KNOCK KNOCK Mrs May, anyone at home ??? what are you doing about these CCJ's

beamerguy

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

It's worth dropping him an e-mail, I think he's on a steep learning curve.

As I understand, he's more interested in the "surprise" ccj aspect of it all.

I agree with Ivor, if you don't try, you'll never know

steve1500

What I'm surprised no one has mentioned is the Data Protection Act.

It is a requirement of the Act the data shall be accurate & up to date.

If Parking Lie or some other this come after you twelve months down the line & you have since moved, I think you would have a very good chance of coming after them for compensation. One of our rights under the Act.

Also, if they are going after people using old information, why don't these people get the Information Commissioner involved.


A nice hefty fine from her might make them think again

mowkid

beamerguy wrote: »

I agree with Ivor, if you don't try, you'll never know

I sent him an email anyway. I echoed all the sentiments contained in this forum. I would have thought that this cause was right up Daily Mails strreet

beamerguy

mowkid wrote: »

I sent him an email anyway. I echoed all the sentiments contained in this forum. I would have thought that this cause was right up Daily Mails strreet

Good for you, yes if it sells newspapers, downside is it's covered in greasy fish 'n chips the next day

beamerguy

steve1500 wrote: »

What I'm surprised no one has mentioned is the Data Protection Act.

It is a requirement of the Act the data shall be accurate & up to date.

If Parking Lie or some other this come after you twelve months down the line & you have since moved, I think you would have a very good chance of coming after them for compensation. One of our rights under the Act.

Also, if they are going after people using old information, why don't these people get the Information Commissioner involved.


A nice hefty fine from her might make them think again

The issue here is that the PPC ONLY knows that one address unless told otherwise.

What must be addressed is how they can take people to court and get a default because the person did not attend.

steve1500

beamerguy wrote: »

The issue here is that the PPC ONLY knows that one address unless told otherwise.
.

Yes, but the important bit of the Act is the up to date bit

What has also been mentioned on this thread is their uncanny ability to find the correct address once they have got their default judgements.

The ICO has been issuing fines, like they are going out of fashion at the moment, to cold call companies.

One of the defences put forward was, at some point in the past, the individual had agreed to cold calling.

That didn't wash, ICO said you should have checked that the information was up to date

Herzlos

Yeah, it's easy enough for them to confirm the details are up to date, before starting court action, even if you had an initial response.

Of course, forcing them to take court action within a reasonable time frame, like 6-12 months, would make it far less of an issue.

TDA

steve1500 wrote: »

Yes, but the important bit of the Act is the up to date bit

What has also been mentioned on this thread is their uncanny ability to find the correct address once they have got their default judgements.

The ICO has been issuing fines, like they are going out of fashion at the moment, to cold call companies.

One of the defences put forward was, at some point in the past, the individual had agreed to cold calling.

That didn't wash, ICO said you should have checked that the information was up to date

No.

The data protection principles referred to in the DPA don't apply to disclosures made in connection with legal proceedings under Part IV, section 35 of the act.

pappa_golf

TDA wrote: »

No.

The data protection principles referred to in the DPA don't apply to disclosures made in connection with legal proceedings under Part IV, section 35 of the act.

and such a simple amendment , could stop the fake CCJ fiasco in one fell swoop

TDA

pappa_golf wrote: »

and such a simple amendment , could stop the fake CCJ fiasco in one fell swoop

Not a simple amendment at all. You can't simply remove this clause from the DPA. It is there for a very good reason - court proceedings would become untenable if parties were unable to disclose documents (or request disclosure from third parties) because they would be in breach of the DPA in doing so.

This is just one unfortunate consequence which would be better dealt with by reform to the default judgment procedure, not amendment of a highly important and wide reaching section of the DPA.