PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Help needed - PCN issued to a resident
SaulGoodman
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 21:22
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,435



Hello all.

This is my first post on here and having spent weeks and weeks reading through the amazing information on this forum, the time has come for me to finally ask for some direct help. I'm sure my situation is similar in nature to others that have posted on here, so I apologise if this is already explained somewhere else.

I'll summarise my situation below:

Back at the start of the year I received three PCNs for 'Not Displaying a Permit' on my vehicle when it was temporarily parked outside my own home. I live in a flat, and the PPC have recently been instructed (within the last few years) to manage the area due to problems with locals using the area for parking at the local hospital.

I replied to the PPC on each occasion explaining I was a resident and asking them to cancel the PCN, but as predicted all of my appeals to them and the IAS have been rejected. I didn't hear anything from them for a while, until a few months ago when I started receiving letters from them and ZZPS requesting payment, with additional charges added. I've followed the usual advice of ignoring these as I know the DCAs are powerless.

I've read through my lease in detail and there is no mention whatsoever of permits nor any restrictions to park anywhere in the estate so I'm pretty confident I have a strong case, and I of course have explained about my rights to park as detailed in the lease, and quoted them the various case law related to similar events (Jopson, Pace, Saaed) but of course they don't want to know. I've even spoken to the landowner directly, who were very helpful, however even they haven't been able to get them to rescind their charges, so here we are.

I'm getting very hacked off with the constant mail and so now really want to take action against the PPC by issuing an LBC (and have drafted one ready), for tortious interference and DPA breaches, however I'm reluctant to actually send this as I'm not sure if it is worded the right way, and whether or not I'll actually have any success, or whether I'd be better off simply ignoring the DCA letters. From reading other threads, I know it is a good idea to send in a DPA claim after successfully defending a claim by the PPC, however I'm contemplating doing it before it gets to that point and having the upper hand.

If anyone would be willing to chip in with any feedback, suggestions or questions, anything is gratefully appreciated. If you need me to upload my draft LBC, please let me know the best way to do so and I will.

Thanks all!

This post has been edited by SaulGoodman: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 19:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 21:22
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 21:56
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,654
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



As the landowner has helped you has he given you a letter/email confirming that he has told NPM to cancel the charge? Having that in writing would be a powerful tool.

Does your lease actually say you can park?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaulGoodman
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 22:05
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,435



QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 22:56) *
As the landowner has helped you has he given you a letter/email confirming that he has told the PPC to cancel the charge? Having that in writing would be a powerful tool.

Does your lease actually say you can park?


Yeah I have an email chain which shows the landowner trying to resolve on my behalf and the PPC being quote forthright in their demands for payment and not willing to cancel. He's even BCC'd me on his email to them directly. They did offer a reduced charge to settle, which I refused. Is this something I should use in my LBC or keep separate for now?

The lease doesn’t say anything about parking other than the fact that my lease provides me with a Flat and a dedicated parking space. No mention of permits, parking in the local area, restricted parking, nothing at all. There’s no restricted covenants either.

This post has been edited by SaulGoodman: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 19:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 00:22
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,208
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
I'm pretty confident I have a strong case, and I of course have explained about my rights to park as detailed in the lease, and quoted them the various case law related to similar events (Jopson, Pace, Saaed) but of course they don't want to know. I've even spoken to the landowner directly, who were very helpful, however even they haven't been able to get NPM to rescind their charges, so here we are.
Good, you sounds like you've read a lot of info and found the right cases to rely on in any defence.

QUOTE
I'm getting very hacked off with the constant mail and so now really want to take action against NPM by issuing an LBC (and have drafted one ready), for tortious interference and DPA breaches, however I'm reluctant to actually send this as I'm not sure if it is worded the right way,
OK, show us the wording you have drafted, and be ready to follow through on it with an actual claim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaulGoodman
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 05:27
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,435



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 01:22) *
QUOTE
I'm pretty confident I have a strong case, and I of course have explained about my rights to park as detailed in the lease, and quoted them the various case law related to similar events (Jopson, Pace, Saaed) but of course they don't want to know. I've even spoken to the landowner directly, who were very helpful, however even they haven't been able to get them to rescind their charges, so here we are.
Good, you sounds like you've read a lot of info and found the right cases to rely on in any defence.

