PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

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: 145
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
10 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 >  
Start new topic
Replies (160 - 179)
Advertisement
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:13
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
alexsyl
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 14:02
Post #161


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



On a side note - what am I to BWL, just out of interest?

Am I their customer? Client? Or basically nothing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 19:44
Post #162


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE (alexsyl @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 15:02) *
On a side note - what am I to BWL, just out of interest?

Am I their customer? Client? Or basically nothing?

You're their prey.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 07:48
Post #163


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



That's true!

I was thinking more if I was put something in a letter - along the lines of "the way you treat your customers is disgusting" - but not actually that - wondering what I would officially be classed as to BWL.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 10:02
Post #164


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



You must remember they only want your money, these people (or kretins) involved in Private Parking care not one zitch about anyone or any such customer service.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 09:22
Post #165


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Hello,

So I finally got a response from BWL on my SAR.

Tons of information is missing including what data they hold and how they obtained the data. All they have sent me is copied of letters they've sent, and what responses I have sent them.

How do I best proceed? Do I write back to BWL to tell them as such and to do it properly, or do I leave it with the ICO to take further?

Many thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 10:14
Post #166


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Dear Sir

Ref ****

I have received your response to my Subject Access Request

It is woefully inadequate and you have obviously failed to include all the information you hold about me
You have even failed to include the request from your client to contact me

As this was the third time I had requested the information I will not accept any further delays
If I have not received every record by 27th September 4 pm, I will immediately report BWLegal to the Information Commissioners Office

Yours Faithfully

PS : I am also still waiting for an explanation of your £54 charge and why your client believes it to be exempt from CPR 27.14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 12:08
Post #167


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Would a complaint to the SRA also be in order?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 13:01
Post #168


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Thanks - will send that letter off this afternoon.

I did already complain to the SRA about their conduct last year, however with the new developments in BWL's inability to respond to an access request has tempted me to do it again!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 12:13
Post #169


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Little update...

I still don't have a response to my SAR from BWL (still under investigation by the ICO) but I have over the weekend finally received an SAR response from VCS.

This response from VCS is surprisingly fairly comprehensive (despite the fact that they originally sent it to an address I haven't lived at in 2.5 years but whatever), and includes a copy of the original PCN that I never received.

So where do I now go from here - part of my original arguments were that the original PCN was never received, am I best off posting a copy of that on here to see if its compliant with everything, or is there a know next best steps after this stage?

Thanks in advance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 12:27
Post #170


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Post the NTK redacted but with the dates on, there being a copy available does not change the fact you never got it but at least it can be seen if it was POFA 2012 compliant or not in the first place.

They will have posted it out using a junk mail provider, so not 1st or 2nd class and they will also have no proof of posting from the post office, so your witness statement that the NTK was never received still stands unchallenged.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 12:46
Post #171


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



VCS have neveer been POFA compliant, to my knowledge. Certainly not a few years ago

Re them sending it to the wrong address - thats ANOTHER DPA2018 violation!

You could respond, asking them whether they will self-report their violaiton of the DPA (knowingly using an incorrect address, faliing to maintain proper records) or do you want to do it for them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 16:03
Post #172


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Redacted copy of the original PCN below.

Would be keen to get some feedback on this so I know my next steps...

Many thanks

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 18:29
Post #173


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



There are so many POFA errors on that PCN, unless it is on the back.

No 9 (2) (e)
No 9 (2) (f)
No 9 (2) (a) period of parking. Moving in front of cameras, by definition, is not parking.
No 9 (2) (i) date the notice is sent.
Failed 9 (4) (a) failed to deliver within the 14 day relevant period. Issued on day 13, 9 (6) assumes 2 working days for delivery so this takes delivery to day 15.

Is that enough for your defence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 08:56
Post #174


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I cant see those attachments - work blocked

However, just ask - does it actually state they will hold the Keeper liable? they dont usually, they on later PCNs state they will assume you were the driver and hold you liable that way.

So you dont even have to say they failed to comply with POFA, they instead failed to use it all, AND they failed to comply.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 10:44
Post #175


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



@ ostell - thanks very much, will draft a letter and post it up here shortly.

