County Court Claim AM Parking Services Ltd

JimmyChan wrote: »

ok have added the part about advertisement consent to my defence and have updated my counter claim to add £150 for trespass. I wouldn't mind some case law around the justifying the £150 I am claiming. Updates in bold

Counter Claim
1. The Defendant counterclaims for trespass on their property in the sum of £150.
2. The Defendant was the owner of the register title Kxxxx which is a leasehold of part of the freehold title Kxxxxx. The Claimant had no right to operate on this land as it had been whole demised to the defendant.
3. On or about [date] the Claimant entered onto the Defendant's land, without authority, for the purpose of placing a "parking charge notice" on the windscreen of his car and taking photographs of the said car.
[new para number] Subsequently, the Claimant has relied on this act in order to write multiple chasing letters to the Defendant seeking payment of the "parking charge", and which forms the basis of these proceedings. As a result of the Claimant’s trespass the Defendant has suffered mental anguish, and has had to spend hours defending and dealing with the claim when they had the right to peaceful enjoyment of the land.
4. The Claimant after being told about their trespass continued to pursue this claim and try to profit from their trespass. As such, it has made no attempt to mitigate the Defendant's loss.
5. The Defendant also counterclaims the sum of £750.00 against the Claimant, as compensation for a material breach of the Data Protection Act 1988 (“DPA”).
6. The Claimant parking company had no lawful reason to retain or process the Defendant's personal data, and by so doing it was in breach of the Second Data Principle, pursuant to Schedule 1 of the DPA, which states: “Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.”
7. Pursuant to s13 of the DPA: “Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements”, the Act states at 13(1) that “An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage”.
8. The Claimant is aware of all laws under which this counter claim is being brought as at the time they were a member of the trade association the British Parking Association, which to be a member they must abide by their code of practice which section A2.4 states:
All AOS (Approved Operator Scheme) members must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses (and the tort of trespass and data protection law are specifically listed in paragraph A2.4).
9. I rely on two significant authorities for my counterclaim: Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311, and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333. In Vidal-Hall, compensation was held to arise upon the fact of breach. In Halliday, the Court of Appeal held that a compensatory sum of up to £750 was deemed ‘appropriate and sufficient’.
10. Both of the above cases arose as a result of material breaches of the DPA and can be considered to provide binding precedents for the Defendant's own situation. A DPA breach ruling has also been made recently in favour of a consumer, in a private parking ticket case by a District Judge at Liverpool County Court on 7 December 2016, in case no. C9DP2D6C: ‘VCS v Mr. M’.
11. No quantified loss is required to be proven since this is a clear breach under the tort of data misuse. As shown by the Court of Appeal authorities in Vidal-Hall and Halliday, no actual pecuniary loss sustained need govern the amount of the award in such cases so it seems reasonable to counterclaim a sum in excess of this Claimant’s unwarranted claim, without the sum of £750 being in any way excessive as compensation for my distress, given the circumstances.
12. My data was obtained from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) under the guise of "reasonable causes" however the land the parking charge was issued had been whole demised to me under a registered lease. They had no authority to operate on this land and so therefore no reasonable causes to obtain my details from the DVLA. Section 55 of the DPA states is an offence to unlawfully procure personal information.

And the Defendant claims:
(a) damages, as claimed or alternatively, in such sums as the Court may find; and
(b) all court fees arising as a result of this counter-claim.
(c) all costs for travel/parking to attend court and loss of earnings/leave (either loss of earnings or ‘loss of leave’ being covered by 27.14.2(e))
A statement of costs will be brought to the court hearing. Should the Claimant discontinue their own claim, this counterclaim still stands.

The Defendant believes the facts stated in this counterclaim are true.