EPS breach of GDPR

[Nicky Boy]

Oh goody!

They're gonna end up with a CCJ...

[kfdh1962]

so in respect to enforcement of the judgement on the SAR claim , is the next step applying through the MCOL for enforcement by way o fapplying for a warrant ?

[FruitSalad1010]

Once you have received confirmation of the judgment entered in default the option to apply for a warrant is accessible on MCOL.

 

Ideally the warrant should be requested as soon as possible.

[FTMDave]

So all they've done for the GDPR one is acknowledge service.

 

They haven't actually defended yet.  They must be racking their brains trying desperately to think up some lies to justify the unjustifiable.

 

Yep, get the bailiffs in for the SAR one.  And once that's done, as they still haven't respected the SAR request, you can sue them again.

[kfdh1962]

i have submitted the warrant request through MCOL. for the SAR claim non payment , the fee was £83 which is now added to the warrant value 

[kfdh1962]

checking on MCOL yesterday to see if the fleecers had submitted a defence and noticed the status now had defence submitted , same date as issue of DQ.

Checked my DQ questionnaire and there was a copy of the defence stapled to the back of the mediation notes which i hadn't spotted  as i stopped reading once i reached the mediation notes having seen those previous, no harm done though. Copy attached.

 

It would seem to me that their defence  actually supports the very point of our claim,  stating they ceased the court action as "i had only stayed 1 minute" (actually it was 29 seconds so they don't even have that correct).  At best they are admitting to not applying due diligence before accessing my data , although in reality we know this would have been a vexatious claim hoping like many do that i would just pay up under pressure of their threats 

 

In commenting on signage , they have also chosen to ignore the issue of no compliant signage , no signage at entrance visible from direction of travel etc etc , they cant even get the length of stay correct !

 

will be completing DQ  today and posting that off over the weekend , any point to note on DQ completion ? i  will be saying no to mediation 

 

defence filed.pdf

[brassnecked]

Looks like they cut their own throat,

[Nicky Boy]

That's what I thought.

Effectively admitted the whole thing...

 

Only thing they can try now is contest the amount claimed.

 

But, they're disputing the full amount?

Edited April 21, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[brassnecked]

They are hoping to get round GDPR, once they cough up or if they get silly inform ICO about vexatious application to DVLA and unlawful; processing of your data perhaps.

[kfdh1962]

copy of directions questionnaire received from fleecers solicitors , interestingly in respect to the question as to suitability for determination without a hearing , the answer was no , reason given as follows :- 

 

"The claim is flawed; the Claimant has issued 2 sets of proceedings against the same Defendant within days of each other and which related to claims for distress arising out of allegations/issues under the Data Protection Act. The Claimant has acted unreasonably which is deemed to be an abuse of the Court process."

 

 

[dx100uk]

hehe they've got a shock coming then.

 

dx

[Nicky Boy]

Caggers fighting back...

They don't like it up 'em.

[FTMDave]

That defence is superb - for you.

 

They've basically admitted it!

 

We should remember that EPS and Gladstones are separate entities.  You can imagine something like -

EPS - we want to defend.

Gladstones - alright then  Write something in the space after the number 3..

 

Gladstones don't care if EPS's case is hopeless.  They get paid anyway.  Ripping off motorists or ripping off their thicko clients both bring the £££££ in.

[brassnecked]

 so hopefully it will be EPS You have been Gladstoned.

[FTMDave]

Let us know when you get paid for the SAR claim.

 

Then you can do another one

[kfdh1962]

re the SAR claim, i received confirmation from HMCTS yesterday that the warrant has been issued to Birmingham county court for execution 

[kfdh1962]

Arrived home from work late last night to a letter from Gladdies , essentially paperwork submitted to the courts requesting the judgement on the SAR non compliance be set aside and further requesting both claims be struck out, witness statements and defence included in the letters

 

They would like the courts to believe they missed the deadlines as they became confused as i issued two claims against them just a few days apart. They would also seem to want to argue that they don't need to respond to the SAR as they have a data sharing agreement with DVLA and we should know that , ignoring the fact that we requested all data held on file and not just data not just that from DVLA 

 

i note that the witness statement of MR chana is headed as being filed for the claimant , should that not have been for the defendant ?

