Shell Energy - Failure to disclose data

[Intrepid]

To clarify, I sent your more forthright verison in response to their email dated 20 April 2023, in which it was written that a full response to their letter dated 18 April 2023 would follow.

The latest draft is almost verbatim the draft you kindly edited in response to the letter dated 18 April 2023, but hasn't yet been sent.

I would be interested to know if anything should be added, now you've had sight of all the correspondence leading up to the claim before I send it. The  main errors I have corrected is in saying they didnt respond, they did, it was just as usual nonsense.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

When I click on choose files and select a file which is smaller than 4.8mb I receive the following pop up alert.

"1 file would exceed the total allowed size of 668.79kB, and was skipped"

I also note at the bottom of the reply box it is written "Max total size: 668.79 kB."

[Intrepid]

Page 1 and Page 6 of the application notice are attached below.

Page 1 contains the reason for the application,

Page 6 is the attached draft order.

SE - Defendant - Application Notice Pg 1,6 - Redacted-min.pdf

[Intrepid]

After uploading the previous document the max total size has been reduced to 206.85 kB.

 

@dx100uk is correct, a total upload limit has been reached.

 

I am usure if I am unable to delete older uploads, if you are able I would be grateful if you could free up space.

The witness statement contains the draft defence.

I think it is worth reading in its entirety to fully understand their position and the angle they are approaching this with given the history between us.

Now they have filed their application do you think it is still worth replying explicity to their letter dated 18 April 2023?

Edited April 25, 2023 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Other than creating a second account in order to provide a fresh upload limit I don't know what to suggest.

[Intrepid]

Thank you for taking the time, I had hoped there would be an easier way.

In any case, attached is:

1. Shell Energy's witness statement which contains their draft defence; and
2. A copy of the written judgment following the trial which took place 18 November 2022.

My undestanding is that given Shell Energy moved to immediately submit their application, a response to their letter dated 18 April 2023 is somewhat mute but I'm prepared to send a reply if necessary.

I will draft a response to their application and post it up for review in good time prior to any hearing.

 

SE - Defendant - Witness Statement - Redacted-min.pdf SE - Court - Judgment 18.11.22 - Redacted-min.pdf

[Intrepid]

I am unsure how to properly present the response to the draft defence, whether it be in the form of a witness statement or "reply to draft defence" in any case I doubt a judge will be too bothered by the semantics.

The draft defence is found at the last 3 pages of the witness statement attached above, is fairly short and contains 7 parapraphs.

My draft response is outlined below.

 

Quote

1.    At paragraph 1 the Defendant avers that it “provided a complete response to the data [sic] Subject Access Request”. A court judgment (“the Judgment”) issued on 18 November 2022 entirely disabused the Defendant of this position.
 

2.    In respect of paragraph 3, the Claimant rejected the Defendant’s offer in response to Claim No. XXXXXXX2 on the basis they were not prepared to accept liability and as referred to above the Defendant was found liable by the Court.
 

3.    In respect of paragraph 4, the Defendant’s arrogant submission that “the Court were given permission to proceed” to trial by the Defendant is misrepresented.
 

3.1.   Instead, the Court acted in accordance with the directions it set out on 13 June 2022 following the Defendant’s failure to appear at trial on 16 May 2022 and without filing proper notice pursuant to CPR 27.9 (1) (a).
 

3.2.   The Court indicated“that in the event the Defendant failed to attend on the next occasion for the same reason, it was likely the court would proceed in absence”.
 

4.    In respect of paragraph 5, the Claimant has been compensated up to the date of 17 November 2021 which is when Claim No. XXXXXXX2 was issued. What hasn’t happened is a disclosure of data by the Defendant to rectify their on-going breach of statutory duty.
 

5.    In respect of paragraph 6, it appears the Defendant’s application was made without reading or giving any consideration to the Judgment issued by the Court which found that the Claimant had suffered distress as a result of the Defendant’s breach of statutory duty.
 

6.    In respect of paragraph 7, the same data is missing from the Defendant’s disclosure in response to the SAR dated 8 January 2022, therefore the Defendant has breached its statutory duty on two separate occasions and continues to do so.