QUOTE
I'm getting very hacked off with the constant mail and so now really want to take action against the PPC by issuing an LBC (and have drafted one ready), for tortious interference and DPA breaches, however I'm reluctant to actually send this as I'm not sure if it is worded the right way,
OK, show us the wording you have drafted, and be ready to follow through on it with an actual claim.


Thanks. What’s the best way of uploading the draft? Shall I post the whole thing as a post in this thread, or upload a PDF?

This post has been edited by SaulGoodman: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 19:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulajayne
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 07:37
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 900
Joined: 13 Jul 2011
From: Bocking
Member No.: 48,194



Post in thread is better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaulGoodman
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 07:50
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,435



Thanks paulajayne. I’ll post it up later once I’ve redacted my personal info.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaulGoodman
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 17:49
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,435



See below a draft of my LBC.

Full disclosure; I have used an excellent template that I found on one of the many threads to help me with this. I believe it was by Loadsofchildren123 over on MSE, but it may have been here or Legal Beagles; either way it was a huge help, so thank you to the person who drafted this template (it was uploaded to Scribd). I have amended it to suit my case, but please let me know if you think I should be adding/amending anywhere.

My main query was in relation to the relief claimed as I have totalled the sum of three PCNS (3x£750 DPA claim + 3x tortious interference claims) into one claim, the logic being to save the court three separate claims, but I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do and whether I'm over-stretching the case precedents. All feedback welcome. Thanks!

---

[PPC Address]

[Today’s date]

Dear Sirs,

Re: Parking Charge Notices issued on [date 1], [date 2] and [date 3] by you, (ref: XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX)

LETTER BEFORE CLAIM

I refer to our previous correspondence and my IAS appeals in relation to the above matter.

This letter serves a dual purpose. It is to respond to your continued claims that I am liable pursuant to a breach of contract to pay you the sum of £480, that being the total sum of the three parking charge notices (“PCN”) you have issued to me, and to put you on notice that I intend to bring claims against you for a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 in each instance. I am fully aware that this legislation has now been superseded by the Data Protection Act 2018 following the General Data Protections Regulation EU (GDPR) changes in May 2018, however as my claim relates to breaches prior to May 2018, the Data Protection Act 1998 is the correct and relevant legislation in this matter.

Your claim, and my claims against you, relate to parking charge notices issued by an operative of your company to my vehicle on [date 1], [date 2] and [date 3]. In total the amount of £480.00 is being sought from me, but if proceedings are issued this amount will rise by the time costs and interest (and no doubt additional administrative fees) are added. 



Summary of the facts

1. On [date] I purchased from [Landowner] (“the Landowner”), a lease of [my address] (referred to below separately as “the Flat”, and as “the Premises”) granted on [terms] terms. Leasehold title to the Premises was registered shortly after the completion of the purchase on [date]. On the same date I entered into a contract headed “[Lease Name]” (“the Lease”) with [Landowner]

2. By virtue of the Lease I purchased the leasehold title to the Premises for a term of 125 years.

3. The Lease granted me various rights and imposed upon me various obligations. Likewise, it granted and imposed various rights/obligations to/upon the Landowner. I set out below those rights and obligations, together with the rights of the Landowner to impose new obligations upon me. In summary, it is my case that the rights detailed do not include the right to impose restrictions on the use of the Premises, either because they do not come within the meaning and definition of what the Landowner is permitted to impose, or because they are not reasonable and do not relate to the use and enjoyment of the Premises, or because they interrupt my right to quiet enjoyment of the Premises; and even if the Landowner is permitted to impose such restrictions, they are not entitled to impose on me a contractual relationship with a third party (you) nor to require me to pay a set charge (in this case £100 which has risen inexplicably to £160) for any failure to comply with those new restrictions. If the parking restrictions which the Landowner has sought to introduce do bind me, and if I have breached them, then you have no legal right to pursue me for any breach – that right belongs only to the Landowner.

