@vodafoneuk Vodafone nuisance calls #9260167 - i'm after obtaining an injunction order

[steampowered]

The part which concerns me is that Vodafone are able to request further information to verify your identity, in which case Vodafone would not be required to comply with the SAR until that information is provided. They may try to say that asking you to complete the form is their way of asking for more information, although on balance I'm not sure that would stand up to scrutiny.

 

If you want to go ahead I would suggest clarifying the POC to focus more on the rights you have rather than giving a narrative story about Vodafone. At this stage I would not go into the details of who you have spoken to at the CEO department etc. because it is distracting. I would go with something more like the below.

 

Don't talk about exemplary damages. The UK does not really have exemplary damages except in a few very exceptional cases in very different contexts. Compensation for breach of the DPA is governed by section 13 of the DPA.

 

 

 

'The Defendant, Vodafone, is a data controller which processes the Claimant's personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the 'Act'). On xx February 2015, the Claimant exercised his right to request a copy of his personal data and paid the prescribed fee of £10 set out in the Act. Pursuant to section 7 of the Act, the Defendant was required to respond on or before xxx, being 40 days from the date on which the Defendant received the request. The Defendant has failed to comply with the request and is in breach of its obligations under section 7 of the Act.

 

Pursuant to section 7 (9) of the Act, the Claimant seeks an order that the Defendant comply with the request.

 

The Claimant has spent a considerable amount of time trying to resolve the issue by liaising with various representatives from the Defendant, none of whom have been remotely interested in achieving compliance with the Defendant's basic legal obligations under the Act. This has caused the Defendant considerable distress and damage including (1) time spent trying to resolve the issue (estimated at xxx hours) and (2) telephone costs (estimated at £10). Pursuant to section 13 of the Act, the Defendant seeks compensation of no more than £500 in relation to the Defendant's failure to comply with the Claimant's request.'

[fkofilee]

The part which concerns me is that Vodafone are able to request further information to verify your identity, in which case Vodafone would not be required to comply with the SAR until that information is provided. They may try to say that asking you to complete the form is their way of asking for more information, although on balance I'm not sure that would stand up to scrutiny.

 

If you want to go ahead I would suggest clarifying the POC to focus more on the rights you have rather than giving a narrative story about Vodafone. At this stage I would not go into the details of who you have spoken to at the CEO department etc. because it is distracting. I would go with something more like the below.

 

Don't talk about exemplary damages. The UK does not really have exemplary damages except in a few very exceptional cases in very different contexts. Compensation for breach of the DPA is governed by section 13 of the DPA.

 

 

 

'The Defendant, Vodafone, is a data controller which processes the Claimant's personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the 'Act'). On xx February 2015, the Claimant exercised his right to request a copy of his personal data and paid the prescribed fee of £10 set out in the Act. Pursuant to section 7 of the Act, the Defendant was required to respond on or before xxx, being 40 days from the date on which the Defendant received the request. The Defendant has failed to comply with the request and is in breach of its obligations under section 7 of the Act.

 

Pursuant to section 7 (9) of the Act, the Claimant seeks an order that the Defendant comply with the request.

 

The Claimant has spent a considerable amount of time trying to resolve the issue by liaising with various representatives from the Defendant, none of whom have been remotely interested in achieving compliance with the Defendant's basic legal obligations under the Act. This has caused the Defendant considerable distress and damage including (1) time spent trying to resolve the issue (estimated at xxx hours) and (2) telephone costs (estimated at £10). Pursuant to section 13 of the Act, the Defendant seeks compensation of no more than £500 in relation to the Defendant's failure to comply with the Claimant's request.'

 

Steampowered hit it on the head. The court system is not to describe a story when used in this context, its designed to set out key points relating to an issue you have had.

Dont narrate, just fine points is all that is needed. The charges have to be realistic for compensation relating to this. The DPA does state the above. I agree with the scrutiny element.

 

If you include all the information that is presented on the form, in the letter, then why should they not process it...?

[BazzaS]

The part which concerns me is that Vodafone are able to request further information to verify your identity, in which case Vodafone would not be required to comply with the SAR until that information is provided. They may try to say that asking you to complete the form is their way of asking for more information, although on balance I'm not sure that would stand up to scrutiny.

 

If you want to go ahead I would suggest clarifying the POC to focus more on the rights you have rather than giving a narrative story about Vodafone. At this stage I would not go into the details of who you have spoken to at the CEO department etc. because it is distracting. I would go with something more like the below.