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

I should have been more clear, I am unsure how to title the response.

Lets try this:
 

Quote

1.    At paragraph 2 the Defendant avers it “provided a complete response to the data [sic] Subject Access Request”.
 

1.1.   A County Court Judgment (“the Judgment”) issued on 18 November 2022 found “the Defendant's response dated 26 May 2021 to the Claimant's subject accessrequest dated 28 April 2021 was incomplete” and “The Defendant was therefore in breach of it's [sic]statutory duty”.
 

1.2.   The Defendant was thus entirely disabused of its position, which the Claimant had set out was incorrect as early as 5 August 2021.
 

1.3.   The Defendant avers it has “nothing further to provide to the Claimant. Responses were given on 26 May2021, 05 August 2021 and 05 January 2022.”
 

1.4.   The Court will note the recurring pattern of the Defendant to continually insist it has provided a full disclosure of data but then later provide further missing data over a period of several months.
 

2.    At paragraph 3, it is noteworthy the Defendant still refers to their failure to comply with their data protection obligations as an “alleged breach” following the written Judgment of the Court.
 

2.1.   On 20 January 2022 in respect of the Defendant’s failure to file and serve a Directions Questionnaire the Court issued an unless order providing the Defendant 7 days to comply and in the event of default the Defence would automatically be struck out.
 

2.2.   Claim No. XXXX2 was listed for trial on 16 May 2022.On 15 May 2022 the Claimant received by post an open letter dated 10 May 2022 offering payment made only as a gesture of goodwill and without admission of liability and also a cheque dated 12 May 2022.
 

2.3.   The Claimant and the Judge learnt at trial on 16 May 2022 it was on this basis the Defendant chose not to attend, but it did so without providing proper notice pursuant to CPR 27.9 (1) (a).
 

2.4.   The Claimant rejected the Defendant’s offer on the basis the Defendant was not prepared to accept liability. It was in part on this basis the Court ordered the final hearing be adjourned and relisted.
 

3.    Atparagraph 4, the Defendant’s submission that “the Court were given permission to proceed” to trial on 18 November 2022 by the Defendant is misrepresented.
 

3.1.   The Court acted in accordance with the directions it set out on 13 June 2022 following the Defendant’s failure to attendthe trial of Claim No. XXXX2 on 16 May 2022 and without informing the Claimant or the Court.
 

3.2.   The Courtindicated“that in the event the Defendant failed to attend on the next occasion for the samereason, it was likely the court would proceed in absence”.

4.    At paragraph 5 the Defendant avers the Claim “is therefore an abuse of process as it was a re-running of a claim which the Claimant has already received damages”.
 

4.1.    The Claimant has received damages up to the date of 17 November 2021 in respect of when Claim No. XXXX2 was issued.
 

4.2.    The abuse of process taking place is the fact the Defendant considers it is no longer required to comply with its statutory obligations after having been ordered to pay a very modest sum of money as compensation for its failure to comply.
 

4.3.    On 6 January 2023 the Claimant wrote to the Defendant to this effect, to which the Defendant responded “we will not enter into further correspondence on the content of your previous SAR’s [sic]”.
 

4.4.    It is reasonable to expect that upon being found liable by the Court, the Defendant would take action to review the evidence it received and immediately disclose the missing data.
 

4.5.    The Defendant’s process to respond to a SAR appears to be unfit for purpose. It does not appear the Defendant has reviewed how and where it stores personal data and also how to properly retrieve it.
 

5.       At paragraph 6 the Defendant avers “the Claimant was put to strict proof that he had suffered any "distress" in relation to any alleged breach of Data Protection Act 2018.”
 

5.1.   The Defendant appears to have submitted its application without reading or giving any consideration to the Judgment issued by the Court which found that the Claimant had suffered distress as a result of the Defendant’s breach of statutory duty.
 

6.    In respect of paragraph 7, the same data is missing from the Defendant’s disclosure in response to the SAR dated 8 January 2022. Therefore, the Defendant has breached its statutory duty on two separate occasions and continues to do so.
 