 

copies of the application Ws and defence and draft order  from gladdies attached for you perusal

 

current status on MCOL is as follows , although this we know may be subject to change 

 

SAR claims

judgement issued 5/4/2023 @19:07:27

warrant request 19/04/23 : 15:58:06

warrant issued 20/04/2023 19:09:17 databreach claim 

Bar put in place for EPS  12/04/23

EPS defence filed 12/04/23

DQ sent to EPS 12/04/23

 

status defence filed

 

 

i sent my DQ off a few days ago , deadline was May 2nd , so what are the next steps considering this application from gladdies

 

3597_001.pdf

Edited April 28, 2023 by kfdh1962

[FruitSalad1010]

Could you please post a very brief chronology of events between you and EPS including:

When they accessed your data.
When they sent you a begging letter (PCN).

If/when they issued a claim.

If/when/how that claim was concluded.

When you issued each of your claims/what for and what response you received to each.

My understanding is the defence posted in #131 is in response to the claim for unlawful processing of your data, and that they did not file a defence in response to their failure to disclose data?

This is somewhat confusing as EPS appear to have issued a single application to deal with two separate claims I'm unsure if this proper, you have the unredacted version so maybe it is clear to you which claim their draft defence in post #142 is in support of?

At the very least it appears they are somewhat overwhelmed in dealing with such issues.
 

[FTMDave]

You need to write your own statement opposing the application.  It should be quite easy.  We have the weekend to do it.

 

It's good that they re applying for set aside on the cheap without a hearing (£108) rather than with a hearing (£275) which means there's a good chance of  batting off their rubbish application with your objection.

 

Work calls now, but I'll try to read through everything properly this evening.

[FTMDave]

Just reading through their bilge and making some initial notes for a reply.  It seems Rashpal works for EPS as litigation officer tea boy so that's why "my company" is stated, but no doubt Gladdys dictated it to him so he's stupidly left their logo at the end.  Hopefully the bailiffs will do their work before the set aside hearing anyway.  I'll work on this during the evening, in breaks between my real work, so there will be gradual tweaking.  Anyway, how about something like -

 

 

 1.  I am the Claimant in this matter and have prepared this statement to oppose the Defendant's application for set aside.

 

 1.  The background to the case is that on 18 February 2021 the Claimant's vehicle entered a private car park which had no sign at its entrance.  The Claimant then realised it was a private car park managed by the Defendant and so immediately left.  The exact time between entrance and exit was 29 seconds. 

 

 2.  It is common sense that a driver needs time to read signage and decide whether to enter a contract or not.  One industry trade association Code of Practice allows five minutes as a consideration period, the other industry trade association Code of Practice allows a "reasonable" time, the government Code of Practice allows five minutes, and the contract between the Defendant and the landowner allows five minutes. 

 

 3.  Despite this the Defendant obtained the Claimant's details from the DVLA, issued a PCN, sent numerous threatening letters, sent a Letter of Claim, and started a vexatious court case which was only discontinued at Witness Statement stage.

 

 4.  The Claimant therefore sent a Letter of Claim for distress caused by this gross breach of GDPR, and when no reply was received, started claim no.XXXXX.

 

 5.  It is common sense that when one is involved in litigation it is prudent to obtain all the information held on one by the other party, so the Claimant sent the Defendant a Subject Access Request on 4 January 2023.  In their defence (para 15), the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the same, and this can easily be done by showing a copy of the SAR (Exhibit 1) and proof of posting (Exhibit 2). 

 

 6.  The Claimant sent the SAR by Royal Mail because mails sent to the Defendant's e-mail address regarding data protection bounce back (Exhibit 3).  This illustrates the Defendant's attitude towards their statutory obligation.