 

Don't talk about exemplary damages. The UK does not really have exemplary damages except in a few very exceptional cases in very different contexts. Compensation for breach of the DPA is governed by section 13 of the DPA.

 

 

 

'The Defendant, Vodafone, is a data controller which processes the Claimant's personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the 'Act'). On xx February 2015, the Claimant exercised his right to request a copy of his personal data and paid the prescribed fee of £10 set out in the Act. Pursuant to section 7 of the Act, the Defendant was required to respond on or before xxx, being 40 days from the date on which the Defendant received the request. The Defendant has failed to comply with the request and is in breach of its obligations under section 7 of the Act.

 

Pursuant to section 7 (9) of the Act, the Claimant seeks an order that the Defendant comply with the request.

 

The Claimant has spent a considerable amount of time trying to resolve the issue by liaising with various representatives from the Defendant, none of whom have been remotely interested in achieving compliance with the Defendant's basic legal obligations under the Act. This has caused the Defendant considerable distress and damage including (1) time spent trying to resolve the issue (estimated at xxx hours) and (2) telephone costs (estimated at £10). Pursuant to section 13 of the Act, the Defendant seeks compensation of no more than £500 in relation to the Defendant's failure to comply with the Claimant's request.'

 

I made the point about not claiming for exemplary damages in my post of 17th May, yet that was the sole claim requested by the OP in his draft N1.

 

My concern is that the OP will now copy verbatim what has been written : yet he also seems not to achieve any understanding of the process, or retain key points from the advice he has had.

He has the basis of a PoC for the failed SAR now - yet I'm not still sure the SAR is key to his case for his underlying issue with Voda.

 

If he does feel the SAR is key (and so far his only stated rationale for continuing to focus on the SAR when I asked him this was.: "I was advised to get the SAR".....), then should he also ask for specific performance? Or rely on Voda realising they must comply IF he wins his first (SAR) case??

 

If he seems reliant on CAG writing his papers for him, would he be better asking for the case to be heard on the papers alone, rather than an oral hearing where he won't have CAG's backup, and if he still hasn't achieved an understanding of the issues and how to present them - he may struggle?

[steampowered]

I'm not still sure the SAR is key to his case for his underlying issue with Voda.

Yes, agreed. But it could give the op valuable ammunition for a more substantial claim against Vodafone (if the op genuinely feels that it is worth the time, expense and risk associated with making such a claim).

 

then should he also ask for specific performance?

No, specific performance only applies to contracts and not to things like data protection. In relation to the SAR, it would be an order under section 7(9) of the DPA requiring Vodafone to comply with the request.

 

If he seems reliant on CAGicon writing his papers for him, would he be better asking for the case to be heard on the papers alone, rather than an oral hearing where he won't have CAGicon's backup, and if he still hasn't achieved an understanding of the issues and how to present them - he may struggle?

If Vodafone enter a defence, I don't think there is a realistic possibility of avoiding a hearing. Cases very rarely get dealt with on paper. This might not be a bad thing, in general I find that most litigants in person come across more clearly in person than on paper.

[fkofilee]

If Vodafone enter a defence, I don't think there is a realistic possibility of avoiding a hearing. Cases very rarely get dealt with on paper. This might not be a bad thing, in general I find that most litigants in person come across more clearly in person than on paper.

 

You cant put emotion into paper , In person you can...

[aaron42]

I am not sure that this is entirely relevant now as the tread seems to have progressed a long way from the initial complaint of nuisance phone calls from Vodafone, though have you considered registering your phone number with the Telephone Preference Service? its free and effectively stops companies contacting you with marketing calls unless they have express permission to do so.

we used to get loads of calls at random times of the day from until we registered, then they just stopped.

 

I haven't made enough posts to be able to include links but a quick google of Telephone preference services will point you in their direction

[p3t3r]

thank you for continued help!

 

ive been working 18hrs + shifts. so didn't have time to update thread and take form to court earlier this week.

 

ive uploaded a new N1 form.

 

if it is correct, then i will have time to take it to court later today![ATTACH=CONFIG]58284[/ATTACH]

[steampowered]

The N1 form needs to state what you are asking the court to do (i.e. order Vodafone to comply with the subject access request and potentially compensation). You can see an example in post 201 at the top of this page.

[p3t3r]

hi steampowered, i re-wrote the N1, then saw your advice earlier, so adapted it.