7.    The Defendant has a history of failing to comply with court directions and submitting applications without merit. On 30 January 2023 the Defendant’s application to strike out Claim No. XXX3 and proceed to summary judgment was wholly dismissed.

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Another go:

There are some minor formatting issues which occur as a result of copy and pasting the draft into the reply box. The issues do not appear in the original and the text can still be meaningfully read so in the interst of time I've left it as is.

 

Quote

Background

1.         For the ease of the Court, I have set out the course of Claim No. XXX2.

2.         On 16 November 2021 Claim No. XXX2 was issued.

3.         On 20 January 2022 the Court issued an Order that Shell Energy’s Defence to Claim No. XXX2 would be struck out if it failed to submit a directions questionnaire within 7 days.

4.         On 8 March 2022 Claim No. XXX2 was listed for trial on 16 May 2022.

5.         On 15 May 2022 the Claimant received by post an open offer of payment as a gesture of good will and without admission of liability and a cheque.

6.         On 16 May 2022 the Claimant and the Judge learned at the start of the final hearing it was on this basis that the Defendant did not attend. The Defendant had failed to properly notify the Court and the Claimant of their non-attendance.

7.         On 16 May 2022 the Judge adjourned the trial partly on the basis the Claimant was not willing to accept the offer to settle on a no liability basis.

8.         On 18 November 2022 the trial of Claim No. XXX2 took place where the Court found the Defendant liable for breach of its statutory duty and ordered the Defendant to pay compensation.

 

The Defence

9.         At paragraph 2 the Defendant says it “provided a complete response to the data [sic] Subject Access Request”.

9.1.        ACounty Court Judgment (“the Judgment”) issued on 18 November 2022 found “the Defendant's response dated 26 May 2021 to the Claimant's subject access request dated 28 April 2021 was incomplete” and “The Defendant was therefore in breach of it's[sic] statutory duty”.

9.2.        The Defendant says it has “nothing further to provide to the Claimant. Responses were given on 26 May 2021, 05 August 2021 and 05 January 2022.”

9.3.        The Court will note the recurring pattern of the Defendant to continually insist it has provided a full disclosure of data but then later provide further missing data over a period of several months.

10.   At paragraph 3,the Defendant says the SAR dated 28 April 2021 “was the subject of proceedings issued in the CountyCourt Business Centre under Claim No. XXX2 in which the Claimantclaimed distress for the same alleged breach.”

10.1.    The subject of proceedings in Claim No. XXX2 was the Defendant’s breach of statutory duty in response to the SAR and the distress it caused the Claimant up to the issue date of the claim on 16 November 2021.

10.2.    It is noteworthy given the written Judgment by the Court that the Defendant still refers to their on-going failure to comply with their data protection obligations as an “alleged breach”.

10.3.    The Defendant says it “sent a cheque for the full sum claimed[Claim No. XXX2] to the Claimant which he returned as he wished to proceed to Court.” The Claimant rejected the Defendant’s offer on the basis the Defendant was not prepared to accept liability. It was in part on this basis the Court ordered the final hearing be adjourned.

11.     Atparagraph 4, the Defendant’s submission that “the Court were given permission to proceed” to trial on 18 November 2022by the Defendant is misrepresented.

11.1.    The Court acted in accordance with the directions it set out on 13 June 2022following the Defendant’s failure to attendthe trial of Claim No. XXX2on 16 May 2022 and without proper notice pursuant to CPR 27.9(1)(a).

11.2.    The Courtindicated“that in the event the Defendant failed to attend on the next occasion for the samereason, it was likely the court would proceed in absence”.

12.     At paragraph 5 the Defendant says the Claim “is therefore an abuse of process as it was a re-running of a claim which the Claimant has already received damages”.

12.1.    The Claimant has received damages for the distress caused by the Defendant’s breach of statutory dutyup to the date of 16 November 2021 in respect of when Claim No. XXX2 was issued.

12.2.    To date the Claimant has not received a full disclosure of personal data in response to their SARs dated 28 April 2021 and 8 January 2022.

