Claim No.3 Excel / BW Legal

If Excel/ BWL think they're walking away from this unscathed they've got another think coming...

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/m06caxr2jwdrpvt/AABOBxL3eVmxSqEw_Z5vGNXla?dl=0

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Had you made a DPA counterclaim? If so that obviously still stands. If not, then you write in and say you want to seek costs pursuant to 27.14(2)(g). You could ask for that to be dealt with on paper, or by a hearing.

I didn't counter-claim, but I really really wish I had done. Unfortunately I acknowledged this back in August '16 when I was still a 'wide-eyed Newbie'

I spoke to Bargepole about issuing my own claim against Excel and/or BWL for either breach of DPA or harassment or, frankly, anyhting that might stick; but he advised that it would be difficult to establish a cause of action for any such claim

My points of attack would have been based on (among other things) the following:

* DQ completed by VCS not Excel

* Issuing 6 separate claims against me - 5 individual and 1 bundled claim. All involving the same car park and the same alleged contravention. potentially making me do all the work 6 times over and taking considerable time off work to attend court.

* Reviving this (third) claim after leaving it stayed for 5 months

* Proceeding with this claim just 2 (working) days after the second judgement where it was held as a fact that I, personally, had not driven to that car park since 2011.

* Proceeding with this claim despite Judge S-R severely reprimanding Jake Burgess - on record - about pursuing 'not the driver' claims where they do not/can not rely on PoFA; and instructing him to "go back to his company" and inform them that they must either comply with PoFA or have proof of the driver if they are to pursue such claims.

* Excel admitted, in response to the 'request for special directions' (written by Bargepole) that issuing the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claims was "an administrative oversight".... and then they still attempted to proceed with the 3rd claim.

* Despite Excel agreeing to 'stay' the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claims pending the outcome of my second case in Feb, and judge S-R making an order of the same; Excel/BWL still tried to obtain default judgements against me for the latter 3 cases in January - CCBC informed me of this during a recent phone call.

* continuing to process my data despite the judgement in my 2nd case removing any prospect of success in all of the other cases, and despite me sending them a section 10 notice in Nov '16

Bargepole is helping me put together a costs schedule to claim costs up to the point of discontinuance, so, hopefully, they won't get away scot free.

Still, I'm keeping my options open, and on Coupon-Mad's advice will be sending a formal complaint to the ICO informing them of everything that happened and asking them to investigate how Excel and BWL have used my data - not to mention VCS who despite having nothing to do with me or any of my cases, completed the DQ in the second claim.

Depending on what comes back from them, a DPA claim may still be on the cards.

However, what you could have used that info for (and still could perhaps) is to get an order against them, by showing them to be a vexatious litigant, that they are not permitted to issue any further claims against you without prior leave of the court. Do you want me to look up the CPR Rule for you?

That would be brilliant, thank you! Definitely like the sound of the order you mentioned.... Would this effectively be an injunction?