA indicating they have applied for and obtained my data from the DVLA, hence why I have sent a SAR to the DVLA to confirm whether this is actually the case.

 

I don't think merely providing the details of the DVLA satisfies 1 (a) particularly, if as you state and as I also expect, they received the data from UKPC, but I am happy to be corrected on this point.

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

DRP have no power as it's not their debt.

 

Usual tripe from UKPC who won't have even read your letter.  Ignore them now unless you get a Letter of Claim.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In order to request information regarding the keeper of a vehicle from the KADOE system the enquirer must provide a copy of agreement between the landowner and the car parking company.

DRP indicate they applied for my data however no such agreement can exist between them and the landowner and therefore their application is unlawful.

If the DVLA confirms DRP did apply for keeper data then DRP have breached the Data Protection Act in requesting the data and the DVLA have acted unlawfully by providing it.

If the data was passed to them by UKPC then DRP have unlawfully indicated that the DVLA was the controller that provided the data when it was in fact UKPC.

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where have you got the idea that DRP applied for your data?

 

DRP are just imbeciles who send "threatening" (ho! ho!) standard letters out on behalf of their clients which include the private parking companies.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

:crazy:

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

Posted (edited)

Article 14 of GDPR - Information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject

1. Where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject, the controller shall provide the data subject with the following information:

 

a) the identity and the contact details of the controller and, where applicable, of the controller’s representative;

b) the contact details of the data protection officer, where applicable;

c) the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the processing;

d) the categories of personal data concerned;

e) the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data, if any;


If you read the letter sent by DRP it only provides the information of the DVLA as the data controller, so either they applied for the data from the DVLA or they have failed to indicate that the true provider of the data to them is UKPC.

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

The DVLA  accept that the BPA [amazingly  and [ even more amazing] the IPC as having  Codes of Practice that comply with all necessary legal requirements. Therefore  members of the two associations do not need to provide anything but a request for driver's details based often on a quasi reasonable cause of any breach.

 

DRP are members of the BPA which is even more a reflection of the standards of the BPA who cannot even keep up with current legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The new Private Code of Practice  says this about Debt Recovery Agents [aka lying scumbags]

 

E.3 Wording used by debt recovery agents (DRAs)

The principle of engaging a DRA where the creditor and their customer are unable to achieve a satisfactory conclusion, especially when standard appeals/arbitration protocols have been exhausted, is established, but must be on the basis that the DRA’s role is to strive to come to an arrangement (debt resolution) not simply enforcement (debt recovery). While a minority of cases might still need to be settled at Court it is important that in making the customer (driver/keeper) aware of the implications of non-payment (including, should the Court find against them, the risk to their credit rating.

DRAs must not use terms which would mislead the average consumer or make them reach a decision that they might not otherwise have made – such terms include the list in E.2 and the following:

  • summons
  • justice
  • prosecution
  • excessive use of “County Court judgement” (CCJ)
  • calling round
  • earnings attachment or
  • bankruptcy.

Nor should DRAs use terms that:

  • imply that they are writing from a legal or litigation department or team
  • imply that they have a formal role in adjudication
  • refer to pre-action protocol at a point when they are not yet using it
  • threaten an in-person visit
  • misrepresent whether the timing for appeal has expired

This is not an exhaustive list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The DRP letter falls foul of those stipulations in E.3, also are they actually permitted to offer an installment plan with out falling foul of Finance conduct Authority.?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made a complaint to the ICO regarding DRP's failures under GDPR Article 14, it will take several weeks even months to receive a reply but when they do I will post up what they come back with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

I am in the process of bringing a complaint to the SRA regarding CST Law.

Below is the proposed details of the complaint.

If anyone can see an improvement to the wording or the contents then any improvement is gratefully received.

 

Quote

CST Law sent me a letter dated 24th May 2022 (attached for your convenience).

The contact and letter is in breach of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th principle of “The Principles”.

 

CST Law indicate they have been instructed by their client Debt Recovery Plus.

 

CST Law have taken instruction from a third party which has no claim or rights in respect of the on-going and unresolved dispute between myself and UK Parking Control Limited.

 

CST Law are expected to uphold the constitutional principle of the rule of law.

 

CST Law have breached their duty by knowingly inflating a claim in direct breach of the Private Parking Code of Practice 2022.

 

CST Law appear to have deliberately taken instruction from a third party in an attempt to circumvent and deliberately inflate the claimed sum which is vastly in excess of the amount in dispute between myself and UK Parking Control Limited, named in their letter.

 

CST Law's acceptance of instruction and communication is fundamentally dishonest and lacks all of the integrity expected by a firm regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

 

CST Law's dishonest action undermines the public's trust and confidence in the solicitor's profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done on giving these utter charlatans some well-earned hassle.

 

You could enlarge one paragraph -

 

CST Law have breached their duty by knowingly inflating a claim in direct breach of the Private Parking Code of Practice 2022 as well as Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

- as it's not just the new Code of Practice which outlaws the Unicorn Food Tax, all along they were never supposed to be able to add anything over the original £100.

 

It's not your case but you could also point out that they encourage and agree to frivolous cases with no basis in law in the hope that the other party will be ignorant of the law and will pay.  An example is cases where a motorist has paid but has input a single digit of a registration number wrongly.  Judges have riled that such a mistake is "de minimis" on multiple occasions yet CST Law still pursue these frivolous cases.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank you FTMDave,

 

I have borrowed from your recent post as I think directly referencing a judge's comments highlighting the abuse of process should substantiate the complaint but will keep the scope of the complaint insomuch as it applies to myself.

 

Below is an updated proposal.
 

Quote

CST Law sent me a letter dated 24th May 2022 (attached for your convenience).

The contact and letter is in breach of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th principle of “The Principles”.

 

CST Law indicate they have been instructed by their client Debt Recovery Plus.

 

CST Law have taken instruction from a third party which has no claim or rights in respect of the on-going and unresolved dispute between myself and UK Parking Control Limited.

 

CST Law are expected to uphold the constitutional principle of the rule of law.

 

CST Law have breached their duty by knowingly inflating a claim in direct breach of the Private Parking Code of Practice 2022 as well as Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

CST Law appear to have deliberately taken instruction from a third party in an attempt to circumvent and deliberately inflate the claimed sum which is vastly in excess of the amount in dispute between myself and UK Parking Control Limited, named in their letter.

Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio.

An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''.

 

CST Law's acceptance of instruction and communication is fundamentally dishonest and lacks all of the integrity expected by a firm regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

 

CST Law's dishonest action undermines the public's trust and confidence in the solicitor's profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.

 

Edited by Intrepid
  • Like 1
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...