 

I have asked in the new N1 (my second attempt) for:

 

Pursuant to section 7 (9) of the Data Protection Act, the Claimant seeks an order that the Defendant comply with the request.

 

and ---

 

This has caused the Defendant considerable distress and damage including (1) time spent trying to resolve the issue (estimated at 15 hours) and (2) telephone costs (estimated at £10). Pursuant to section 13 of the Act, the Defendant seeks compensation of no more than £500 in relation to the Defendant's failure to comply with the Claimant's request.

 

 

I have a 3 week holiday from work (hopefully) and I would like to get this form into the court as soon as possible.

 

I take above form into court Monday / Tuesday.

[steampowered]

OK, if you want to go ahead with this, I think the form is ready to file. Just be ready to see it through and make sure you have a copy of the 'letter before claim' you previously sent to Vodafone.

[p3t3r]

I shall go to court today or tomorrow to submit N1 form and court fees.

 

In court hearing, I shall take the letter before action, my SAR request.

I will also take the letter from CEO office which shows vodafone have disregarded the law as well as online chat evidence plus the times I called to enquire where my SAR is.

[p3t3r]

The Court wouldn't take my N1 form from me and said I needed to take it to the Civil Justice Centre.

 

The Civil Justice Centre said they reluctant to take the form from me because my claim is not for money!

 

The lady I spoke with said she would contact me later today or early tomorrow to let me know where I need to take the form.

[p3t3r]

I returned to the Civil Justice Centre this morning and there was a different member of staff there.

She expanded on the advice I received yesterday. Her advice was - the Civil Justice Centre can not accept an N1 form as they are all processed in another part of the country.

Her advice was also that form N1 is the wrong form for me to request SAR.

 

Instead of N1 form her advice was that I complete Claim Form CPR Part 8.

 

She gave me Claim Form CPR Part 8.

 

The price for this court hearing is either £260 or £280 (I can't remember which).

 

So.... back I go tomorrow with Claim Form CPR Part 8.... Third time lucky! I hope!

[SabreSheep]

Just remember, anything outside a small claims track exposes you to the risk of paying the other sides hefty legal bill.

 

Weigh up the risks....

[p3t3r]

SabreSheep! Thanks for that advice! I did intend to make that application today, just copied the information onto the new form, the CPR part 8 form.

 

But now I know that I am potentially exposed to not only losing the £260 or £280 court application fee as well as being liable for Vodafones costs if I should lose, I need to rethink this.

 

This could prove to be a very expensive mistake in order for myself to get someone within Vodafone to wake up and realise that their company policy does not override UK law. Though I suspect they know that. They just rely on the fact that it is expensive and also financially risky in order for their customer to proceed with a legal claim that they ignore Data Protection legislation.

 

I need to think about this more. The exposed risk of their legal fees. (even though I have enough evidence showing they have disregarded the law on numerous occasions, I will be up against their solicitor)

 

I intended on going there right now... I will go to the shops near Civil Justice Centre now, whilst thinking about if i should put my form in today or not.

 

I will update with outcome from Court if i put forms in today (or my next move).

[steampowered]

I think you have been told the wrong thing. I think that Part 8 is not appropriate here. Part 8 is supposed to be used where there is no substantial dispute of fact; and in this case there is a substantial dispute of fact. Filing a Part 8 form would also mean you would likely be liable for Vodafone's full legal costs if unsuccessful.

 

Stick to the Part 7 form.

 

Court staff are correct about the £280 fee though.

[p3t3r]

hello, thanks again

 

i went to Civil Justice Centre earlier. I was told that my form is incorrect (despite what the colleague told me day before).

 

I was also told that they will have a definitive answer tomorrow as to what form I should use.

 

Third time lucky again lol

 

The staff in the centre have been quite helpful even though they gave wrong advice. They told me they are not legally trained so not allowed to offer advice but did help me as much as they could.

[p3t3r]

Civil Justice Centre can't give me a definitive answer, there is some confusion and disagreement amongst themselves as to what forms I need!!!!!

 

My intenion = back to square 1 with my N1 form which I shall post soon. In new N1 form I will make it clear that I can't provide full list of vodafones unsolicited contact because vodafone have failed in their duty to provide me with SAR.

 

I will post new N1 form soon.

[SabreSheep]

Have you done a formal complaint to the ICO re: SAR?

 

If not, why are you taking court action first?

