Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf.. we aint got all day to download load single page files 2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf
    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
    • Just to update this. I did apply to strikeout and they did not attend the hearing. I won by defualt and the hearing lasted 5 minutes (court only allocated 15). The judge simply explained that the only matter he was really considering is if the Defendant could have any oral evidence to defend the claim. However he said he had decided that based on their defence, and their misunderstanding of law, and their non attendence he did not think they had any reasonsable chance so he awarded me SJ + Costs on the claim form + the strikeout fee. Luckily when I sent the defendant the order I woke up the next day to a wire trasnfer for the full sum of the judgement
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

EPS breach of GDPR


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 321 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Thinking further on my last post, here's a suggestion to possibly do some work on..?

 

The Defendant's application for set aside appears to revolve around a claim of being "confused".


I would refer to the Defendant's witness statement:

 

Paragraphs 10 to 13 set out their obligations regarding the acquisition, storage and distribution of data.

 

Paragraph 14 states that "motorists often submit Subject Access Requests".

 

So, the Defendant claims total familiarity with SAR compliance requirements.

 

The Defendant's Company was incorporated on 30th December 2014, so for nearly 9 years have by their own admission dealt with a large number of SAR requests.

 

It follows that the Defendant's claim of "being confused" is at best  an admission of incompetence and at worst, simply disingenuous.

 

They are attempting to conflate two separate, legitimate claims to create the confusion, which they then seek to rely on.

 

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nicky Boy The repetition was deliberate, to underline the same point at two different stages of the WS, but you're right, and I've cut one out.

 

I don't think the OP can request further costs here.

 

 

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very kind of FTMDave to put together a substantial response in such a short period of time.
 

Quote

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


I think it best not to emphasise the time between the breach occurring and when the claim for distress was issued.

 

It would be useful if @kfdh1962 could post up the exact particulars they used for the claim which is loosely referred to in this thread as a breach of the GDPR.
 

 

13 hours ago, kfdh1962 said:

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

 

My understanding is different to yours, it appears to me you received 1 defence to 1 claim which was for a breach of the GDPR.

You then received one application hoping to deal with both of your claims, however importantly at the top of the draft defence is a redacted claim number.

That claim number will indicate exactly which claim the defence is aimed at and it would be helpful if you could make that clear to us as well.
 

FTMDave is excellent at keeping on top of things but if it were straight forward to do, it may help to create a separate thread for each claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to Fruitsalad's point i have read them all again and i agree with the comments,

 

So ,  to clarify the the application notice , witness statement and defence are all referencing  claim number ending 28V which is the claim they failed to respond to in time and for which a warrant has now been issued, this is the claim  being for the non compliance to the SAR,.

 

The other claim is mentioned in these documents only in respect to them being confused by the presence of a second claim. This other claim , ending 20W had an acknowledgement of service and directions questionnaire which contained  a short defence previously shared 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's time to give a last polish to the statement before sending it to the court and the fleecers on Tuesday.

 

You know the score with WSs - the bit about the parties at the start, the Statement of Truth at the end, the numbering, etc.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

everything completed now and ready to go , thanks for all the work by FTMdave  which took care of most of it

 

Just wanted to check where i send this . I noticed the fleecers sent the application to CCBC, defence witness statement sent to Birmingham county court. Am i right in assuming Birmingham , which is where the warrant was sent for execution. ?

Edited by kfdh1962
type o
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, the statement was tweaked several times so make sure it's the last version which I see was changed on Saturday at 17:54.  Include FruitSalad's suggested changes.

 

I forgot to mention to make Exhibit 3 two pages, a screenshot of the fleecers' web page with the data protection e-mail address and also the bounce back mail.

 

Good point.  I'm 99.99% certain the court will be Birmingham after reading the fleecers' bilge.  But I'll flag this up to the site team just to make sure.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

its whichever court the fleecers sent their n244 too surely? Northants bulk i would assume? as that where the default judgement was gained, same as anyone here getting a backdoor CCJ, you file the N244 to northants bulk, then it gets allocated out.?

cant see you've had a notice of allocation or a directions order to another one?

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Confirmed by a Site Team member who knows a hell of a lot more than me - Birmingham.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes cant hurt

  • Like 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a given if you want the court to accept your statement of objection....file and serve.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing from the court about a set aside date?

 

I'm thinking you should send a second LoC for continuing distress as they still haven't respected the SAR.

 

It would mean that, if (hopefully when) their set aside application is chucked in the bin, that you could sue them a third time.

 

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Courts usually, though not always, are pretty quick with set aside hearings.

 

However, at the moment all is in a state of limbo waiting for the set aside application to be considered.

 

Nothing stopping a new LoC going off though.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

So what is happening - or not happening - with this case?

Following @MoaningCrusader's success, there are a little group of Caggers taking what are almost "test cases" against the PPCs for GDPR and/or SAR distress cases.

It would be extremely useful to others to know what stage your case is at.

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

last visited 26th may?

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...