12.3.    The abuse of process taking place is the fact the Defendant considers it is no longer required to comply with its statutory obligations after having been ordered to pay a very modest sum of money as compensation for its failure to comply.

12.4.    On 6 January 2023 the Claimant wrote to the Defendant to this effect, to which the Defendant responded “we will not enter into further correspondence on the content of your previous SAR’s[sic]”.

12.5.    It is reasonable to expect that upon being found liable by the Court, the Defendant would take action to review the evidence it received and immediately disclose the missing data.

12.6.    Following the Judgment, it does not appear the Defendant has reviewed how and where it stores personal data and also how to properly retrieve it.

13.     At paragraph 6 the Defendantsays “the Claimant was put to strict proof that he had suffered any "distress" in relation to any alleged breach of Data Protection Act 2018.”.

13.1.    On 18 November 2022 the Court found that the Claimant had suffered distress as a result of the Defendant’s breach of statutory duty. Distress which is on-going.

14.     In respect of paragraph 7, the same data is missing from the Defendant’s disclosure in response to the SAR dated 8 January 2022. Therefore, the Defendant has breached its statutory duty on two separate occasions and continues to do so.

15. The Defendant has a history of failing to comply with court directions and submitting applications without merit. On 30 January 2023 the Defendant’s application to strike out Claim No. XXX3 and proceed to summary judgment was wholly dismissed.

 

[Intrepid]

Within the witness statement they claim not to have received 2 claim forms.

A full history:
 

SARC1
No response to letter before claim 05/08/21
No acknowledgement or defence filed in response to claim issued 24/08/21 - (they say claim form not seen)
Failed to properly respond to warrant resulting in CCJ recorded on or around 15/10/22
 

SARC2
No response to letter before claim 01/11/21
Failed to file and serve DQ by 30/12/21
Failed to file and serve notice of non-attendance pursuant to CPR 27.9(1)(a) by 09/05/22
 

SARC3
No acknowledgement or defence filed in response to claim issued 20/02/23 - (they say claim form not received)
 

IDP1
No response to letter before claim 09/03/21
Failed to file and serve DQ by 16/05/22

[Intrepid]

05/08/21 - Letter before claim                                - No response

24/08/21 - Claim form                                              - Not received

01/11/21 - Letter before claim                                - No response

13/12/21 - Notice of proposed allocation & DQ   - No response

09/03/22 - Letter before claim                                - No response

27/04/22 - Notice of proposed allocation & DQ   - No response

20/02/23 - Claim form                                              - Not recieved

[Intrepid]

28/04/21 - SAR                                                           - Received

21/07/21 - Letter Before Claim                               - Received

16/11/21 - Claim Form                                             - Received

16/11/21 - Claim Form                                             - Received

13/12/21 - Notice of Proposed Allocation & DQ - Received

08/01/22 - SAR                                                           - Received

20/01/22 - Court order                                             - Received

08/03/22 - Notice of Trial Date                               - Received

25/03/22 - Claim Form                                             - Received

10/04/22 - Notice of Preliminary Hearing             - Received

13/06/22 - Notice of Trial Date                               - Received

27/06/22 - Court order                                             - Received

29/06/22 - Notice of Adjourned Hearing               - Received

30/08/22 - Notice of Allocation                               - Received

21/11/22 - Notice of Pre-Trial Review                   - Received

24/12/22 - Letter Before Claim                               - Received

06/01/23 - Letter                                                        - Received

16/01/23 - Letter Before Claim                               - Received

20/02/23 - Claim Form                                             - Received

20/04/23 - Letter                                                        - Received

05/08/21 - Letter before claim                                - No response

24/08/21 - Claim form                                              - Not received

01/11/21 - Letter before claim                                - No response

13/12/21 - Notice of proposed allocation & DQ   - No response

09/03/22 - Letter before claim                                 - No response

27/04/22 - Notice of proposed allocation & DQ   - No response

18/11/22 - Court Judgment                                     - Not received

20/02/23 - Claim form                                              - Not received

Hearing 2 June 2023, I'm unsure as to exactly when a response is due.

