KUICK CAR HIRE LTD wrongly used my Details - Hit and Run and MCOL Claim **STRUCK OUT**

[Bergy10]

The woman who was assigned by the police to the case of the accident. She is the one that sent the letter originally to me saying I have been identified by the hire company as being the driver.

 

By the way, do you reckon I need to hire a solicitor. I am currently not able to afford one as I  just finished my studies and am out of work so not sure if there are free ones for this type of thing. I've called up citizens advice bureau almost every day for the past week and all I get is a message saying they're all busy and to try again later.

[BankFodder]

In terms of their refusal to comply with your subject access request, you may as well sue them in a separate County Court action. If you'd like to do that then we will help you. It would be very easy to do. You are entitled to claim damages for distress and I'm sure that you are hugely distressed by their failure/refusal to supply you with your personal data and I would suggest that you might want to sue them for £100.

These people seem to be pretty disorganised and lack any understanding of how to run a business. I suppose that they would try to defend a data protection action on some spurious grounds – but it would increase the pressure on them and the risk to you would be very low – only about £50 or so in the unlikely event that you would lose the case. In the event that you would win then you would get your court fees back as well as the damage you are claiming unless a court decided that there were grounds for reducing the value of your claim. Pretty unlikely in my view.

 

[Bergy10]

@dx100uk and @BankFodder thanks for the information. I just want these people out of my life. I don't even care about getting money from them, their continued presence in my thoughts is just bumming me out all the time.

 

It's just getting worrying now at this stage. I'm dealing with people willing to forge my signature and now I'm going to have to bring probably some kind of expert to do an analysis to show I never signed that and it was a forgery. They definitely can't show video of me hiring a car on the date they mention unless they change timestamps on the video. But then again if they forge a signature who's to say they won't try it there as well. It's all just been a very worrying time for me. I feel down all the time because this case is all I think about.

 

I'll type the defence shared by yourself (thanks again) and sign and email it to the County Court. Hopefully the judge can see through whatever BS evidence they present but I'm just worried they'll have falsified what they present and pay some people to guarantee quality documents so they can try to scam me out of 10k.

[BankFodder]

I agree with you as to not caring about the money – but I'm finding ways of upping the ante, putting pressure on them and putting you more in the driving seat.

If you've got evidence that the car was hired out to someone else at the time they claim – then I don't think you need to worry about anything else and you can let the judge make the decision as to who is telling the truth

[Bergy10]

Thanks mate. Used your template and the Defence was sent off today. MCOL website updated with defence received and an additional update saying DQ sent out.

 

Seems the hire company responded almost immediately to the defence as on another case with a PPC that I'm helping a friend on, he was sent the DQ a month after his Defence was submitted as apparently they only send out the DQ once the Claimant decides to proceed.

 

Regarding the claim for not producing the SAR, I emailed them on the 16th April and they have until the 16th May I think to provide it. I can get on a claim if they don't send it by then.

 

Thanks again for the help.

[Bergy10]

@BankFodder,

 

I've sent off the DQ response today.

 

I have also confirmed that Kuick have not sent any SAR information since their last threatening email to me. I have subsequently oreoared the following email to send to them. Your advice would be appreciated.

 

"Dear Kuick Hire Ltd

 

Thank you for you're response to my request for giving me all my information under the subject access request. Need I remind you that under such a request, companies are obliged to comply with the law that states that any and all information relating to someone that a company has must be shared with said person if they make a subject access request. You have not done so, and I repeat my request that you share all the information including any alleged contracts, videos and footage you have of me in the regards.

 

Secondly, following interactions with your son around the time I received the police letter regarding an alleged accident that Kuick Hire identified as being me, he confirmed that the car was indeed being rented by someone else and he in fact shared that information with me. He told me to share that information to the police and filled out the document stating that with his own hand.

 

Needless to say that is an additional red flag if for no other reason than sharing confidential client information to another client without the knowledge of the person who's details are being shared. Additionally, the action taken in nominating me as the driver, and then subsequently sharing documentation that another person had the car at the date of the incident seems to suggest fraudulent activities are taking place in your Office. I'd advise you to look at the internal failings of your company and its employees.

 

Finally, the tone of your response is quite threatening and I have no doubt that the truth will come to light when we face each other in court. I will also be reporting this failure to comply with the SAR regulations to the Information Commissioner Office, and you can expect a claim from me to you for your failure to comply with the Subject Access Request sent to you on April 16th, 2021, and as a result denying me my my right of access to obtain a copy of all my personal data, as well as other supplementary information you may have on file relating to me."

 

Not sure if this is enough for the letter of claim itself or it needs to be written in a certain format though.

[BankFodder]

Quote

Dear XXX

On XXX date I sent you a data protection subject access request requiring you to disclose all personal data you hold on me. The statutory time limit for disclosure with 30 days.

You have not responded.

 

Furthermore, I believe that although you are running a business, and you are processing the personal data of your customers, you are not registered with the Information Commissioner's Office.

This is causing me distress and so if you do not satisfy the SAR within 14 days, then I shall see you in the County Court and without any further notice

Yours sincerely

 

[Bergy10]

@BankFodder

 

Thank you for your response mate. Sounds good and concise. I'll put it in an email and send it tomorrow morning. Tjanks

 

By the way, should I completely disregard previously drafted email? Is it too much and unnecessary. I was thinking for the purposes of our current case it might be helpful to document this communication and use any response they give as support that they are doing something fraudulent.

