Dayglo's mission to get his life back!

[dayglo]

cheers Alan, I've lost count of the number of times I've considered throwing in the towl on this one ( 3 or 4 i think - and they're just th eones I've posted!) but in the end i've always carried on. It all comes back to - don't mind winning/losing on a straight 'fight' if you know what i mean - I actually do care about whether these arguments are valid or not, it would be just as un-satisfactory I think if vodafone pulled out and said "without liability gesture of good will etc...." (hey - who am kidding? I'd bite their well manicured hands off!)

 

And I can understand everyone's jumpiness at the moment. I'm merely trying to understand exactly what my likely exposure either is, or could be.

 

amounts quoted in CPR? I'm happy to trawl my way through that lot, but if you could point me in the right direction? so far, I'm reading CPR part 44?

 

not sure about the inspiration stuff!!!!! lets see how this pans out first eh? don't fancy reading the "we all followed dayglo to financial ruin...." thread!

 

as you know, flippancy and sarcasm are happy bed fellows here!

[alanfromderby]

Cpr 46:2

[dayglo]

hey! what am I worrying about then?

Where the claim is only for a remedy other than the payment of money the value of the claim is deemed to be more than £3,000 but not more than £10,000, unless the court orders otherwise.

 

means a maximum exposre of £500 - does that sound right? even if they bring a team of barristers on the day (I exaggerate to make a point!)

[Guest ian cognito]

On the other hand though, look at this from vodafone's point of view, what if I have got this completely wrong and the judge says that this case should not have been brought etc... he could award costs against me and they could be substantial.

 

If this was the case you wouldn't get a court date anyway would you? I think you need to be prepared for Vodafone turning this into something it isn't and preparing their own agenda for the court hearing.

[dayglo]

If this was the case you wouldn't get a court date anyway would you? I think you need to be prepared for Vodafone turning this into something it isn't and preparing their own agenda for the court hearing.

 

what have you got in mind? so far, vodafone have concentrated on the fact that I have suggested, a long time ago, that....

 

a) they require my consent to process data (we now know that's bollocks!)

 

b) this business about paras 1-4 etc. and the fact that they've ignored my notice on the grounds that they think para 6 (legit. interest) is valid.

 

What do you think Vodafone could turn it into?

[Guest ian cognito]

I think they're just gonna concentrate on making the judge think they have a right to continue to process your data for 6 years and that all you are doing is trying to get a defaullt removed.

 

I also think if your nervous because you're in court (possibly for the first time), worried about the outcome and your mind isn't completely focused on what this is really all about, you'll come out thinking "eh? what happened there?" You are already aware that their letter to ICO (I think, can't read this thread again) has tried to turn the focus off their actual failure to comply with your request and onto why they shouldn't have done - eye on the ball at all times!!!

 

(BTW I'm only up the road too if you want moral support)

[dayglo]

yep - I think you're right.

 

I expected them to go along the lines of "imagine what would happen if you could just remove defaults by issuing S.10(1) notices, there would be chaos!" angle.

 

Although it's easy to say sat here in the comfort of my home I really don't expect to be in such awe of court that I lose focus etc.

 

My strategy is to keep trying to get them back to the following

 

1) I issued a notice properly

2) you replied with 2 crap latters within the 21 days

3) conditions described in para 6 etc only cropped up from v/f after 54 days

4) I still maintain conditions in para 6 are not met

 

It's also my plan to agree entirely with the letter from the ICO to remove it as an area of dispute.

 

Thanks for your offer, help etc.... it's appreciated.

[Guest willowb]

"imagine what would happen if you could just remove defaults by issuing S.10(1) notices, there would be chaos!" angle.

Imagine if they didn't! It would make a mockery of the law, it would send out the signal that a normal person has no rights under the DPA and don't bother standing up for them. The companies have a responsibility to uphold their duties under the DPA, it's not our fault that they haven't addressed the notice properly, they should have known better!

Wxxx

[Guest ian cognito]

they should have known better!

 

I have a feeling you've hit the nail on the head with that one Willow!

[dayglo]

i know! i'm just very wary at the moment, how many threads have we had on here where the claimant is full of bravado and convinced arguments are sound etc, and surounded by well wishers and more tubthumpers it's easy to get carried away with the idea that this is done and dusted etc only to find out that the judge sees things very differently indeed! I don't fancy being another example of "well, in hindsight i suppose it was obvious!" type thread. sorry just waffling now....

[zootscoot]

Hi Dayglo,

 

Sorry for the delay in getting to you. I'll need to look into this a little further and get back to you. Although one point worthy of note is that the order states hearing is to be in front of a district judge. District judges have two functions one deal with hearings in the small claims court and the other is to decide track allocation.

 

Circuit judges deal with fast track cases and if they mention puisne judges thats the time to pick up your marbles and run like stink because its been multi- tracked!

 

Hope this helps

 

Will see if I can find out any more

 

All the best

 

Zoot

[dayglo]

no apols needed zoot - grateful for any advice anytime! (preferably before 26th March mind you!)

 

Thanks for the info.

[zootscoot]

2 hours is too long to be an allocation hearing. Has there at anytime been mentioned a part 8 claim?

[dayglo]

never.

[timmy1875]

Hi Dayglo

 

Ive followed your various posts for ages now without any comment. I have also set on the same road as you to get a default removed by Aktive Kapital / Time retail finance (not got to the court stages yet).

 

In the event of you getting costs set against you im sure forum members would be willing to stump up some cash to help out (bearing in mind all the advise you have given and the bank charges many have received).

 

I for one will happily send you a chq for £50 in this event as im sure many others will.

 

Good luck

[dayglo]

Hello timmy. welcome to the thread. What a kind post! lets hope it doesn't come to that though eh?

 

thanks though.

[steven4064]

Well said timmy - dayglo is representing us all

[Allyxia]

kiss chase!

[Guest willowb]

Who's Chase?

 

Wxxx lol

[dayglo]

i don't remember! I certainly have no recollection of agreeing to represent anyone never mind everyone

[dayglo]

i seem to remember a character called chase meridian but can't think where from!

[Guest willowb]

Nicole Kidman in Batman Forever!!!!

 

 

Wxxx

[dayglo]

oh yes! might have to go for a lie down!

[Guest willowb]

 

Wxxx

[dayglo]

i wonder if i can go to court in fancy dress?