UKPC v Ms C C7HW70K6. Portsmouth. 6/2/2017
Ms C was the keeper of a vehicle parked outside a bay in a residents car park. She was not the driver.
Her partner would move the car up from their allocated space closer to their flat entrance (into passing bay/loading bay) and then leave to help her up or down stairs (she was pregnant with twins and their two year old.). The warden had been informed of this, although conveniently had no recollection.
UKPC issued 4 tickets which Ms C contested.
MS C sent two Subject Access Requests (SAR) to UKPC which were not complied with. One was ignored totally and the other was missing some very relevant information.
The first hearing
The first hearing was adjourned for the SARs to complete.
The second hearing
The judge dismissed the claim in the second hearing, stating he found the failure to comply with the SARS "particularly worrying"
The main reasons for dismissal were; failing to follow BPA code; not giving a grace period or time period on tickets, so couldn't prove how long the vehicle was parked; the dates were all wrong; fabrication of signage in the evidence pack and the lack of distinction between visitor and resident parking.
and visitors parking.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Putting the fun back into parking
Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims
Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences
Why are these companies not being punished for including false evidence? "fabrication of signage"... That means someone signed a witness statement that was not truthful! Or am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteFailure to respond to a SAR is a breach of the DPA for which damages may be sought.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, it increases the Distress element and could clock up serious damages.
Delete