Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 14th Sep 17, 12:41 PM
    • 27Posts
    • 14Thanks
    muleskinner
    Data Protection Counterclaim - specified amount or not?
    • #1
    • 14th Sep 17, 12:41 PM
    Data Protection Counterclaim - specified amount or not? 14th Sep 17 at 12:41 PM
    Hi,

    I am being taken to court by Gladstones/PPM for the usual baseless parking charges.

    I have prepared my defence and am filing a counterclaim for distress caused by breach of DPA and unlawful processing of my data (PPM requested vehicle keeper's details from DVLA when I had already supplied them as driver).

    I am wondering whether I should set a specified amount or just leave that up to the court. Personally I think I'd prefer to leave it up to the court as it puts no onus on me to justify anything.

    The wording on the template I have is...

    The Defendant claims:

    (a) damages, in such sums as the Court may find; and

    (b) interest, pursuant to s. 69 of the County Courts Act 1984, at such rates and for such periods on the sums found due to the Defendant as the Court may think fit.

    Any thoughts?
Page 1
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 14th Sep 17, 12:45 PM
    • 806 Posts
    • 604 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    • #2
    • 14th Sep 17, 12:45 PM
    • #2
    • 14th Sep 17, 12:45 PM
    Go for it mate!!


    Usually good for £250 to £750.


    It's well documented around and about what to say.....no need for you to prove damages iirc.


    Check out Parking Prankster for more help and of course google!!
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 14th Sep 17, 12:45 PM
    • 823 Posts
    • 946 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #3
    • 14th Sep 17, 12:45 PM
    • #3
    • 14th Sep 17, 12:45 PM
    If you dont specify an amount, have you seen how large the filing fee would be? Just go have a look

    £500 isnt unreasonable, but break it down and you must supply case law to abck up that amount. Two obvious cases used every time.

    Whats your defence?
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 14th Sep 17, 12:58 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    muleskinner
    • #4
    • 14th Sep 17, 12:58 PM
    • #4
    • 14th Sep 17, 12:58 PM
    Actually I've just spoken to the court and they advised me that for unspecified amounts the fee for a counter claim is something ridiculous like £10,000.00 so I think I'll go for £500 or possibly £750 as per the Google precedent case,
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 14th Sep 17, 1:06 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    muleskinner
    • #5
    • 14th Sep 17, 1:06 PM
    • #5
    • 14th Sep 17, 1:06 PM
    Thanks for the input, I could post my full defence here if that's appropriate , but in summary it's

    1. Forbidding Signage
    2. Inadequate Signage
    3. Consumer Contracts Regs / Right Of Cancellation

    I very much doubt it will be ruled there was a contract in place because of 1 and 2 but if there is my wife returned to her vehicle within five minutes, advised the PPM operative who was in the process of delivering the PCN she was unaware of a change in parking restrictions and immediately removed her vehicle. I can't see how 'right of cancellation' won't apply in this instance.

    This sh!t is stressful and I have no legal training but I have been through the County Court on other matters three times before and done a complex Leasehold Valuation Tribunal case myself and won every time. Hopefully this one won't spoil my record.

    Don't let the barstewards grind you down eh?
    • Timothea
    • By Timothea 14th Sep 17, 1:52 PM
    • 147 Posts
    • 282 Thanks
    Timothea
    • #6
    • 14th Sep 17, 1:52 PM
    • #6
    • 14th Sep 17, 1:52 PM
    If, as you seem to say, PPM requested your registered keeper's details from DVLA after you advised them that you were the driver then I cannot see how your personal data have been misused. PPM already had your details, so there was no data protection breach. Perhaps PPM just wanted to verify your address or, more likely, it was simply incompetence.

    If, however, you provided PPM with sufficient details of the driver, who was not you, before PPM requested your registered keeper's details from DVLA then you might have a case, but only if PPM then pursued the registered keeper for payment.

    You can claim or counter-claim for an unspecified amount up to a specified maximum. However, the court fees are calculated based on that maximum amount. Court fees rise significantly when the amount claimed is over £500.

    I would advise against filing a weak counter-claim. This is only likely to annoy the judge and it may affect your chances of beating the original claim. Remember, it's up to you to prove your case for the counter-claim.
    Last edited by Timothea; 14-09-2017 at 3:13 PM.
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 14th Sep 17, 2:47 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    muleskinner
    • #7
    • 14th Sep 17, 2:47 PM
    • #7
    • 14th Sep 17, 2:47 PM
    Yes, you may have a point and I have been struggling with this to an extent.