[Bergy10]

So the guy has come back and emailed me his DQ answers. Apparently he's saying he has a witness somehow. Probably his son who is in it with him.

 

Also wants it to be held at his own court and notes that it's over 10k so says small claims court is not the right court.

 

They really are trying it. Still waiting on the SAR reminder. I really want to see their supposed video footage of taking the vehicle they say they have. Don't trust their paperwork at all as I know they've forged my signature as I found out the police were sent a document for the vehicle with my signature.

 

Furthermore if I rented a vehicle off them they'd have had a deposit from me and prepayment for the period but nothing. I really wonder what games they are playing.

 

 

Claimants N180.pdf

[BankFodder]

I had forgotten that it was more than £10,000. What did you put in your DQ in respect of this?

[AndyOrch]

If the claim is over 10K then its Fast Track...and the DQ they have sent you is the wrong form......form N181 should be used for FT not the N180.

 

Andy

[Bergy10]

10 hours ago, BankFodder said:

I had forgotten that it was more than £10,000. What did you put in your DQ in respect of this?

I put yes to small claims court like I have with another MCOL claim I dealt with previously for a friend 

 

8 hours ago, Andyorch said:

If the claim is over 10K then its Fast Track...and the DQ they have sent you is the wrong form......form N181 should be used for FT not the N180.

 

Andy

That's the form they sent me. I filled out the same thing. I think maybe it's because his claim is under 10k but with interest and court fees it goes above 10k.

 

I still don't get how they expect to prove I rented the car from them with just a forged hire agreement with no payment made either for the rental or the deposit. They claim in their email to me that they have video footage of me inspecting the car but that's impossible.

[BankFodder]

Well the video should be available on disclosure of the SAR. They should also have to make it available on disclosure before any hearing

I had another look at the claim and in fact that's right, the claim is for less than £10,000 that they have added their costs et cetera to bring it over £10,000.

Therefore it is correctly a small claim

[Manxman in exile]

Does the claimant have to respond to the OP's SAR if the claimant has already started proceedings?  Is that an exemption or am I misunderstanding what exemptions cover?

[BankFodder]

Good question – I hadn't thought about it – and frankly I don't know the answer.

Could you post up a quote from the relevant exemptions

[AndyOrch]

Legally......no.....as its regarded as a fishing exercise.

[AndyOrch]

Although.....

 

https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-gb/knowledge/publications/8f893b33/uk-court-of-appeal-allows-data-subject-access-requests-to-be-made-in-furtherance-of-litigation

[Manxman in exile]

Sorry I've been out since I posted #39.

 

This is what I was thinking about from the ICO website.  (Although I'll be honest and own up that I'm not sure I understand exactly what this exemption is meant to cover or when it comes into play!   )

 

"The third part of this exemption can apply if it is necessary for you to disclose personal data for the purposes of, or in connection with:

• legal proceedings, including prospective legal proceedings;
• obtaining legal advice; or
• establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

It exempts you from the same provisions as above, but only to the extent that complying with them would prevent you disclosing the personal data. If complying with these provisions would not prevent the disclosure, you cannot rely on the exemption."

 

Exemptions | ICO

 

I haven't read Andy's link yet so maybe that helps explain it... 

[Bergy10]

Hey guys, thanks to everyone for the information. I tried reading the document shared by Andyorch and attempted to reconcile it with Manxman's post and not sure if Kuick are expected to share the information under the SAR or whether they are exempted.

 

I not in their DQ they mentioned that they have two witnesses, which I assume are him and his son.

 

I have spoken to some other people who have complained that the son has hired cars out under the names of former hirers without their knowledge.

 

I guess it's too late to add anyone to the DQ at this stage but perhaps if I can get written statements I could also include that somewhere in the evidence.

[BankFodder]

I don't understand this – but maybe it's a typo so please could you clarify

Quote

I not in their DQ they ...

 

You say that you have come across other people who have complained that the son hired cars out under the names of former hirers.

This is extremely important information. Who has told you this? Can you get statements from them?

How do they know this? Is this just some rumour they have heard or do they have direct experience.

[Manxman in exile]

I think he meant to say "I note in their DQ... "

 

It's a typo.

[Bergy10]

@BankFodder

 

No, not rumours. I know someone who has also hired a car from them previously who had similar issues.

 

I spoke to the other guy yesterday and he informed me that whilst there was no accident in his case, he was being sent parking tickets in relation to a car he had not been renting at the time and that they had used his details, either to actually rent the car, or after the fact to transfer liability to him. I'm not sure how he resolved it, he mentioned they resolved it for him but not sure whether that meant they paid it on his behalf or told the parking company it was in fact not his liability. He said he's already complained to them before and that he'd be willing to write a statement to this fact if needed.

 

I've heard rumours of others having similar dealings with Kuick but these are rumours as I don't know the other people and can't contact them.

 

Edit: @Manxman in exile

 

thank you for the correction. Indeed it was a typo. I did mean "I note in their DQ"

Edited June 9, 2021 by Bergy10

[BankFodder]

This is very useful.

When did you get to know about this person?

[Bergy10]

I have heard that this stuff was happening with others but it wasn't until a friend of mine said that someone else we know had a similar problem with his details being used that I knew. I know the other person but we aren't very close so when I found out I spoke to him and he informed me that they used his details as well.

[BankFodder]

Yes but how long ago did you find out about this and speak with him?