SAR distress claim against Parking Eye

[Reapstar]

Ahh, is it 5 days from THAT date then??

[Reapstar]

With regards to the SAR MCOL claim

 

PARKINGEYE LTD filed an acknowledgment of service on 25/08/2023 at 16:05:05

[Nicky Boy]

It'll be interesting to see what defence they file.

Probably try to rely on their pathetic attempt at falsifying the return dates to you...

[Reapstar]

When am I likely to hear anything??

[FTMDave]

They have up to 33 days from the date of the claimform to file a defence.

[Reapstar]

Cheers Dave, so just continue waiting? 

[Nicky Boy]

That seems to be the general theme in life (and on computers).

please wait.............................

[FTMDave]

It's worth a look at MCOL to see if PE have filed a defence.

If they don't act, and if I've done my sums right, in another six days you will be able to request judgement.

 

[Reapstar]

Hey guys, finally managed to get my Samsung Dex up and running!! 

Just having trouble signing in to MCOL, I can't remember the password so I done the old forgot password thing and it sends me a code to log in, then doesn't allow me to change the password so I still can't log in?? 

Stuck in a loop currently, anyone got any ideas?? 

Hope all are well.!!

Corr, that was lucky, I managed to remember the password so I am in, they have filed a defence as of the 14th of September!! 

How much of the claim do you dispute?

I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.

 

Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?

No, for other reasons.

 

Defence

1. In this Defence, any allegations not specifically traversed are denied.

2. The Defendant reserves the right to respond further should the Claimant provide further information or pleadings.

Background
3. The Defendant is a national car park operator who provides car park management on behalf of its clients at a number of car parks across Great Britain.

 

The Defendant is instructed by landowners, under contract, to monitor compliance with the terms and conditions of parking as outlined within signage displayed on site. This includes issuing parking charges to motorists who breach the terms and conditions of parking of that site.

4. The Claimant and Defendant are currently engaged in ongoing proceedings (Claim No: ) (“the Claim”) in which the Defendant is pursuing the Claimant for non-payment of a parking charge noticed issued, the Defendant avers, following breach of car park terms and conditions by the Claimant at Goodmayes Hospital, Illford (a site on which the Defendant operates).

Claimant’s Claim for Damages
5. The Claimant’s claim for damages is firmly denied.

6. The Claimant avers that they sent a Subject Access Request (“SAR”) to the Defendant dated 3rd July 2023 and that the
Defendant has breached a statutory deadline to respond to a  Subject Access Request (“SAR”). The Claimant does not detail the statutory provisions relied upon and is put to strict proof with regards to the same.

7. The Defendant received a SAR dated 3rd July 2023 from the Claimant on 11th July 2023. The Claimant is put to proof that the SAR was posted on 3rd July 2023.

8. It is denied that the Defendant was required to respond to the Claimant’s SAR within 30 days of the date of the SAR, or the date on which the SAR was posted (as the case may be). The Information Commissioner's Office’s (“ICO”) guidance states that companies must comply with a SAR by responding within one calendar month of receiving the request. The Defendant responded to the SAR made by the Claimant within this timeframe, and specifically responded by
letter posted on 4th August 2023 which is within the guidance published by the ICO.

9. The Claimant’s claim is entirely lacking in particularity. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have suffered any
distress whether as claimed or at all. The Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the quantification of their alleged
damages.

10. The Claimant has no legal basis for bringing a claim on the basis that documents requested within the SAR were required for the Claim. The Defendant asserts that if the Claimant required the documents requested within the SAR for the purpose of the Claim, the Claimant should have requested disclosure under the Claim.

11. The Defendant contends that the Claimant’s claim should be struck out as it shows no clear cause of action and has no prospect of success. The Claimant’s particulars of claim are wholly inadequate and do not disclose any legally recognisable basis for bringing this action or any justification for the sum sought.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true. The Defendant understands that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement.

 

Signed

I am the Defendant's Solicitor - the defendant believes that the facts stated in this form are true.

Jayne Leonard

14/09/2023

The above was regarding the SAR claim raised against them

 

The below is with regard to their PCN offer

mcol claim history:

A claim was issued against you on 30/05/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 04/06/2023 at 11:19:50

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 05/06/2023 at 01:05:30

Your defence was submitted on 29/06/2023 at 11:26:45

Your defence was received on 29/06/2023 at 14:05:15

Case Stay Lifted on 08/09/2023

DQ sent to you on 08/09/2023

DQ filed by claimant on 08/09/2023

[FTMDave]

Posts moved to the SAR thread, as it is a different court claim.

[FTMDave]

They have tried to be clever with the false dating lies, but have ballsed up very, very badly here -

9 hours ago, Reapstar said:

7. The Defendant received a SAR dated 3rd July 2023 from the Claimant on 11th July 2023. The Claimant is put to proof that the SAR was posted on 3rd July 2023.

Which you will be very happy to do with your proof of posting.

Then, what's good for the goose and all that, their own solicitor thinks it is essential that strict proof of posting is provided, so let's see theirs.  We know what will happen at this point ...

[Reapstar]

I posted on the wrong thread my bad!! 

Thanks for the reply Dave, for some reason I received no notification for it ! 

Are they allowed to lie to the court ??

What do we do now?