    However, the fact that they ballsed up and requested my details from the DVLA led to a degree of confusion which undoubtedly caused my and my wife distress. For one I was inappropriately sent a 'notice to keeper' rather than a 'notice to driver'. In fact I was never sent a 'notice to driver', the resultant chain of crap from Gladstones came as a result of me not responding to the 'notice to keeper' which (to my mind) I had no reason to respond to as I had already provided driver's details.

    There's also a strong possibility based on the chain of events that they actually lost my details. I made an appeal to them for which I never received a response and the next thing I received was the 'notice to driver' as if they'd had no contact from me. All this can be proved via trail of correspondence.

    So, to my mind, they definitely made an unlawful request to the DVLA (because they already had my details) and this, coupled with their general incompetence, definitely increased the frustration and anxiety caused.

    I can see how it could go either way though!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Sep 17, 2:51 PM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 14th Sep 17, 2:51 PM
    • #8
    • 14th Sep 17, 2:51 PM
    For one I was inappropriately sent a 'notice to keeper' rather than a 'notice to driver'. In fact I was never sent a 'notice to driver',
    You must have had a Notice to Driver (that's a windscreen PCN), to have contacted them in the first place?! Your PCN/NTD was the thing you replied to.

    NTDs are not generally sent in the post (except by the quirkier/dumbest PPCs!).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Timothea
    • By Timothea 14th Sep 17, 3:06 PM
    • 147 Posts
    • 282 Thanks
    Timothea
    • #9
    • 14th Sep 17, 3:06 PM
    • #9
    • 14th Sep 17, 3:06 PM
    Requesting your personal data from DVLA in error is not in itself a data protection breach if PPM already has your personal data. It may, however, be a breach of PPM's KADOE contract, but only DVLA could take action against PPM (very unlikely).

    Similarly, sending you a Notice to Keeper rather than pursuing you as the driver will be seen as inconsequential to most judges, as it has the same effect. If anything, pursuing you as keeper gives you greater rights because PPM must rely on POFA.

    One option is to assume that PPM doesn't realise that you were the driver, so check whether you can use additional defence arguments based on the POFA requirements.
    Last edited by Timothea; 14-09-2017 at 8:57 PM.
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 14th Sep 17, 3:24 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    muleskinner
    Ah, OK. My misunderstanding of terminology.

    So, this was the chain of events...

    1. I am issued a PCN
    2. I respond with an appeal (via email)
    3. I receive no response to appeal
    4. I receive an ntk which causes me some distress due to its threatening nature and the fact that it states facts that plainly aren't true (ie PPM don't have the driver's details).
    5. I contact PPM to find out what's going on. They claim that a response to my appeal was sent by email and include a 'copy' of this and advise me to continue to appeal via the IAS.
    6. I try (right away) to appeal to the IAS but am not allowed as a 28 day time limit has elapsed
    7. I go back to PPM and explain that, according to the IAS website, I should be able to make an appeal within a year of the 'offence' but their automated system prevents me from so doing.
    7. PPM tell me 'tough luck', you can only appeal within 28 days.
    8. A slew of threatening letters from Gladstones ensues.
    9. I write lengthy letter to PPM explaining why I think the charge is inappropriate and how they have basically wilfully misled me about the appeals procedure.
    10. PPM concur that they have misled me about the appeals procedure, call off Gladstones and, theoretically, give me permission to appeal to the IAS.
    11. By this time I have read enough about the IAS/Gladstones to come to the conclusion that it's far from genuinely 'independent'. I tell PPM I will not appeal via the IAS for this reason and suggest an alternate dispute resolution service.
    12. PPM refuse. Next thing I receive is the notice of court action.

    So I guess it's difficult here to tell what happened as a result of misuse of my personal data and what was simply a result of data I'd supplied to them, particularly as that data is that same. Surely I should not have received that 'notice to keeper though'?

    I'd attach the NTK but I am too much of a noob so not allowed.
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 14th Sep 17, 3:27 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    muleskinner
    OK, sorry we cross-posted there. It seems I may be better off dropping it. Shame, as they have bungled things so drastically and caused me so much genuine grief it doesn't seem right and proper they should get away with it!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

320Posts Today

1,738Users online

Martin's Twitter