The court has issued directions for providing contact details for the telephone hearing by 4 pm 26 May 2023.

 

So I think it is safe to assume any written response is also due within that time frame.

 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

I have put together a draft response to their application attached below.

 

I am unsure whether to expand this to a witness statement with exhibits but am also mindful that the application should not be a mini trial.

DRAFT 1.0 - SE - Claimant - Response to Application - Redacted.pdf

[Intrepid]

Thank you.

 

Unfortunately Shell Energy's Witness Statement and Draft Defence deals with a lot of irrelevant material which I think has largely been a distraction for myself and will be to the Court, however in my experience it is best not to leave things unresponded to.

 

In any case I have restructured the response to comprise a full witness statement complete with exhibits that better address the points you have highlighted.

I have moved the Reply to Draft Defence to the end of the document under a separate exhibit so as hopefully not to distract the Court from the two core issues in dispute, namely whether the claim form was received and their prospect of success in defending the claim.

If the PDF is too much I can simply post up the Witness Statement and Reply to Draft Defence for review under two separate quotes.

Edit: I did note their paragraph concerning repetative requests. The problem is their application in my view is poory structured. A lot of waffle in the Witness Statement is really points that belong in their Draft Defence, this has made responding to both their WS and Draft Defence somewhat messy.

I will either incorporate it as you suggest in a later draft or I could simply address it on the day. I cant imagine the Court will entertain for a moment that two SARs over a period of 2 years is in any way excessive.

CAG - Binder1 - Redacted-min.pdf

Edited May 10, 2023 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Latest draft attached below, edits are in green. To keep the PDF small I have uploaded only the witness statement.

I have amended the list of documents so that it relates to documents sent by post only, partly so not to confuse the issue and given the substantial correspondence that has taken place via email.

ACCOUNT PASSED TO COLLECTIONS

On a side note I withheld the sum owed to me by Shell Energy when paying my bill this month.

Shell Energy have responded by "passing" my account to Zinc Credit Management.

Shell Energy have been trashing my credit file for a period over almost two years on the basis that I have not kept up with payments on what in my understanding is supposed to be an agreed payment plan.

Of course there was no agreed payment plan. Shell Energy never responded to my email detailing how I proposed to pay my account until they sorted out their inacurate billing. Shell Energy's inaccurate data processing is currently the subject of separate litigation.

Zinc Credit Management have offered to set up an affordable payment plan. I have no intention of corresponding with Zinc but I will keep their email as evidence that no payment plan has been agreed between myself and Shell Energy.

HARASSMENT

Prior to passing my account to Zinc, Shell Energy again began sending automated unblockable text messages to my mobile phone.

 

I have submitted two claims against Shell Energy claiming compensation for harassment. The first was settled out of court, the second is currently meandering its way through the new online beta system.

 

Of note is that this time instead of continuing their barrage of messages unabaited Shell Energy stopped sending their messages after two instances. This could be a coincidence or it could be a sign the message is starting to get through that their conduct is unreasonable and will likely lead to an additional court claim.

I wrote to Shell Energy regarding the account balance and of course I did not receive a response.
 

DRAFT 1.3 - SE - Claimant - Witness Statement XX.05.23 - Redacted.pdf

[Intrepid]

@BankFodder I filed and served my statement with exhibits 8 days before the hearing, I did this on the understanding that evidence to be relied upon at a hearing should be filed at least 7 days before the hearing.

I now realise this may have been a mistake as the provision under CPR 24.5 is in reference to Summary Judgment only, perhaps @Andyorch knows otherwise and whether I can legitimately request their latest statement is dismissed.

Anyway their counsel have filed a last minute ambush prior to the hearing attached below.

I have attached only their statement, exhibits can be shown if necessary.

SE - Defendant - Note for Hearing 30.05.23 - Redacted.pdf

Edited May 31, 2023 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Draft 1.2 attached below.

@BankFodder any comments to make? I'm aware there is some repetition but I'd rather that than miss any important points.

