PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Help with Wright Hassall, Threads merged
alexsyl
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:13
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Hi all,

Apologies in advance - I'm new here and I know there are countless topics regarding these issues but I'm not sure what to do next.

In November 2015 I parked in the Abbey Walk car park in Selby (the Sainsburys one, in case anyone knows it). It was always free to park and is close to the town centre, as I was meeting a couple of friends for some food there. I arrived at around 7pm ish and left around 10.30.

I didn't think anything of it, so imagine my surprise when I received a letter from ZZPS dated 19th February 2016 saying I had an unpaid parking fine from the above. Turns out this car park is now managed by Vehicle Control Services on an ANPR sheme, which is not exactly well publicised (and by that I mean I couldnt see any signs up in the car park regarding said parking restrictions). I had never received any prior correspondence from VCS to advise that I had a parking fine or anything like that.

I wrote to both ZZPS and VCS, on the same day, disputing the charge as I had never received any prior notification and therefore could not appeal within the initial given period. I did originally research on here and a couple of other websites to help me gain some content for said letters, so said that I would not pay ZZPS as it's all speculative invoices, is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and there is significant lack of signage in the car park to show the parking restrictions.

I got the usual templated b*llocks letter back, refusing to answer any of my points that I raised, so I wrote to them again to deny the debt to ZZPS and refuse to deal with ZZPS, and demanded they respond fully to the issues and points that I raised in my initial letter, saying that if I didnt hear from them within 14 days then I'd consider the matter closed.

So, yesterday, I receive a letter in the post from Wright Hassall, dated 29th March (but only arrived yesterday - convenient?) - which I have scanned and attached. This looks different to the usual WH templated letters that I have seen people posting about on here and elsewhere - so I am completely unsure how to respond.

Obviously I want to completely stand my ground and have no intention of paying this - I'm just worried about it getting to the CCJ stage.

Is there anyone who could please provide me with some help on how to respond to this WH letter? I'm a bit of a newbie with these kinds of things so anything in laymans terms would be much appreciated.

Thank you!

This post has been edited by alexsyl: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 11:12
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8  
Start new topic
Replies (140 - 148)
Advertisement
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:13
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
alexsyl
post Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 11:17
Post #141


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



The 2 week extension has been given on advice from a conversation I had with the ICO this morning. They have advised that in most circumstances you should be reasonable with the company and give them a "second chance" to respond, effectively. If you haven't done this first then they are less likely to take your complaint favourably
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
publicenemyno1
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 07:56
Post #142


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 18 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,938



This sort of thing frustrates me. Is it 30 days or actually 44, then?

No doubt BW Legal would not give you an extra 2 weeks if you owed them money legitimately!

This post has been edited by publicenemyno1: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 07:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Mon, 2 Jul 2018 - 07:44
Post #143


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Yeah I know, its tedious. To be fair though the person at the ICO was helpful, its 30 days in the first instance and then your'e supposed to play nice - I've ended up only giving them 10 days which I decided was more than reasonable, so if I don't hear from them by then, complaint it is
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 07:51
Post #144


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



No responses from either VCS or BWL following my SARs - even with the 10 extra days they were given.

Will be raising formal complaints to the ICO this morning.

Do you think it is worthwhile sending them both letters to say something to this effect? OR just let the ICO deal with it now?

Many thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 08:49
Post #145


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,318
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Leave it to the ICO

I suspect that the response will be along the lines that VCS and BWL are entitled to your information because they believe you owe a payment

The companies apologise for the delay but are dealing with a vastly increased number of SAR enquiries since GDPR eliminated the £10 charge

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:20
Post #146


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Yeah, the ICO actually said since I made my last post that I don't need to contact the companies again to tell them.

I'm also expecting that kind of response - and aware it won't be the fastest because of the influx of requests since 25th May, however I still want a copy of everything they hold on me, which I am still entitled to. Example, I have still never received a copy of the original PCN from 3 years, despite asking for it on more than 4 occasions!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:40
Post #147


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,811
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I would stop that response before you get it
You point out that while you expect the company may be dealing iwth an elevated number of enquiries since the GDPR was put in place, this would have been somethign they must have anticpated, as a part of their expected business dealing with personal data, and they had 2 years to put processes in place to deal with their legal obligations. If they do indeed claim a huge increase, you require the ICO to verify these claims, and then to investigate the operators failures to implement suitable processes to deal with this ENTIRELY forseeable consequence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 11:30
Post #148


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,318
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Nice one
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 11:51
Post #149


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,811
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



As my day job is auditor in IT, youd be surprised how often I get responses such as the above, and learn how to head off at the pass wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8
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: Monday, 16th July 2018 - 12:39
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.