[BazzaS]

Have you done a formal complaint to the ICO re: SAR?

 

If not, why are you taking court action first?

 

The OP posted on 21st May 2015;

to update thread -

 

Information Commissioners Office (ICO) have today confirmed that Vodafones policy (outlined in my recorded phone call and letter received from vodafone) does not adhere to UK legislation in relation to the way Vodafone process their Subject Access Requests. ICO informed that they would look into this matter further with vodafone in addition to enforcing my subject access request which Vodafone have ignored.

 

Knowing if they have had a final response from the ICO (or if the OP has muddied waters by keeping sending the ICO new complaints ....) would be useful. If no final response from the ICO, what has the OP done to chase it up / when does he expect the final response?

 

As for:

I will make it clear that I can't provide full list of vodafones unsolicited contact because vodafone have failed in their duty to provide me with SAR

 

a) the OP said they were keeping the texts, so should have those

b) this thread had a fair indication of the calls, as the OP (repeatedly) updated it saying "I got this call / that text"

c) A court wouldn't likely require the "full list" if enough examples were provided, but even more importantly:

d) Why is the OP even mentioning a list of contacts at this stage?

 

Either his litigation( if it ever happens : unlikely based on progress so far?) at this stage is about

a) the ""harassment" (which he seems intent on dealing with after the SAR, but doesn't quite know why he is chasing the SAR) ; where the contact list is useful, or

b) about the SAR, where him having a copy of the "contact list" isn't relevant to his SAR litigation : the contact list would be part of the SAR result, not needed for the case to enforce compliance with the SAR.

 

Since his latest draft N1 (pretty much written for him by steampowered) deals with the latter : Why is he even mentioning "I will make it clear that I can't provide full list of vodafones unsolicited contact" at this stage?

The OP (not for the first time) has conflated issues.

[p3t3r]

The OP posted on 21st May 2015;

 

 

Knowing if they have had a final response from the ICO (or if the OP has muddied waters by keeping sending the ICO new complaints ....) would be useful. If no final response from the ICO, what has the OP done to chase it up / when does he expect the final response?

First complaint to ICO in relation to unsolicited calls and failing to provide me with SAR in the 40 day time period.

Second complaint to ICO in relation to further failing to provide SAR and also sent evidence from vodafone CEO office and Vodafone online chat showing that Vodafone believe their policy to be superior to that of law.

I do not know when to expect final response from ICO.

As for:

 

 

a) the OP said they were keeping the texts, so should have those

b) this thread had a fair indication of the calls, as the OP (repeatedly) updated it saying "I got this call / that text"

c) A court wouldn't likely require the "full list" if enough examples were provided, but even more importantly:

d) Why is the OP even mentioning a list of contacts at this stage?

Why? Because there is confusion as to what court form I should use to force Vodafail to give me my SAR. Civil Justice Centre can not provide me with a definitive answer as to what form I should use.

Therefore, since I do not know what form I should use and Civil Justice Centre would not accept the 3 forms I had provided to them previously, I am back to square 1 and intend to write N1 form to proceed with harassment claim against Vodafone, - bringing attention to the amount of times I logged here their unsolicited calls, but also bringing attention to the fact that vodafone have ignored DPA on purpose in relation to my SAR - therefore, I am not able to provide full list of contacts since vodafone can not supply this to me.

Either his litigation( if it ever happens : unlikely based on progress so far?)

Not sure how you define this as unlikely as I have already been to Civil Justice Centre a few times! at this stage is about

a) the ""harassment" (which he seems intent on dealing with after the SAR, but doesn't quite know why he is chasing the SAR) ; where the contact list is useful, or

I have already told you why I am intent on dealing with the SAR earlier in this thread. I have also explained to you that advice from other said to obtain SAR first as this would help me in my claim for harassment.

b) about the SAR, where him having a copy of the "contact list" isn't relevant to his SAR litigation : the contact list would be part of the SAR result, not needed for the case to enforce compliance with the SAR.

Yes... I agree. 2 separate issues. I am not sure why you are conflating this.

 

Since his latest draft N1 (pretty much written for him by steampowered) deals with the latter : Why is he even mentioning "I will make it clear that I can't provide full list of vodafones unsolicited contact" at this stage?

I will make it clear that I can't provide a full list of vodafones unsolicited contact during my harassment case because vodafone have failed to provide me with SAR.

 

The OP (not for the first time) has conflated issues.