4. The rights granted to me are set out in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the Lease. The obligations imposed upon me are largely irrelevant to this matter, but they include the following:

i. Easements Rights and Privileges, specifically the right for the Leaseholder and all persons authorised by the Leaseholder (in common with all other persons entitled to the like right) at all times to use the Common Parts for all purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the Premises.
ii.Restrictive covenants given in this lease by the Landlord in respect of land other than the Flat - of which there are none. This also indicates no requirement for me to provide or display a parking permit for my vehicle at any point on the Premises or the surrounding areas.

5. The rights granted to the Landowner relate to the receipt/collection of the Specified Rent and Service Charge and their calculations in a particular manner, and to allow me peaceful enjoyment of the Flat without interruption.

6. It is clear from the absence of a separate definition that the intention and purpose of making any new “regulations” (or amending/revoking existing “regulations”) is to supplement and deal with similar matters to those included in the definition of the ‘Application for standard form of restriction’. Further, 6.1 provides the covenant on the Landowner that my paying of the Specified Rent and Service Charge reserves me the right to peaceably enjoy the Premises during the term without any lawful interruption by the Landlord or any person rightfully claiming under or in trust for it.

7. The Lease therefore does not limit, and nor can it limit, my use of the Flat by way of needing to display a parking permit for use with my own vehicle on the premises for which I have leasehold title and exclusive occupation – and in respect of which the Landowner granted me the right of quiet enjoyment.

8. In a date unknown to me, the Landowner engaged your services to carry out parking management on the [location] estate and you introduced a permit system whereby any non-residents’ vehicle parked without a permit would be issued with a charge.

9. On [letter date 1], [letter date 2] and [letter date 3] I received PCNs through the post for my vehicle as the Registered Keeper, which stated that I had received a PCN for ‘Not Displaying a Valid Permit’ on [date 1], [date 2] and [date 3]. You claim that signage placed around the [location] estate imposes a contract on me, pursuant to which you are entitled to sue me for recovery of a contractual “charge” of £100 plus your administrative fees of recovery (currently £60) per PCN.

10. The introduction of a permit system, which imposes new obligations on residents and restricts their pre-existing rights, and which imposes an obligation to pay a set charge of £100 for any failure to comply is not, under any interpretation, a “regulation” which can be imposed pursuant to the clauses of the Lease mentioned prior: it is not reasonable, it is not for the “use and enjoyment” of residents and it is incompatible with my right to quiet enjoyment of the Premises. It is also in blatant contrast to the information displayed on your website which clearly states that you provide these parking management services to “ensure that parking spaces are always available for genuine users”; and in any event, such a “regulation” cannot unilaterally impose on me a contractual relationship with you, an unconnected third party. The intention of the permit system is clearly to discourage non-residents from using the estate as an area to park their vehicles, not to penalise residents for exercising their rights – but that is what it is now doing.

11. Even if (which is not agreed) the introduction of parking management and a permit system were to come under the definition and scope of the above clauses, then it follows that:

i. any new regulations, or amendments/revocation of existing regulations, must be communicated in advance to leaseholders, otherwise how are they to know about them? The introduction of the new parking system was not communicated to me clearly prior to the PCN, and no system of ‘whitelisting’ residents has been presented to me at any time.
ii. no clause in the Lease gives the Landowner or you the right to impose upon me a contractual relationship with you, nor to levy a specific set charge payable either to them or to you and which is separate to the Specified Rent for any failure to comply.

12. The claim by you that there was a contract between us on [date 1], [date 2] and [date 3] denied. First, for there to be a contract three elements have to be shown to be present: offer, acceptance, consideration. You will rely on the signs displayed around the [location] complex as having made an offer. This is denied. The signs are not applicable to me as per the terms of my Lease, and their wording is forbidding and so it is not capable of making, nor did it make, any offer. If there was no offer, then I cannot have accepted it by parking. There was no consideration flowing either from you to me, or from me to you; you cannot have offered me the parking facility which was already mine pursuant to the Lease and I cannot have gained any advantage because, again, I already had sole rights pursuant to the Lease.