 

 6.  The Claimant did not just rush to court when the SAR was not respected.  The Claimant sent a Letter of Claim (Exhibit 4) with proof of posting (Exhibit 5) which mentioned the SAR.  The Defendant conveniently fails to mention the matter of the Letter of Claim.

 

 7.  It is simply implausible that the Defendant received neither communication and so knew nothing about the SAR.

 

 8.  The Defendant loves to throw around terms like "acted unreasonably", "abuse of the court process", "exaggerated", "flawed", "defective", "spurious", "without merit", all "noise" which simply does not deal with the fact that the Claimant send a SAR and the Defendant ignored it.

 

 9.  The reason there are two claims for distress is because distress was caused by two different failures by the Defendant.  One for breach of GDPR way back in February 2021.  The other for failing to respect the deadline for replying to a SAR two years later on 4 January 2023.  It was quite proper to send two different Letters of Claim and later to start two different court claims.

 

10.  The Defendant received a Letter of Claim, ignored it, and then a claim form, and ignored it.  A child in the first year of primary school is able to work out what date there is 19 days after another date so surely a litigation officer should be able to do the same.

 

11.  It is noted that, although the Witness Statement is written "by" the company's Litigation Officer, at the end the name of a firm of solicitors is printed.  What is likely to have really happened is this.  The Defendant works via a conveyor belt of different stages of correspondence threatening motorists to pay monies they may or may not owe, and is uninterested in anything else.  The e-mail address on their site for data protection does not work.  The Claimant's SAR sent by Royal Mail was thrown in the bin.  Ditto the Letter of Claim.  The Defendant then woke up to the fact that court papers had arrived and went running to Gladstones Solicitors Limited at the last minute, but it was too late to defend.  

 

11.  Even were the court to accept that the Defendant, despite having received a Letter of Claim and then a claim form and having missed the deadline to defend, had a genuine reason for not filing a defence, the simple fact is that the Defendant has no real likelihood of successfully defending.

 

12.  The Defendant received the SAR, and had another chance when they received a Letter of Claim mentioning the SAR, and did not respect their statutory duty.  There is simply no defence despite the Defendant's tsunami of "noise".

 

14.  Distress is not as easy to quantify as, say, damage to a vehicle.  Nevertheless, it is common sense that having to deal with a vexatious claim over 21 months ate up a huge amount of time leading the Claimant to neglect their work and family and affected their sleep patterns.  Particularly distressing was having to mentally prepare to appear in court.  The Claimant worried about the financial consequences of losing in court even though the Defendant's case was entirely without merit. 

 

15.  The Defendant's failure to respond to the Claimant's SAR caused only part of this distress which is why they have claimed the modest sum of £200.  The Defendant knows the Claimant has a claim for distress caused by breach of GDPR.  It is very difficult for the Claimant to prepare for court action if the Defendant does not disclose important information and this failure is causing the Claimant considerable distress (Defendant's defence para 16).      

 

16.  At the time of writing the Defendant has still not satisfied the SAR and distress is still ongoing.

 

17.  The Claimant respectfully requests the court to deny the set aside application.

Edited April 29, 2023 by FTMDave
Typo

[kfdh1962]

fruit salad, yes there are indeed 2 claims and as i read it gladdies have submitted one defence cpvering both claims as i read it

 

i will put together that cronology and post it up

[FTMDave]

I've finally stopped faffing around and have drafted a statement (two posts above) to the court in response to their bilge.  See what you think and what the other regulars think over the weekend.

[Nicky Boy]

Para 13 and 16 are the same...

Delete 13?

I think it makes a good final para.

[Nicky Boy]

How about a final, final paragraph to rub the salt in?

Something along the lines of...

 

The defendant's incompetence has caused this delayed set aside action, further  compounding the claimant's distress, creating further work and unnecessary costs. The claimant therefore respectfully requests a further award of £xx litigant in person costs.

Edited April 29, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[Nicky Boy]

As they are claiming "confusion", would it be worth mentioning somewhere about their straightforward "unconfused" defence submitted at post 131?