Matter of opinion. Just as it is my opinion yo have conflated issues in your last post.

 

I requested in this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448626-TKmaxx-refund

for you to not bother / assist / help me in either my vodafone or bank thread. I again repeat my request.

[BazzaS]

I requested in this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448626-TKmaxx-refund

for you to not bother / assist / help me in either my vodafone or bank thread. I again repeat my request.

 

Funnily enough, provided my post adheres to site rules, you don't get to choose who replies or not.

 

CAG doesn't exist just for you and your benefit. In the same way advice in PM is discouraged as it can't be verified and doesn't add to the "publically accessible body of knowledge", your public posts are available for public reply, provided those replies are within the site rules.

This adds to "the body of knowledge" available to others who may later come across this thread if they face similar issues.

 

It is relevant to highlight you confusing what you need to say in any litigation regarding harassment ("here is a list of unsolicited / unwanted contacts, but it may not be a 100% complete list") with what you need to say in any litigation regarding the SAR ("I sent a valid SAR, and they haven't complied").

 

You don't need to say the former during litigation regarding the latter as IT JUST ISN'T RELEVANT to the other issue, and no amount of dissembly alters that. You risk alienating the judge / making an error fatal to your claim if you go off at tangents / include irrelevant material / miss out key evidence.

 

So, are you now saying you aren't going to persue the failed SAR, but your new N1 will instead concentrate on the harassment claim?. Because, it just isn't clear which you are now saying you want to issue a claim for currently ..... and if "a full list of contacts" is integral to the case you currently claim you will be bringing - it suggests you are bringing the harassment claim, not the failed SAR claim.

Combining both claims risks confusing the issue : so, which one do you say you are currently issuing a claim for ?. You can start both claims at the same time (CPR 7.3), but I wouldn't advise it : you seem to have enough difficulty stating your case for one claim, so, risking confusing the issue by combining them would be a recipe for disaster.

 

as for

Not sure how you define this as unlikely as I have already been to Civil Justice Centre a few times

 

Unlikely - an assessment (rather than a definition), based on the following facts:

a) you have been threatening Voda (via at least 2 LBA's) for months (would you like dates?)

b) you keep saying "I'm issuing the claim", but it never quite happens ..... (would you like dates?)

c) If you were adequately prepared, one (or perhaps, even 2) visit(s) would have been enough to issue the claim,

d) Your history with County Court cases isn't exactly inspiring ... (not opposing a repossession order at initial hearing, asking for an urgent hearing at the the 11th hour, and then forgetting your key piece of evidence, leading to the repossession proceeding, lawfully).

 

Talking of facts :

Part 8, where the facts aren't in dispute, and the question(s) for the court is/are a "question of law" alone.

Part 7, for where the court is asked to consider at least one "question of fact" +/- any "question of law".

 

You made it hard to accurately quote by including your comments in blue beneath mine, but leaving them in the "quoting BazzaS bit", so I've included what you posted below ... in case you decide to (again) alter it later.

(My quoted post in black, your replies in blue).

 

 

Originally Posted by BazzaS

The OP posted on 21st May 2015;

 

 

Knowing if they have had a final response from the ICO (or if the OP has muddied waters by keeping sending the ICO new complaints ....) would be useful. If no final response from the ICO, what has the OP done to chase it up / when does he expect the final response?

First complaint to ICO in relation to unsolicited calls and failing to provide me with SAR in the 40 day time period.

Second complaint to ICO in relation to further failing to provide SAR and also sent evidence from vodafone CEO office and vodafone online chat showing that Vodafone believe their policy to be superior to that of law.

I do not know when to expect final response from ICO.

As for:

 

 

a) the OP said they were keeping the texts, so should have those

b) this thread had a fair indication of the calls, as the OP (repeatedly) updated it saying "I got this call / that text"

c) A court wouldn't likely require the "full list" if enough examples were provided, but even more importantly:

d) Why is the OP even mentioning a list of contacts at this stage?

Why? Because there is confusion as to what court form I should use to force Vodafail to give me my SAR. Civil Justice Centre can not provide me with a definitive answer as to what form I should use.

Therefore, since I do not know what form I should use and Civil Justice Centre would not accept the 3 forms I had provided to them previously, I am back to square 1 and intend to write N1 form to proceed with harassment claim against Vodafone, - bringing attention to the amount of times I logged here their unsolicited calls, but also bringing attention to the fact that vodafone have ignored DPA on purpose in relation to my SAR - therefore, I am not able to provide full list of contacts since vodafone can not supply this to me.

