NCP/BW ANPR PCN - Cambridge North Station

[FTMDave]

Point taken Essex.

Anyway, stick the boot in again on Monday!

[EssexChap]

Just a thought.

Presumably, if they fulfil my SAR they should in theory have to admit to receiving the original SAR letter which they denied receiving?

To not include this would surely be a breach of the DP laws in itself wouldn't it?

 should today's letter change the SAR deadline to be today's date rather than the original one of September 11?

[FTMDave]

Yes, in theory they would send you the SAR letter, but in practice probably not as they claim to have lost it.

There are no dates to change.  You have proof you sent the SAR on 11 September.  They were in breach of their statutory duty on 12 October.  You are giving them a few extra days out of the goodness of your heart to get their act together, that's all.

On 20/10/2023 at 20:43, FTMDave said:

If you haven't replied to them yet, I suggest you keep the heat on them.  Write to them on Monday, and enclose
   - original SAR request
   - proof of posting
   - I.D.
and point out that they are already in breach of their statutory duty and you would be quite within your rights to sue them immediately for distress.  However, you are prepared to delay doing so, on the proviso that within ten days of your letter, i.e. 2 November, a complete reply to the SAR pops through your letter box. 

 

[EssexChap]

On its way!

[FTMDave]

[EssexChap]

So, the extended deadline (Friday 3rd) I gave NCP to fulfil my SAR has now passed with nothing arriving from them. So what's next?

[Nicky Boy]

14 minutes ago, EssexChap said:

So what's next?

Have you been bluffing?... nothing... (That would give them a good indication of the sort of opponent you are).

Or are you ready to issue a claim?... do it... (That would also give them a good indication of the sort of opponent you are).

Your choice...

[FTMDave]

You have the unpalatable choice between:

1.  doing nothing, and potentially later on having to prepare for a court claim with some of the vital evidence missing, or;

2.  going through with the threat to sue them.

Your choice - or rather the person you're representing's choice.

 

[EssexChap]

Or giving them a bit more time to provide the SAR stuff, which is my current inclination.

I don't know why they'd write saying 'send ID' etc if they were simply not intending to fulfil the request.

It would be better for them to simply ignore my reminder etc and then claim they didn't receive that either, surely? 

[Nicky Boy]

Essex,

After everything to date on this thread and (hopefully) reading other threads, you still don't seem to have quite clicked to the sort of people you're dealing with here.

On 06/11/2023 at 23:08, FTMDave said:

You have the unpalatable choice between:

1.  doing nothing, and potentially later on having to prepare for a court claim with some of the vital evidence missing, or;

2.  going through with the threat to sue them.

 

On 07/11/2023 at 10:04, EssexChap said:

Or giving them a bit more time to provide the SAR stuff, which is my current inclination.

Which surely, is essentially Dave's number 1 choice?

[EssexChap]

Not at all. It's simply the difference between taking them to court today or waiting another week to see if the SAR is answered. 

 

[Nicky Boy]

Ah, ok...

Give 'em another week then.

[EssexChap]

I copied my letter to NCP threatening to sue them re the SAR to BW Legal as you guys suggested

have just received a reply from BW saying the 'matter has been put on hold' while they 'query this matter' with NCP.

Not sure if this is good news or bad?

Still haven't received the SAR stuff but am inclined to give theme a bit more time from when they said they'd start doing it.

No reason to think they'd say they were going to do it and then not deliver?

Why bother responding to my demand otherwise?

Edited November 18, 2023 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[Nicky Boy]

What matter is put on hold?

What matter are they querying?

This is a bit like watching paint dry now...

Any chance of seeing the letter?

[FTMDave]

We did say right from the start that threatening to sue NCP didn't mean actually having to sue NCP.

That said, continually giving them extra time is getting a bit silly now.

They had 30 days but breached their statutory duty.
They had another 14 days with the LoC.
When they finally showed their faces they were given another ten days.
The OP decided to wait another week.
The OP is now waiting another another week.