@ nosferatu - this is what it says:

"The terms and conditions to which the driver agrees to be contractually bound upon entering the site are clearly placed at the entrance to the car park and in prominent places throughout. Your details were either obtained from the DVLA as the RK/Owner or you have contacted us as the driver, or you have been identified as the driver at the time of the contravention but payment remains outstanding. If you believe your data has been used or obtained inappropriately then you may contact the ICO or DVLA to raise your concerns. Photographic evidence and data is held on file to support the claim in accordance with the DPA1998. The data is used for the sole purpose of pursuing settlement on this PCN".

"If you were not the driver, please complete and return the relevant section giving the drivers full name and serviceable address in order that we can redirect this PCN accordingly and please also pass this notice onto the driver. If the vehicle was on hire at the date of the contravention or had been sold prior to the date of contravention, please provide relevant details by completing the relevant section and providing relevant supporting evidence. Should the RK either provide an unserviceable name and address of the driver or the named driver denies they were the driver, we may pursue the RK for any PCN amount that remains outstanding on the assumption they were the driver"

so - with my limited knowledge, this reads as a "yes, we hold the RK liable"...?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 10:51
Post #176


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Yes they are trying hold the RK liable BUT they have failed to conform to the requirements of POFA to be able to do so so they can only claim against the unknown driver, who you are not obliged to identify.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 13:14
Post #177


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



"Should the RK either provide an unserviceable name and address of the driver or the named driver denies they were the driver, we may pursue the RK for any PCN amount that remains outstanding on the assumption they were the driver""


What part of that suggests theyre using POFA? NOTHING!
POFA does not need any assumptions as to who the driver was.It just MAKES the keeper liable by virtue of being the keeper. Nothing more

This tells you they are NOT using POFA to hold you liable, but a mere assumption you are the driver. Well, that means theyre not using POFA, AND theyre not compliant with POFA (2 different points) , AND their assumpotion is GARBAGE and courts have told them this in the past.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 16:34
Post #178


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Draft of my response below - any feedback/comments please?

Thanks for the help


I refer to your recent, albeit delayed, response to my Subject Access Request (SAR).

I am incredibly disappointed to find that this had been sent to the incorrect address on two separate occasions. I would therefore now be interested to know whether you will be self-reporting your violation of the GDPR 2018 to the ICO, both for knowingly using an incorrect address and failing to maintain proper records, or if you would like me to do it on your behalf? As you will be aware, I already have an existing complaint about your conduct with them, and I am only happy to escalate this further if needs be.

However, as part of this SAR, I have finally received a copy of the original Parking Charge Notice (PCN), which I had requested from you on numerous occasions before, so I have now finally had a chance to review this properly.

On this PCN, you state that “we may pursue the registered keeper for any PCN amount that remains outstanding on the assumption that they were the driver". This indicates that you do not follow the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and are basing this entire contravention on a mere assumption that the registered keeper was the driver at the time. Your assumptions are woefully inadequate, and you know as well as I do that your company has been told this by the Courts in the past.

To note, even if your PCN did make reference to the fact that you rely on POFA, it would fail on a number of points, including No 9 (2) (a), No 9 (2) (e), No 9 (2) (f), No 9 (2) (i), and No 9 (4) (a) (which also would reference No 9 (6)).

For a business like yourselves, I have little doubt that an investigation by the ICO is likely to cause more damage to you both financially and reputationally, than the cost of an alleged parking contravention, and as such, I am willing to retract my complaint and ICO investigation if you confirm that this fine has been cancelled.

I would therefore be grateful if you can get back to me at your earliest convenience to confirm that this PCN has been cancelled and that no monies are due. I would also request that you instruct BW Legal to desist from contacting me again in the future, unless it is to confirm that they will not attempt to communicate with me going forwards. Failure to do this will of course result in an escalation of my complaint as detailed above.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXXXXX
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 21:38
Post #179


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



All good until the last two paragraphs which are an unnecessary climb down and show weakness.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 10:25
Post #180


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Thanks - so if I remove the last 2 paragraphs and insert the following, would this read better?

I have little doubt that an investigation by the ICO is likely to cause more damage to you both financially and reputationally, than the cost of an alleged parking contravention. I would therefore be grateful if you can get back to me at your earliest convenience to confirm that this PCN has been cancelled and that no monies are due. I would also request that you instruct BW Legal to desist from contacting me again in the future, unless it is to confirm that they will not attempt to communicate with me going forwards.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXXXXX
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 >
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:47
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here