Either his litigation( if it ever happens : unlikely based on progress so far?)

Not sure how you define this as unlikely as I have already been to Civil Justice Centre a few times! at this stage is about

a) the ""harassment" (which he seems intent on dealing with after the SAR, but doesn't quite know why he is chasing the SAR) ; where the contact list is useful, or

I have already told you why I am intent on dealing with the SAR earlier in this thread. I have also explained to you that advice from other said to obtain SAR first as this would help me in my claim for harassment.

b) about the SAR, where him having a copy of the "contact list" isn't relevant to his SAR litigation : the contact list would be part of the SAR result, not needed for the case to enforce compliance with the SAR.

Yes... I agree. 2 separate issues. I am not sure why you are conflating this.

 

Since his latest draft N1 (pretty much written for him by steampowered) deals with the latter : Why is he even mentioning "I will make it clear that I can't provide full list of vodafones unsolicited contact" at this stage?

I will make it clear that I can't provide a full list of vodafones unsolicited contact during my harassment case because vodafone have failed to provide me with SAR.

 

The OP (not for the first time) has conflated issues.

Matter of opinion. Just as it is my opinion yo have conflated issues in your last post.

[p3t3r]

I realise I do not get to choose who replies or not. That is why I have requested you do not reply to this thread or the other thread which I ask for help in.

 

Some examples of your attitude toward me in another thread:

 

• you wonder if i fail to read or fail to comprehend
  

 

• I am speaking nonsense
  

 

• i waffle
  

 

• i struggle to understand
  

 

• i have wasted time due to quality of my research
  

 

• i am not grounded in reality
  

 

• i am attempting to look clever
  

 

• you hope that i am trolling
  

they are just examples from one other thread showing in my opinion your condescending and arrogant attitude. I will not bother posting you examples of your pedantic attitude, and will not post examples from other threads. as far as i know there are about 3 threads whereby you have appeared to be both arrogant and condescending for reasons unknown to me.

 

As you say, I do not have the right to choose who posts in this thread or not. But I have requested that you do not - based upon your attitude toward me in other threads. Examples of your attitude from just one of those threads is above.

 

In another thread, you that if I am a troll! Well, no site team member has spoken to me about my attitude, yet, have spoken to you in another thread concerning your attitude toward me.

That in itself speaks volumes...

Again, I request that you do not help me. Request based on reasons above.

[BazzaS]

I realise I do not get to choose who replies or not. That is why I have requested you do not reply to this thread or the other thread which I ask for help in.

 

Some examples of your attitude toward me in another thread:

 

 

• you wonder if i fail to read or fail to comprehend
  

 

 

 

• I am speaking nonsense
  

 

 

 

• i waffle
  

 

 

 

• i struggle to understand
  

 

 

 

• i have wasted time due to quality of my research
  

 

 

 

• i am not grounded in reality
  

 

 

 

• i am attempting to look clever
  

 

 

 

• you hope that i am trolling
  

 

they are just examples from one other thread showing in my opinion your condescending and arrogant attitude. I will not bother posting you examples of your pedantic attitude, and will not post examples from other threads. as far as i know there are about 3 threads whereby you have appeared to be both arrogant and condescending for reasons unknown to me.

 

As you say, I do not have the right to choose who posts in this thread or not. But I have requested that you do not - based upon your attitude toward me in other threads. Examples of your attitude from just one of those threads is above.

 

In another thread, you that if I am a troll! Well, no site team member has spoken to me about my attitude, yet, have spoken to you in another thread concerning your attitude toward me.

That in itself speaks volumes...

Again, I request that you do not help me. Request based on reasons above.

 

"you wonder if i fail to read or fail to comprehend"

"I am speaking nonsense"

: correct. You had good advice and failed to take it (like not calling Voda...... and "don't try to claim for exemplary damages", as (they don't apply in UK law for your situation)

 

"i have wasted time due to quality of my research" : Well, you are the one saying you spent over 400 hours in research "going off at a tangent"......

 

"i am attempting to look clever" : what like starting off (see thread title) with "I'm after obtaining an injunction" (that desire soon disappeared!), and "I'm claiming for 400 hours research" (at LiP rate? you might claim for it, but you'll never get it", and "exemplary damages" ... you'll use the terms without any idea of their meaning and the realism of your approach (or, rather, lack of it) despite being advised otherwise...... hence why you are 'not grounded in reality' and 'attempting to look clever'.