I don't understand why the person in dispute with NCP doesn't sue them now.  It's an open & shut case.  I know this person is young, so, good, the whole experience would give them confidence in using the legal system and be a damn good life lesson.

The whole reason the state has set up the civil legal system is so that parties can settle disputes easily & cheaply.  I don't get this not wanting to use the system that exists for this very purpose.

[EssexChap]

i understand this is frustrating for you both, who quite understandably want to stick it to NCP et al at every possible opportunity,

my question is simply '

are they more likely to fulfil the SAR when we start suing them or will this just simply rattle their cage and antagonise them?' And make them less likely to comply. Which gets us nowhere in relation to the original PCN.

They have said they will comply with the SAR following my threats of action and I imagine they might argue their 30 day obligation started when they received the ID etc as they conveniently claimed not to have received the original request.

Proof of posting is not proof of delivery.

It's not like they're sitting there shaking in their boots that some kid might sue them for £200.

Or am I missing something?

Having said all that, can you send me the link to the page about the suing process and how to start it.

Thanks again for all your help. 

Edited November 18, 2023 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[dx100uk]

posts sorted.

simple answer is to stop hitting quote!

just type in a new msg box then it cant happen,

also please take the trouble to add blank lines and paragraphs too ....not type as a complete block of text.

as for postage, there is no requirement in law to prove delivery, just it was sent

free POP is there for that very reason.

[EssexChap]

Thanks

Edited November 18, 2023 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[dx100uk]

STOP HITTING QUOTE JUST TYPE!!

[Nicky Boy]

Yes! They are more likely to respond to the SAR if you start a claim. It's happened before. 

However, it's too late to stop the claim then and the claim is still valid.  They have already failed in their statutory duty, it's a slamdunk case, so the claim goes on. Your claim fee is not wasted.

Sorry if we seem too aggressive in our actions. It's the way this forum works.

If you want to pussyfoot around and follow the PPC's own random made up rules, making appeals, following their deadlines, etc, you would possibly be better on another forum who deal with these things in a less confrontational manner.

CAG deal with and support a myriad of consumer victims, some of whom are being fleeced by various "companies", to the tune of thousands of pounds.

We also approach these cases aggressively, because it's needed.

Ps. You're right they won't be shaking in their boots... because they're too stupid to understand what you're doing, or they think you're bluffing. 

[FTMDave]

2 hours ago, EssexChap said:

are they more likely to fulfil the SAR when we start suing them

Yes, suing them would make them more likely to fulfil the SAR for the following reason.

You would be suing for distress caused by the non-fulfilment of the SAR.  That would be from 12 October to say today.

Should they continue to refuse to comply, say for another month, then you could sue for a second period of distress say from tomorrow until 19 December.  Then a third time from 20 December till 20 January.  And so on.  In Lorenz's case they have two judgements.  We had someone else who sued Virgin three times.  So eventually these companies wake up and act to stop the court papers arriving. 

Moaning Crusader's Particulars of Claim are here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/452147-loc-to-ncp-for-failure-to-supply-sar-paid-in-full/page/2/#comments  in post 46 and would only need the most minor of tweaking.

But of course it's up to the person who has this legal dispute with NCP.

[FTMDave]

Also, has the person you're representing complained to the ICO?

[EssexChap]

OK we'll get cracking on both, thanks. 

[EssexChap]

When Moaning Crusader won his SAR court case did NCP also revoke his PCN or did this carry on regardless?

[lookinforinfo]

Let's look at it from a different perspective. 

You don't sue them and you lose your case. Cost to you around £250.

You do sue them and you lose your case. Break even.

You do sue them and you win the case. Around £200 win.

They have messed you about enough to make it certain that in any court case you would win. Depending on the Court you could get around £200 since you would be pushing to gat money from them , not just forcing them to send the result of your sar.

They know they have broken the Law and you would win in Court. They may decide rather than go to Court they would rather drop the case against you in return for you to drop your case.

It is a win/win for you.