13. After I received the PCNs, I complained to you, stating that I need not provide any form of parking permit as a resident, reminding you of my easement rights as per the Lease, and on each occasion your reply was inadequate and simply re-stated that as the area is private property, a valid parking permit was required, and you pointed me to the IAS appeals process, which I followed. Each appeal was rejected, and I have since discovered that the IAS is owned and run by the same people who run and own the IPC (the parking ATA of which you are a member) and most people do not bother with appeals because they are not transparent and not independent.

14. I then contacted the Landowner directly to ask them to resolve my complaint. They contacted you via email on [date] requesting you rescind the parking charges issued, confirming in writing that I am a resident of [my address] and should be able to park on the site freely, to which you refused to do so.

15. I do not accept that the introduction of any parking scheme of this nature is a “regulation” which the Landowner is entitled to impose by virtue, and even if it was, they have already confirmed that I am entitled park on the site. I have already set out why in paragraphs 7 and 10 above – it is not a regulation which is reasonable nor does it relate to the “use and enjoyment” of my Premises and it is wholly at odds with my right to peaceful enjoyment of the Premises, without interruption. Even if the Landowner were permitted to introduce such a scheme, there is no provision by which they can compel me to enter into a contractual arrangement with you, nor by which you can compel me to pay a charge which is not part of the Service Charge or the Specified Rent.

16. Should it be determined that the Landowner was entitled to introduce the permit system for parking, then any breach of it is a matter between me and them, not me and you, and you have no locus standi to bring any sort of claim against me. There is no provision in the Lease that requires me to pay a third party (you) a “charge” of £100 for such failure, and to inexplicably add the sum of £60 to that charge.

17. Primacy of contract is key to this matter, and I refer you to the cases of Jopson v Homeguard, Pace v Mr N and Saeed v Plustrade, which are authority for the proposition that a landowner cannot derogate from its grant of pre-existing parking rights and that a parking company cannot interfere with a driver’s pre-existing rights to park. It was held in those cases that parking restrictions (including the introduction of a permit system) and parking charges which caused detriment to residents was in breach of the principle that “a grantor shall not derogate from his grant”.

18. You therefore have no right whatsoever to pursue me for a breach of contract because no contract between us can exist.

19. In relation to the issue of what notice, if any, I was given of the new parking regime, you have told me in your letter of [date] that you hand delivered a permit in [date]. I never received any such communication. What evidence do you have that either a permit or terms and conditions were supplied to me? If it was posted through my letterbox in an envelope addressed to “the Occupier” then it may well have been ignored, along with the large volume of similarly addressed junk mail which arrives through my letterbox virtually every day.

20. My position is therefore that no contract can exist between us by which you can seek to recover any monies whatsoever.

21. Since I have a good leasehold title to the Premises, and since neither the Landowner nor you have any right to interfere with my leasehold rights other than in accordance with clauses contained in the Lease therein, you had no right to unilaterally impose upon me a contractual obligation to display a permit or otherwise pay you £100 in each instance.

22. You have also breached my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 on each occasion. You have claimed to me that you obtained my data lawfully from the DVLA as per Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, however it has been established that you had no lawful justification to request my personal data for the reasons explained. You have breached the first principle of the Data Protection Act by not obtaining my data lawfully or fairly, and to aggravate matters, you have now sent my data to a debt collection agency, “ZZPS”, on three occasions, breaching my rights even further. I have provided no consent at any time for you to process my data in these ways, of which is explicitly required as per Schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

23. I have now received six letters from ZZPS demanding payment for the above PCNs, the most recent of which insinuate the threat of legal action and that the account will be passed to another company, again without my consent. As such, I find ZZPS’s continuous harassment of me on behalf of you very distressing.

24. I have now also received three letters from QDR Solicitors Ltd continuing to threaten legal action in relation to this matter. This is a further breach of my personal data as I have provided no consent for you or ZZPS to do so.

Basis of the claim

25. You have unlawfully interfered with my pre-existing rights to use and occupy the [location] estate which was demised to me by the Lease.

26. I deny that the Landowner had any power to impose any new obligations on me in respect of the use of the Flat or the surrounding areas, particularly by way of displaying a parking permit.