 

[Nicky Boy]

They can lie all they want, but when they get caught out, it might not end well for them.

[FTMDave]

We usually help the defendant here, not the claimant!

However, I've had a look at the MCOL guide for claimants, and there is written -

Proceeding with a defended case

If you want to proceed with your claim upon receipt of a paid, full, or part defence, you must notify the court by following the directions enclosed with the copy of the defendant’s response. If you have been sent a questionnaire to complete this must be returned by the date specified. Failure to do so may result in your claim being struck out.

[Reapstar]

I spoke to her and we havent received anything yet??

I spoke to her and we havent received anything yet??

[FTMDave]

It will take ages to filter through the court system.

On another note, your Witness Statement will have to be prepared months down the line but, while my memory is fresh, I want to jot down some ideas this evening when I knock off work.  There are a lot of dates involved and I reckon it would be a good idea to have something in B&W before it all disappears into the mists of time (at least for me).

 

I'm thinking of the following to note for the Witness Statement later down the line.  Yes, all the numbering is wrong, it's just a draft.  You'll need this in six months, not now.  But with all the intricacies of dates - well, me at at least, I will have forgotten the lot in six months' time!

1.  The Defendant is quite right in para 4 of their defence to mention that their is an ongoing court claim between the Claimant and the Defendant.  They could also have mentioned that, despite being instructed by their client the landowner to withdraw the charge, and admitting this to me in writing (exhibit 1), they are "unable to cancel".   I understand what a Notice of Discontinuance is, but apparently neither the Defendant nor their solicitor are "able" to issue one.  However, that is a background matter.

2.  In order to prepare myself as best as possible for the court hearing, I requested a Subject Access Request from the Defendant on 3 July (exhibit 2).

3.  I am totally bemused as to why, in para 10 of the defence, the Defendant's solicitor, Ms Leonard, thinks I do not have the right to make a SAR. 

3.  I had in fact made a request for disclosure under CPR XXX (exhibit 3) which was ignored by the Defendant, so I sent a SAR.

3.  The Defendant's solicitor, Ms Leonard, quite rightly, in para 7 of the defence, puts me to strict proof of posting of the SAR on 3 July.  I do so by attaching the proof of posting (exhibit 2).

4.  I received no reply by the deadline of one calendar month. However, I did not rush to court.  I complained to the ICO.  I also gave the Defendant "de facto" an extra 14 days to satisfy the SAR when I sent a Letter of Claim on 3 August (Exhibit 3).  I once again attach proof of posting because Ms Leonard has, completely understandably, underlined the importance of such proof (exhibit 4).

5.  Nowhere in Ms Leonard's fantasy timeline where Parking Eye Ltd did everything by the book does she even mention that I sent the company a Letter of Claim.

5.  There was no reply to my Letter of Claim by 17 August so on 18 August I issued a county court claim.

6.  Shortly afterwards the Defendant satisfied the SAR but after both the original calendar month and the 14 extra days stated in my Letter of Claim had expired.  I presume the Defendant's letter was posted around 18 August.

7.  Ms Leonard claims that Parking Eye Ltd sent the SAR response on 4 August.  She put me to strict proof of posting so I put her to the same test.  What's good for the goose ...  She, quite rightly, insists that the other party in litigation can prove posting, so I request the same.

8.  While putting her to strict proof I know full well that she will not produce the proof because I know full well that Parking Eye Ltd replied to the SAR around 18 August and certainly not on 4 August.  No doubt she will come out with some lame excuse that Parking Eye Ltd "cannot produce" or "are unable to produce " or "due to their business model do not produce" or "because of a slight technical error cannot produce" proof of posting.  It is inconceivable that an important national company, in a legal dispute where dates are vital, and after having received a Letter of Claim, do not take the basic step of obtaining proof of posting.

9.  What is likely to have really happened is this.  The Defendant's business consists of sending a series of threatening letters at different time intervals to motorists who do not pay them.  In this repetitive work a SAR or a Letter of Claim will have been ignored.  At the last minute someone will have realised the importance of a Letter of Claim and will have sent out the SAR with an invented date of 4 August and will have "forgotten" to obtain proof of postage.

[Reapstar]

Sounds really good so far Dave, looks like ms leonard has met her match haha thank you!!

 

[Nicky Boy]

I've added what I think is an important extra word in section 7 above.

 

Goodness! I think I'm acquiring Daves teacherish, pedantic tendencies

 

[Reapstar]

Cheers Nicky, So looking forward to seeing this through!! 

[FTMDave]

Remember to inform the court you wish to proceed with the case when they formally send you the fleecers' defence.

[Reapstar]

Cheers for the heads up!

 

How do I notify the court? There doesnt seem to be an option on MCOL?? 

[honeybee13]

Have you had the other side's defence which FTMDave mentioned?

HB

[FTMDave]

On 27/09/2023 at 22:46, FTMDave said:

Remember to inform the court you wish to proceed with the case when they formally send you the fleecers' defence.

Any update here?

[Reapstar]

Hi Dave, there doesnt seem to be a suitable option on MCOL for this?? 

[AndyOrch]

Have you not received a Directions Questionnaire N180 from the court with a copy of their defence ?

You have been asked 3 times now if you have their defence ?

 

Andy