VCS ANPR PCN claimform - St Mary's Gate Retail Park, S1 4QZ ***Claim Dismissed***

[holmer444]

Thanks @FTMDave, I've just had a penny dropping moment, I didn't include the bit about ongoing action as I mistakenly presumed that would relate to their action against me (which is concluded and not ongoing), but it's mine against them isn't it that I don't have everything for.

 

The earliest I'll be able to submit on MCOL is Friday as I'm away all day tomorrow with work, so happy to wait for any additional comments. When I do put on MCOL, would I do both claims at the same time or do I wait a day between and if so, is there a better order to doing it?

Edited April 26, 2023 by holmer444

[FTMDave]

It's not essential, but I think it would make slightly more sense to issue the GDPR one on Friday, and the SAR on Saturday.

 

Then the SAR one can cite the ongoing litigation - i.e. the GDPR case.

[FruitSalad1010]

I haven't read through every significant detail.

 

In reference to a claim relating to the incomplete disclosure, do you have a clear understanding of what is missing from the disclosure and can you evidence this in some way?

Have you begun a complaint to the ICO, if so have they provided their view? This is something that can be done concurrently to a claim. There is a risk the ICO don't provide the view that you agree with but this doesn't prevent you from seeking remedy through the court system.

 

With reference to the breach of GDPR it may be better to particularise how it affected you rather than what affected you, particulars can usually be expanded on in a witness statement. Also bear in mind that if you say that preparing litigation was distressing you will then be issuing two of your own claims, albeit that perhaps claiming rather than defending brings about different stress.  I'm not saying this to point fingers in anyway but instead to anticipate some of the questions you may face later on.

I don't think there are any threads which have been down this path before and upon which an outcome has been realised, at least in court. It's important to realise this is somewhat treading new ground and that by continuing you understand unlike other common disputes on this site that there isn't much history to fall back upon to know the outcome with certainty.
 

[holmer444]

Thanks for replying @FruitSalad1010, I haven't complained to the ICO, but certainly will do as would be keen to hear their views.

 

In relation to their disclosure, VCS have taken me to court twice for non-payment of two PCN's and as part of their SAR disclosure for the first PCN they sent 20 unique documents. For the second PCN they sent only 1 document which consisted of screenshots of their internal workflow systems. No copies of the original PCN, none of the chasers/reminders, none of the court documents most (if not all) of which I believe I still have and can produce as part of my WS.

 

When I chased them up they stated they had sent me everything they had. Appreciate they might suggest they have destroyed stuff as the original correspondence was nearly 7 years ago, but I'd question how they knew to start litigation if they'd thrown everything away?!

 

In terms of the outcome I have zero expectations, but I feel I want to give it a go. I'm entirely aware that any court fees I incur will be lost if the judge finds in their favour, but the only way these firms will ever consider stopping such ridiculous shenanigans is if they are held to some level of account. 

 

Will amend the PoCs and post a revised version tomorrow.

 

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by holmer444

[FruitSalad1010]

You should begin your complaint with the ICO immediately. If you were to be in receipt of a view given by the ICO that supports your claim by the time you submit a witness statement then your chances of success will increase dramatically.

It's much easier for a court to rely on the opinion of a government body such as the ICO in support of your claim than by your evidence alone.

VCS probably started litigation in the hope that you'd give up and pay. I'm not sure the exact timings of when you submitted the SAR however if it was after they issued their second claim it may have been your request that woke them up the reality their claim was going to fail if they had lost all of the evidence.

Your risks go beyond simply losing the hearing fee. Often costs are limited on the small claims track, however well resourced organisations like to throw in applications because they can result in a costs order outside of the normal course of a claim. If you are time poor it will force your to turn up to any additional hearings which may be difficult to do if you work. Understand they do this partly to disrupt and intimidate litigants who might not have the funds to continue. Unfortunately I also have to say it is not totally out of the question that a court may be more prepared to issue some sort of costs order against a litigant to bring them towards settlement. Of course no court would openly state this is their outright intention but the reality is a costs order is a powerful tool to draw a litigant to the negotiation table who issued a claim on principle rather than economics.

You will have to do the reading but there have been some threads on this site that cover disputes regarding the time period for which data should be kept, again an opinion from the ICO may be useful.

The problem with the ICO is you are totally at the mercy of the case officer who reviews your complaint and to be frank their level of interest and commitment in giving your complaint the attention it deserves is as variable as playing the lottery. A good case officer will see through the issues, provide a supporting view and I don't think they realise that by doing so they can help unload the courts as only the most belligerent of defendants continue in the face of a dissenting view from the ICO.

The firms will not stop their shenanigans, simply because you and the members that find this site represent a tiny proportion of the 8.6 million begging letters send out in 2022 alone. However if "pushing back" and perhaps being awarded a sum of money for doing so brings you satisfaction then more power to you, but it is not without risk.

[FTMDave]

Have you been able to tweak the two PoCs?

[FTMDave]

It's important that you move on this.  If you send a Letter of Claim and then don't follow up with court action then you come across as a paper tiger.

[FTMDave]

Any update?

[FTMDave]

It is extremely disappointing that you have stopped updating this thread.

You had an immense amount of help from unpaid volunteers when winning your court case.

Only a small number of Caggers have ever pursued the PPCs for GDPR or SAR distress cases, yours is almost a "test case".  In would be extremely useful for others to know how you are getting on.

Even if you have decided not to proceed with the cases, fine, your choice, no-one will cliticise you or laugh at you, but others would be extremely grateful if you would simply say so.

[lookinforinfo]

If taking them to Court is too much hassle you could always go a more gentler way that doesn't involve any financial outlay on your part. And that is to complain to the ICO about the breach of your GDPR. 

Before you complain advise VCS that you will be complaining to the ICO about their breach and suggest that they might wish to settle the situation before you make your complaint. Obviously when the ICO find your GDPR was breached it may well open the flood gates for other motorists to claim against you. See if they will quote you some sort of recompense and haggle from there.