27. Even if they did, these cannot have formed the basis of any contract between us because my rights to easements already existed. You therefore have no cause of action against me.

28. Despite repeated requests to rescind the charges by myself as a resident, as well as a direct instruction from the Landowner, you and your affiliated companies are still requesting payment for the PCNs discussed.

29. You have breached my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998.

30. As a result of your actions, I have suffered damage and significant distress and I will seek an award of damages against you in the sum of £2,730 in respect of the following:

i. Tortious interference with my rights under the Lease (£160, a sum equivalent to the amount you are currently seeking to recover from me); for each PCN issued; a total of £480.
ii. Breaching of my Data Protection Act rights (£750) for each PCN issued, a total of £2,250.

31. I rely on two significant authorities in support of my claim, which are Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311 and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333. In Vidal-Hall, it was held by the Court of Appeal that compensation was payable upon the fact of breach, and that it was not necessary to quantify a direct pecuniary loss. In Halliday, the Court of Appeal held that a compensatory sum of up to £750 was deemed ‘appropriate and sufficient’.

32. Both of the above cases arose as a result of material breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 by the respective Defendants, and can be considered to provide binding precedents for my own situation. I believe that by way of the multiple breaches, and unlawful processing of my data to two third-parties, (ZZPS and QDR Solicitors Ltd) on three separate occasions, this amounts to significant distress and is therefore of similar nature to the Halliday case.

33. I am now considering whether to issue proceedings against you. Should you in the meantime issue proceedings against me, I will make a counterclaim against you in the above terms. I will also seek costs against you (court fees plus my time at £19 per hour).

Summary of the facts

In summary:

34. The Landowner covenanted to give me uninterrupted quiet enjoyment of the Premises.

35. Whilst it is entitled to introduce “regulations”, these must be reasonable and must relate to the “use and enjoyment” of the Premises and other properties on the estate. The intention and meaning of the clause is not so that they can restrict my use and enjoyment of the Premises and impose unreasonable obligations upon me as is made clear in section 6.1.

36. Even if the introduction of the new parking system is permitted, no clause in the Lease provides for the Landowner to impose a contractual relationship between me and a third party (you) in relation to the Premises, nor the right to impose a specific charge, payable to a third party (you) for any breach of those regulations, nor does it permit them, or you, to impose onerous obligations in respect of the area to which I already had exclusive rights and the right to quiet enjoyment.

37. In carrying out management of the car parking on the estate, and introducing and enforcing a permit system, my right to quiet enjoyment of the Premises has been interrupted.

38. Whatever arrangements exist between you and the Landowner, they cannot interfere with, nor alter, the terms of the Lease. Furthermore, the intention of any agreement between them and you to manage the car park was clearly that it should be for the intended benefit of the residents – it would go wholly against its intention for it to empower you to charge and sue residents who are entitled to park.

39. The Landowner has confirmed in writing that I have the right to park on the site and despite their request to rescind the charges levied by you, you have refused to do so.

40. Your actions amount to a tortious interference of my right to uninterrupted quiet enjoyment of the Premises.

41. You have breached my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998.

The relief claimed



I require you to remit the sum of £2,730 payable to me at the above address, within 14 days of your receipt of this letter, deemed to be two working days after the date of posting.

I also require you to confirm in writing that you will not continue to pursue me for payment in respect of the PCNs and instruct your debt collection agents to cease sending me chasing letters which I find harassing in their nature and volume.

I also require you to cease processing my data immediately.

I also require you to erase any and all data you or your affiliates keep about me as per my rights under the Data Protection Act 2018.

Failure to do any of the above, or to otherwise furnish a substantive response, will result in the issue of a Money Claim Online (MCOL) without further references to yourselves. In the event that a Claim is issued, you may incur additional costs in the form of court filing fees, hearing fees and such other costs as are recoverable on the small claims track of the County Court. A judgement against you may also result in a downgrading of your company’s credit rating, and further costs for enforcement action which may include seizure and disposal of your corporate assets by Court appointed bailiffs.