 

I didn't say you are a troll, although based on your postings it is still a possibility. What I said was along the lines of "I'm sort of hoping you are a troll, as you'd be being more effective if you were a troll than if you are a litigant .....".

 

The site team comment to me was

Unless you've anything new to add I think you've made your point quite clearly Bazza.

 

To me it read as "you are banging your head against a brick wall here Bazza as p3t3r can never admit he might ever be wrong, and you've made your point clearly, little point in repeating it".

If this is the case : it does reflect on your attitude .......

It might be read as "I'm not making a point you have to stop, but it is advisable only to post new points": fair enough.

 

It clearly doesn't say (though): "Bazza, you are wrong, stop" .....

You'll note that I did post again (with new points) on that thread, and wasn't "told off" for it .......

 

As for p3t3r saying "Bazza, I dont want your help" : fair enough, disregard whatever you like. I'm aware I am "banging my head against a brick wall" with p3t3r, BUT

 

The comments may help others though (if they want to see how not to send a succesful LBA / not bring a well-laid out court claim) : they just have to look at your progress (lack of it?) so far.

The advice may not help you: it might help others, and I'm happy to post it for their benefit even if you choose not to use it.

 

So, which are you going for, Part 7 or 8?

When are you lodging your claim?, and for which cause of action?.

[p3t3r]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?229816-Crapital-1-Subject-Access-Request-sent-no-reply.

 

That thread shows I can claim exemplary damages despite your insistence that I can not.

 

 

 

Also known as exemplary damages, retributory damages or vindictive damages. Damages awarded in excess of the claimant’s loss. They are intended to punish the defendant rather than compensate the claimant and are only available in precise and limited circumstances such as where the defendant is guilty of oppressive or unconstitutional action or has calculated that the money to be made from his wrongdoing will probably exceed the damages payable (see Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 and Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [2001] UKHL 29).

Quoted from: http://uk.practicallaw.com/7-107-7085

 

The money Vodafone makes from its wrongdoing, ie - failing to adhere to Data Protection Act in relation to my Subject Access Request.

I sent a cheque for £10 and requested all data. This was to include all unsolicited telephone calls and texts.

It would have cost vodafone a lot more than £10 to supply me with this information, to retrieve all phone calls etc.

So vodafone use what I believe to be a nasty tactic. Vodafone delay SAR. They then rely on their own Vodafone policy stating that their policy must be followed and totally disregarding UK law.

 

It is my opinion that Vodafone in their course of action have calculated that the money made from their wrongdoing (failing to adhere to UK law) will probably exceed the damages payable. To explore this further, the money Vodafone made or saved in their failure to provide me with my SAR far outweighs the small amount of damages that would be awarded to me by a Judge due to their faliure to provide me with SAR. The Data Protection Act makes provision for damages/ compensation in respect of damage or damage and distress.

It is my opinion that I was not distressed and suffered no damage due to Vodafone ignoring the law in this regard.

It is also my opinion that Vodafone are aware of the provision in Data Protection Act in relation to compensation being for damage or distress only.... And as I was neither caused damage or distress by Vodafone failing to adhere to the law, then it is my opinion that Vodafone have not provided me with SAR and rely on the fact that they believe their own policy is primary to UK law.

 

Therefore, as very little can be claimed in respect of damage and distress (provisions under DPA), it is my opinion that Vodafone have calculated that the money they would save or make from their wrongdoing exceeds that of any damages payable under DPA.

 

As Vodafone have saved themselves money by not providing me with SAR knowing that very little compensation would be paid in respect of damage or damage and distress, in addition to preventing me obtaining what is legally mine to assist me with claim for harassment, - it is my opinion that Vodafone have infact calculated that their wrongdoing (failing to provide SAR) and the money they have saved by not having to retrieve phone calls and other data in addition to failing to provide me with a complete list of unsolicited calls for my claim of harassment, meets the criteria of a claim for exemplary damages.

 

For a vodafone employee to have to work on my SAR, spend time finding and transferring all of my calls to a disk would take a considerable amount of time, bearing in mind that I have been VERY persistent in calling them requesting they stop etc etc etc.... What would this cost vodafone??? A lot more than any compensation made under DPA!

 

As stated in above quote, exemplary damages are only paid in precise circumstances, of which I have explained why I believe Vodafone course of action has met a precise circumstance.