It is still not clear to me whether it is ok to introduce evidence this late. I suppose bundles are normaly lodged 2 days before a hearing and should be agreed. I could object to their submissions but the likelihood is the court will allow any relevant documents which in this case aren't all that significant.

There is likely to be an argument over costs.

I will say in any case the claim is clearly suitable for allocation to the small claims track where costs are limited and the application was made as result of D's failure to process its own mail and properly respond to the claim.

 

DRAFT 1.2 - SE - Claimant - Note for Hearing - Redacted-min.pdf

Edited June 1, 2023 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Draft 1.3 attached below.

My previous posts had to be removed.

In answer to your question again Andy.

Application made 21/04/23 which contained a WS accompanied by exhibits.

Hearing 02/06/23

I'm not sure if I will be able to question opposing counsel but I think the questions I have prepared are relevant and will hopefully hammer home my points to the judge.

DRAFT 1.3 - SE - Claimant - Note for Hearing - Redacted-min.pdf

[Intrepid]

On point 1 the judge considered on the balance of probabilities the claim form was received.

On point 2 the judge considered there was an issue to be decided at trial.

The judge did not have a copy of my witness statement before them, as to why I don't know.

The claim will be transferred to my local court and potentially consolidated with the other on-going claims.

The judge made an interesting comment as to whether the claims may amount to an abuse of process or whether they are made in response to Shell Energy's intransigent position (on the issues between us).

Defence due latest 14 June 2023.

Costs reserved.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

On 18 July 2023 I sent Shell Energy Retail Limited (SERL) a SAR.

On 27 July 2023 I received the following email from SERL.
 

Quote

Hello Mr XXXX,

We hope you are doing well.

Thank you for taking time to get in touch with us.

We tried calling you today but unfortunately could not reach you.

In order to process your SAR request we would like to ask you a few more questions so we can have all the information.

Email address SAR will be sent too (if no email please confirm address)?
Have you ever worked for SERL in any capacity?
If so, would you like this information to be included as part of your SAR?
Telephone number(s)?
Current Mobile Number?
Alternative formats required?

May we kindly ask you to reply to this email as soon as possible with the answers so
we can start the process?

Your patience is appreciated.

We’re here to help

If you have any more questions, do take a look at our online Help Centre. There's lots
of useful information to answer your queries, from managing your account to
understanding your bill and more. All without having to contact us. You can find all our
articles on our website, under Help.

Thanks,

The Shell Energy Team

I have prepared a response, @BankFodder if you are interested in helping form a response they I look forward to any comments you have, otherwise I will send the following shortly.
 

Quote

Dear Sir/Madam.

I write in reference to your email of 26 June 2023 which raises a number of concerns.

Does Shell Energy Retail Limited have a policy of not responding to a SAR if it does not receive a response to the queries outlined in your email.

It appears from your email that you will not action the request unless you receive a response to your queries, this is obstructive for the following reasons:

1.       I would expect that a well-resourced company with proper records would easily be able to check whether I have previously acted as an employee;

2.       It would be clear to anyone actioning the request if they had checked the name, address and account reference in the SAR you received that I hold a customer account with Shell Energy Retail Limited;

3.       It appears you already have access to the information you have requested given that you claim to have called me as well as written to my email address.

The information you seek was included within the SAR you received and where it is not included it does not prevent in any way the actioning of my SAR.

Instead your email appears to be a formality designed to obstruct me from accessing my personal data. You state, you won't “start the process” of responding to my SAR unless I answer your questions.

As I have outlined above with minimal effort from either you or your agents the information you seek is either within your knowledge or unnecessary and appears instead to be designed to unreasonably delay any meaningful response to my request.

Why don't you simply get on with it and respond to my request in full within the 1 month timeline in accordance with your statutory duty?

If you decide to withhold access to my personal data, then I remind you that pursuant to the UK GDPR you must explain why you have not actioned my request and I expect that you will refer me to all the relevant exemptions upon which you rely.

I am unsure why your email is signed off on behalf of “The Shell Energy Team”, why doesn’t the person contacting me simply write their name. Do they have something to hide?

Yours faithfully,

 

[Intrepid]

Thank you for the suggestion.