Documents upon which I will rely



You already have a copy of each PCN. I enclose a copy of the Lease and debt collection letters received by ZZPS and subsequent letters from QDR Solicitors Ltd related to each PCN. I include email correspondence between me and [Landowner], and between [Landowner] and yourselves. I will also rely on precedents set in case law, namely Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd and Vidal-Hall v Google Inc.



Next steps



I refer you to the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, part of the Civil Procedure Rules governing civil litigation, which can be found on the internet in the following link:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

The Practice Direction sets out the steps that each party to a dispute of this nature is expected to follow before resorting to court proceedings. I refer you to paragraphs 13-16 of the Practice Direction, which sets out the costs consequences of any failure to comply with it. I also refer you to paragraph 6, in particular 6© which obliges you to produce the documents upon which you will rely if this matter proceeds. 

In accordance with paragraph 6© when you reply to this letter please send me the following documents:

i. Any contract between you and the Landowner setting out the terms on which you manage the parking on the estate.
ii. Any correspondence between you and the Landowner regarding the introduction and management of the permit system.

In accordance with the Practice Direction, I will wait for 14 days plus two working days before taking any further action. If I have not heard from you within this time, then I reserve my right to issue proceedings against you without any further notice.

I reserve my rights under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Yours faithfully,

[my name]

This post has been edited by SaulGoodman: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 20:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 11:08
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,408
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, it MUST be one claim, as it deals with ONE set of issues - all the facts are the same, bar the dates of the PCNs.

I woudl suggest youre unlikely to get £750 for each DPA violation - have a look at mroe recent cases to guide you.

I would suggest that, as they are STILL processing your data, while the origianl violation took place under DPA1998, the continued use is a new violation each time, and thus 2018 would also be appropriate including the more stringent GDPR.

For 9 i would put "alleged" admin fees. We know they havent actually paid ANYTHING, and none would believe they would pay a firm £60 to recover a £100 alleged debt when there is no statutory power of recovery as the "debt" hasnt been established in Law.

Relief - I would require them to cease and desist from trepassing on your eased space, removal of the space from any permit system, etc. Basically, FRO
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaulGoodman
post Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 13:46
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,435



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 12:08) *
Yes, it MUST be one claim, as it deals with ONE set of issues - all the facts are the same, bar the dates of the PCNs.

I woudl suggest youre unlikely to get £750 for each DPA violation - have a look at mroe recent cases to guide you.

I would suggest that, as they are STILL processing your data, while the origianl violation took place under DPA1998, the continued use is a new violation each time, and thus 2018 would also be appropriate including the more stringent GDPR.

For 9 i would put "alleged" admin fees. We know they havent actually paid ANYTHING, and none would believe they would pay a firm £60 to recover a £100 alleged debt when there is no statutory power of recovery as the "debt" hasnt been established in Law.

Relief - I would require them to cease and desist from trepassing on your eased space, removal of the space from any permit system, etc. Basically, FRO


Thanks nosferatu, that’s really helpful. I was reluctant to put too much relating to DPA 2018/GDPR just because of how new it is, and having not seen much if any case law that sets precedent. I’ll try and dig a bit more into it and see what I could use.

In terms of the 3x£750 relief, do you think I would be better off simply going after one £750 charge plus the tortious interference amount?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 13:57
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,408
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The law is actually not dramatically dfferent, so id suggest including it.
No, I would suggest a different calcualtin
State that Vidal set the amount as £750 for a violation that includes sharing with third parties, and that this is clearly three such vilations seperately initiated. SUgegs thtta while a simple calculation would be £2250, you suggest a more suitable calculation would be £1500

Or not
Its up to you really.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaulGoodman
post Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 14:10
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,435



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 14:57) *
The law is actually not dramatically dfferent, so id suggest including it.
No, I would suggest a different calcualtin
State that Vidal set the amount as £750 for a violation that includes sharing with third parties, and that this is clearly three such vilations seperately initiated. SUgegs thtta while a simple calculation would be £2250, you suggest a more suitable calculation would be £1500

Or not
Its up to you really.


