you can use civil law to pursue the GDPR issue with the police (though, as I’ve stated: it may not do you any benefit).
The court isn’t bound by any duty under GDPR that the police may (or may not) have.
I can only repeat, the duty of the magistrates regarding verdict is “is the offence proven beyond all reasonable doubt?”.
They can’t, and won’t, be influenced by the GDPR issues at that stage, and you are misguided if you continue to believe that it will make a difference to their verdict.
The following is my WS2 in reply to their WS2, please do let me know if i need to mention/amend/add anything to it, the attachments are in my previous post #78.
Can i add my costs as this is the second hearing for it?
Also i don't know if this will help but i also have an old Capital One Credit Card which i don't use anymore, so how can i possibly have 2 Capital One Credit Cards as this claim is clearly for the Luma Credit Card....
SECOND SUPPLIMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF ROLAND
I, Roland, the Defendant in this case, will state as follows; I make this second Witness Statement as a supplementary to my first Witness Statement dated 22ndNovember 2019 Page 1-2 and Amended Defence dated 17thDecember 2019 page 3-4 in Exhibit xx1 in response to the claimant’s second witness statement dated 14thJanuary 2020.
THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT
1. The claimant failed to comply with my Section CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974 request and their claim remained stayed for over one and half years. I can only assume as this was due to the claimant not having any of the requested documentation below and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.
2. The stay was lifted by Deputy District Judge Mitchell 4thDecember 2019 and the Claimant’s application for summary judgment and/or strike out was dismissed.
3. My amended defence was filed and served 17thDecember 2019.
4. I received the Claimant’s Second Witness statement 21stJanuary 2020.
5. It is accepted as per my Amended Defence para 2 insofar that I have once held a contractual relationship with Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc for a LUMA Credit Card and not a Capital One Credit Card.
6. The Claimant’s point 23 in their second witness statement dated 14thJanuary 2020 refers to me providing supporting evidence that my application was for a LUMA Credit Card, and that their position that it is for a Capital One Credit Card. This is for the Claimant to prove it’s a Capital One Credit Card and not a Luma Credit Card, when this matter was heard by Deputy District Judge Mitchell 4thDecember 2019 he also questioned the Claimant’s advocate the same.
7. The Claimant’s point 24 refers to the Reconstituted Capital One Credit Card Agreement in their Exhibit JK1 pages 2-3, that a firm is able to reconstitute a copy of the agreement and that there is no obligation to provide a copy which includes a copy of the signature, then why has an electronic signature and date been applied…regarding the same question by Deputy District Judge Mitchell on the validity of the signature on this Reconstituted agreement to which the claimant’s advocate stated that it may have been an online application, which is not true as it was a signed postal Luma Card Application and not a Capital One Credit Card online application.
8. The Claimant’s point 25 states that they would say that the 16 digit account number in the top left hand corner on the Reconstituted Agreement is now not the account number but a ‘document number’ and that the Account number is on Page 9 of their Exhibit JK1, which is a blank page with my name and a 16 digit Account number on it. The Claimant is backtracking and clearly16 digits are Credit Card/Bank Card numbers.
9. The Claimant’s reconstituted Agreement has failed to be a true reconstituted version and failed to provide any supporting document to confirm that this claim is for a Capital One Credit Card and not a Luma Credit Card.
10. The evidence provided by way of Exhibit JK1 is woefully deficient and invalid and not pursuant to the CCA 1974 request. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the agreement complete with terms and conditions from inception which they refer to within the particulars of this claim and witness statement they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974.
11. For the reasons set out above I invite this court to strike out the claim and request my costs as litigant in person to be awarded.
Shocking pictures reveal ‘disgusting’ conditions inside Hermes depot where workers ‘feel like slaves’. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/419726-shocking-pictures-reveal-%E2%80%98disgusting%E2%80%99-conditions-inside-hermes-depot-where-workers-%E2%80%98feel-like-slaves%E2%80%99/
Euro Car Parks issued this ticket to the police in Devon and Cornwall. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/419522-can-anyone-identify-the-parking-company-which-issued-this-ticket-to-the-police-in-devon-and-cornwall/