In my view these questions are simply designed as a holding pattern. Companies use it as a way to do nothing on the guise they are awaiting a response. In my view it is obstructive and does not prevent in any way their ability to respond to a SAR at least within the capicity outlined within the request.

How about:
 

Quote

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write in reference to your email of 26 June 2023.

In accordance with the SAR you received and pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018, I want copies of all data you hold me regardless of the subject, regardless of the format it is in and regardless of the date.

I look forward to receving this within the statutory one month timeline on or before 18 August 2023.

Yours faithfully,

 

[Intrepid]

On 31 July 2023 SERL provided a partial disclosure of data which upon review is incomplete.

On 11 August 2023 I sent the following to SERL:
 

Quote

Dear Sir/Madam,

On 18 July 2023 Shell Energy Retail Limited received my Subject Access Request.

On 31 July 2023 you provided a partial disclosure of data which upon review is incomplete.

As a data controller your organisation has a statutory duty to disclose information relating to data that has been withheld and upon what basis.

I look forward to receiving a full response on or before 18 August 2023.

Yours faithfully,

On 15 August 2023 SERL reponded:
 

Quote

Hope this email finds you well.

Thank you for making us aware of this , we will raise this with our back office team and confirm that we need to send the information your are requiring could you kindly elaborate on which information is incomplete from the 31st July 2023.

I am not interested in playing their game of cat and mouse where they withhold my data but do not explain the basis of why they have withheld it.

I propose the following response:
 

Quote

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write in reference to your email of 15 August 2023 and partial disclosure of data provided on 31 July 2023.

As a registered data controller your organisation has a statutory duty to diclose information relating to data that has been withheld and upon what basis.

Can you please explain why the disclosure you have provided is incomplete but you have not explained what data you have withheld and on what basis?

Yours faithfully,

 

 

[Intrepid]

I have sent the above with the following included.
 

Quote

As a result of your organisation's failure to provide a full response to my SAR within the one month statutory timeline by 18 August 2023 I have submitted a complaint to the Information Comissioner's Office.

 

[Intrepid]

We have finally had our day in Court but not quite as expected.

Following Shell Energy's application to set aside the default judgment the Court consolidated the three concurrent claims between myself and Shell Energy.

At the start of the hearing the first issues the judge brought up were that given the amount of material, three hearing bundles approximating to 1000 pages (about 80% submitted by the Defendant), there had been insufficient reading time allocated to hearing the claim(s) and as the issues were complex the allocated hearing time of 5 hours was insufficient.

Both parties were then encouraged to either narrow the issues or reach settlement.

Essentially what Shell Energy wanted was a guarantee I would make no further requests to access my personal data.

When discussing quantum while we initially agreed on a settlement sum of 50% of all running claims, given that Shell Energy wanted the remaining ICO complaint withdrawn I was of the opinion I should be further compensated. We agreed the modest sum of £100 to withdraw the on-going complaint.

There was some woolly negotiation around the restoring of my credit file to the position it would have been in had Shell Energy not acted unlawfully. I'm not sure if this was tactical or the people on the other end of the phone were just underinformed.

If you ever find yourself in a similar position be under no illusion, subscribing members in this case Shell Energy own the data they share with credit reference agencies and are at liberty to amend it as they see fit. I made it clear if it wasn't part of the settlement then we simply go to trial and I seek the order at the end of the hearing.

The claimed costs by the Defendant prior to the hearing were significant, approximately £15,000. Knowing that courts tend to find neither completely in favour of one party or another I was aware that even if I won 2 out of the 3 claims it could still be an expensive day out. Principles cost money and I'm equally sure a judgment against Shell Energy for inaccurate data processing could have been very damning as its clear they treat a lot of their customers in the same way.

We reached settlement and the Judge signed the consent order, a copy of which is attached below.

When I have received payment CAG will receive a donation, the information to consumers on this website and the input from the site team at no charge is incredibly valuable.
 

SE - Court - Consent Order 13.11.23 - Redacted.pdf

Edited November 14, 2023 by Intrepid