That’s great thanks! I’ll head back to it and re-assess the relief.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 14:12
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,408
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Its all about what you think a court would find reasonable IF they find in your favour - remember, tehy can find you are right, but that you are not entitled to as much
THere is no need to low-ball, but you also dont want to be seen as unreasonably guilty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaulGoodman
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 00:01
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,435



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 15:12) *
Its all about what you think a court would find reasonable IF they find in your favour - remember, tehy can find you are right, but that you are not entitled to as much
THere is no need to low-ball, but you also dont want to be seen as unreasonably guilty.


Thanks again nosferatu. I've made those changes and added some more detail around GDPR:

---

This letter serves a dual purpose. It is to respond to your continued claims that I am liable pursuant to a breach of contract to pay you the sum of £480, that being the total sum of the three parking charge notices (“PCN”) you have issued to me, and to put you on notice that I intend to bring claims against you for tortious interference, and breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998, the General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679) (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). You will no doubt be aware that the Data Protection Act 1998 was superseded by the Data Protection Act 2018 following the General Data Protection Regulation EU (GDPR) changes on 25th May 2018, however many of the principles of the DPA 1998 have been carried forward into the new legislation, and as my claim relates to breaches made before and after the introduction of GDPR, both pieces of legislation are relevant.


---

I've also added an extra statement to try and bolster my justification for the DPA relief. Let me know your thoughts:

---

30. As a result of your actions, I have suffered damage and significant distress and I will seek an award of damages against you in the sum of £1,980 in respect of the following:

i. Tortious interference with my rights under the Lease; £480, a sum equivalent to the amount you are currently seeking to recover from me.
ii. Breaching of my Data Protection Act rights on multiple occasions; £1,500 (details of the calculation of these damages is explained in 31, 32 and 33).

31. I rely on two significant authorities in support of my claim, which are Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311 and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333. In Vidal-Hall, it was held by the Court of Appeal that compensation was payable upon the fact of breach, and that it was not necessary to quantify a direct pecuniary loss. In Halliday, the Court of Appeal held that a compensatory sum of up to £750 was deemed ‘appropriate and sufficient’. Both of these cases arose as a result of a material breach of the DPA by the respective Defendants, and can be considered to provide binding precedents for my own situation.

32. In this case you have breached my DPA rights on multiple occasions by:



i. Requesting and accessing my personal data on three occasions, namely my full name, personal mobile phone number, home address and vehicle registration details, following a request to the DVLA; without my consent.

ii. Sharing the above personal details with ZZPS, a third-party debt collection agency, on three occasions, for the purposes of collecting the alleged charges on your behalf; without my consent.

iii. Sharing the above personal details with QDR Solicitors Ltd, a third-party debt collection agency, on three occasions, for the purposes of collecting the alleged charges on your behalf; without my consent.

33. This amounts to significant distress and is therefore of similar nature to the Vidal and Halliday cases. As such, a simple calculation of the damages would be £2,250, that being the sum of three claims of £750, however I suggest a more suitable calculation would be £1,500, which I believe is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 09:11
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,408
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Sounds good to me

Give others a chance to comment, as ever, but dont miss any deadlines smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaulGoodman
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 15:34
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,435



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 10:11) *
Sounds good to me

Give others a chance to comment, as ever, but dont miss any deadlines smile.gif


Is there a deadline in this instance as it’s me initiating the claim?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 15:37
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,408
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Apologies, i thought you had a LBA theyd sent you.
SO no, no deadline as such - but the longer you wait the more chance they will initiate something.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaulGoodman
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 15:42
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,435



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 16:37) *
Apologies, i thought you had a LBA theyd sent you.
SO no, no deadline as such - but the longer you wait the more chance they will initiate something.


That’s fine. Yeah I think I’m fairly happy with it now and I’m not sure what else I could really change. I’ll get it sent out signed for on Monday unless there’s any other suggestions from others on here.

Thanks again for your advice nosferatu.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 17:01
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,408
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No! No signed for!

If they refuse it, then it definitely was not delivered

First class, free proof of posting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 17:41
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,208
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Seconded, NEVER signed for to a parking firm, eeek no paying for proof of NON delivery, which is all it gets you from the likes of such scum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 14th November 2018 - 20:43
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.