Jump to content


king12345

Incomplete disclosure. How to punish them?

Recommended Posts

I might be wrong here but the lead up to a small claims court decision IS the chance to settle out of court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence my question. 

But it's been suggested not to give them a chance to settle out of court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought he made it fairly clear - he prefers the data!!! 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/06/2019 at 19:32, BankFodder said:

The easier way is simply to bring a small claim for a nominal sum – maybe £25 – justified by the distress that you have suffered (presumably you haven't suffered any pecuniary loss). On the basis of what you say this would bring a judgement in your favour and there will be an implication that they were in breach of statutory duty and I would certainly send a copy of the judgement to the ICO. Because it will be subject to the small claims rules then even if you lost you

I mean this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, king12345 said:

I mean this

Not sure what point your making but its all about getting them to comply 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, it's been suggested on several threads to take the company infringing the gdpr to court without giving them a chance to settle a nominal modest sum (£25/£50).

This to make them accountable for their failure to follow the law and i am all for it, however I don't know if that could backfire.

Hence my question.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Backfire in what way ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge considering unreasonable taking a company to court for £25 without giving them a chance to settle out of court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don’t understand this point you keep making of ‘giving them a chance to settle out of court’, the process of going through the small claims court is (or should be) the last resort when an the defendant has failed to settle. Hence, their chance has been and gone.

Edited by craigten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, king12345 said:

Judge considering unreasonable taking a company to court for £25 without giving them a chance to settle out of court.

 

If it ever gets to a judge then every effort would have been made to settle prior to court, all pre application protocols will have been done and before that all evidence of non compliance from properly formulated requests.

 

Not sure you are understanding the process, no one would got straight to court without months of work which is what the claim is for. The £25 fee applies to all cases under a certain amount and its the costs of preparing the months of requests that we claim for. In reality based on what many of these companies charge us, £50 for a letter !, we should be claiming much more but its hard to quantify from an evidential point hence why I keep mine under £100. 

 

If all these so called reputable companies did what they claim they do such as help customers then none of this would be necessary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, it's all mixed up as probably you haven't read the whole thread.

In a nutshell:

1.company has breached gdpr

2. I want to punish them by getting a ccj

3. If i follow the pre action protocol, they will surely pay up to avoid the ccj.

4. Someone on many threads said not to settle even if they offer whatever you're asking for

5. SO I ASKED: would it be unreasonable to take them to court for a small amount and not give them the chance to settle?

In other words, would the judge apply the law or kick me out of court?

 

P.S.: I am very familiar with pre action protocol,  done many many times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the confusion here is the process of making a claim for breach of GDPR.You should not be using a part 7 to make this type of claim or requesting any monetary value.

Part 8 claim is the correct process.

 

Part 7 is safe and small claim track...but part 7 requires a value to be claimed...even if the court allowed it and you did attain a judgment...its consequences are irrelevant and would not set a precedent of breach of GDPR.

 

It must be a Part 8 ....but the risk is considerable as it would be treated as a Multi Track claim......so you are open to very high costs risks....and of the course I wont mention the fees for processing a part 8 claim. :!:

 

Of course Pre Action Protocol and ADR applies to both type of claims.

 

Hope the above adds clarity.

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly dont under any circumstances go into this as an act of punishment as a judge will pick up on it and most likely rule against you.

 

You are not applying for a CCJ, you are asking for the costs incurred in making the disclosure requests to be reimbursed and if they don't pay and don't defend then you can request judgement. Even then they can ask for it to be stayed so don't go thinking its a done deal.

 

As I have explained, work out your costs, I have kept mine low so that it doesn't suggest to a judge that anything actually costs £50 for a letter for example, as the main purpose is to get it in the system and potentially to a judgement. If they do pay up, and many will, my advice is not to cash the cheque until they send the info from the SAR and then only if your happy. If you don't get it then seek judgement and even if it goes to court you can ask the judge to increase the costs due to the extra work.

 

This will not be a case about GDPR etc as the judge will not make a decision on that, but it is great evidence of non compliance to take to the ICO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, much clearer now.

Thank you 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Andyorch said:

I think the confusion here is the process of making a claim for breach of GDPR.You should not be using a part 7 to make this type of claim or requesting any monetary value.

Part 8 claim is the correct process.

 

Part 7 is safe and small claim track...but part 7 requires a value to be claimed...even if the court allowed it and you did attain a judgment...its consequences are irrelevant and would not set a precedent of breach of GDPR.

 

It must be a Part 8 ....but the risk is considerable as it would be treated as a Multi Track claim......so you are open to very high costs risks....and of the course I wont mention the fees for processing a part 8 claim. :!:

 

Of course Pre Action Protocol and ADR applies to both type of claims.

 

Hope the above adds clarity.

 

Andy

Sorry for my inability on this, but I thought there was case law already re breaching (but not infringing) GDPR, to the tune of £750?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An award is not case law and doesn’t set a precedent over other courts, it can be used during summing up of a case but any judge can choose to ignore what another had done, look at the bank charge cases from years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jotty said:

An award is not case law and doesn’t set a precedent over other courts, it can be used during summing up of a case but any judge can choose to ignore what another had done, look at the bank charge cases from years ago.

Thank you, and I'm not doubting you but does this case not have much 'sway' if one was to make a similar claim:

 

The claimant was awarded £750 for distress for what the court held to be a minor breach. 

 

https://www.hempsons.co.uk/news-articles/damages-distress-awarded-breach-data-protection-act/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, craigten said:

Thank you, and I'm not doubting you but does this case not have much 'sway' if one was to make a similar claim:

 

The claimant was awarded £750 for distress for what the court held to be a minor breach. 

 

https://www.hempsons.co.uk/news-articles/damages-distress-awarded-breach-data-protection-act/

Of course it can be used in legal argument but it isn’t case law 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its important to understand the full claim and context and how it arrived in the Court of Appeal...it was initially a default judgment for the claimant (Halliday) settled by consent and fresh proceedings brought by Creation and Halliday responded by way of a part 20 counter claim

 

https://app.croneri.co.uk/law-and-guidance/case-reports/halliday-v-creation-consumer-finance-ltd-2013-ewca-civ-333-ca

 

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff6fc60d03e7f57ea5497

 

 


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...