MIL-2 more lost court cases

Northlakes

The person I was advising was very concerned by a letter from Zenith signed by their 'litigation manager'.
I knew their modus operandi so I had informed that person to expect a letter from Zenith but even so the tone of the letter is intimidating.
A letter is needed stating that the case has been successfully appealed at POPLA (also the keeper wasn't the driver in this case) and any further communications from them will result in proceedings being taken against them.

Castle

Northlakes wrote: »

In a particular case, I submitted a successful appeal to POPLA and the PPC (even before adjudication) passed on to DRP for recovery. Letters have now started coming from Zenith. As the PPC knows full well that the case has been lost only DRP could have passed this onto Zenith. I consider that a misuse of data.

Check the company registration number at the bottom of the Zenith letters; if it's 06774150 then the letters are coming from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd, but using a different trading name.

Northlakes

Castle wrote: »

Check the company registration number at the bottom of the Zenith letters; if it's 06774150 then the letters are coming from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd, but using a different trading name.

Thanks for hint. You're correct they are using the DRP company number in the bottom RH corner of the letter but the Zenith official trading address. Not sure they can do this. Misrepresentation?

MothballsWallet

Northlakes wrote: »

Thanks for hint. You're correct they are using the DRP company number in the bottom RH corner of the letter but the Zenith official trading address. Not sure they can do this. Misrepresentation?

Well, Zenith & DRP are the same company, so whether a misrepresentation complaint would be successful isn't clear to me: DRP could always claim "oh, you're right, our bad - we missed the company number on the template, sowwy mr wegulator" and get a free cake and no punishment.

That's the UK for you.

pappa_golf

or that all costs caused by debt collection could be claimed back as ther company told "porkie pies" and used incorrect details

Northlakes

A sarcastic reply might be the best answer telling them to stop wasting their money.
A complaint to the BPA could be made but that would fall on deaf ears.

pappa_golf

have they got ears for a customer* , complaints to the ISPA , oh wait ,,,,,,,,

*boys club to look after and protect thier paying members

Coupon-mad

Northlakes wrote: »

The person I was advising was very concerned by a letter from Zenith signed by their 'litigation manager'.
I knew their modus operandi so I had informed that person to expect a letter from Zenith but even so the tone of the letter is intimidating.
A letter is needed stating that the case has been successfully appealed at POPLA (also the keeper wasn't the driver in this case) and any further communications from them will result in proceedings being taken against them.

Seems like data misuse to me, Northlakes, in that the parking firm passed the data to DRPlus when they are specifically disallowed from doing so under their CoP, whilst a case is at POPLA.

I would recommend in this case (and in all MIL cases IMHO - but not 'every' parking case by any means), a punt for £250 - or £750 if you feel lucky - making sure the defendants include the LANDOWNER as well as the parking firm who misused the data.

I believe (correct me if I am wrong, anyone) you can name no more than two defendants by using the online MCOL system.

Landowners are far, far, more likely to fold when they see something like this, so never just threaten the debt collectors or parking firms. Certainly include the monkeys but also go for the Organ Grinder every time, in MIL cases or in the one Northlakes describes:


(this is set out as a letter with name, address, date and any ref at the top - this version assumes this is keeper data, provided by the DVLA)


LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM


Dear Sir/Madam,

First Defendant: (name the parking firm guilty of sharing the data)
Second Defendant: (name the landowner as per the info shown to POPLA)

This letter is sent in accordance with the Practice Directions on Pre-Action Conduct, as set out in the Civil Procedure Rules. The Defendants named above are held to be jointly and severally liable for compensatory payments in respect of a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), as set out below.

This matter arises from the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by the First Defendant and their subsequent sharing of my data, which they had obtained from the DVLA, subject to strict rules. The Second Defendant is the landowner of the site and the First Defendant acts under the instruction and authority of the Second Defendant. On this basis, the agent/principal relationship giving rise to joint and several liability is clearly established in this case.

The facts are that I made an appeal to the 'PCN' then a further appeal to POPLA, the independent adjudicator, which was decided in my favour. However, whilst the case was under appeal, the First Defendant had taken a deliberate step to share my data prematurely and unlawfully, with a third party debt collector, a notorious company using various trading names including 'Debt Recovery Plus' and 'Zenith Collections'. That firm continues to harass me and are acting as agents for the First Defendant, who have paid no regard to the fact that there is no lawful excuse for continued processing of my data by an agent who should never have been provided with it.

This misuse of my data was not only unfair and unwarranted at the point that it was shared but in fact, the First Defendant's conduct was specifically contrary to the BPA Code of Practice (CoP). This requires accredited operators to cease all work in relation to pursuing charges, whilst an appeal is in hand. Further, under the KADOE rules - which the First Defendant must adhere to when processing DVLA data - operators must fully comply with the BPA CoP when handling any keeper data. They have failed to do so, causing me significant harassment and distress.

Since my data was shared with the debt collectors prematurely and thus, unlawfully, it is my case that the First Defendant has breached the DPA Principles and that the Second Defendant is jointly responsible, in terms of their vicarious liability for the conduct of the data controller.

s13 of the DPA states under “Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements” 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”.

Two significant authorities support my claim:

Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311

and

Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333

In Vidal-Hall, it was held by the Court of Appeal that compensation was payable upon the fact of breach and it was not necessary to quantify a pecuniary loss. In Halliday, the Court of Appeal held that a compensatory sum of £750 was ‘appropriate and sufficient’.

Accordingly, since my case also involves significant data misuse (sharing and ongoing processing) my claim at this point in time is for the sum of £750. Since the DPA breach is indisputable in view of the dates and conduct described, both Defendants are respectfully advised that there is no requirement for me to quantify any loss. Both Defendants are further warned that should any party (including but not limited to debt collectors) contact me again in pursuit of the 'parking charge' each breach may give rise to a further sum in compensation.

Action required with 14 days of receipt of this letter:

I require you to settle the matter in the the sum of £750 payable to myself and remitted to the above address, within 14 days of your receipt of this letter (proof of posting has been retained). Failure to respond and/or pay the sum due will result in the issue of a Money Claim against both named parties without further reference to either Defendant. Do not ignore this matter.

In the event that a Claim is issued, please note that additional costs will be incurred and it is standard practice that interest on the sum claimed will also accumulate. Both Defendants are now urged to seek legal advice if you do not understand the implications of this letter.

Yours faithfully,





THE ABOVE LETTER IS SPECIFIC ONLY TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED BY NORTHLAKES.

DO NOT USE IT AS A TEMPLATE - MANY PARKING CASES WILL NOT LEND THEMSELVES TO A CLAIM, NOT ALL CASES INVOLVE DATA MISUSE.

Northlakes

Thanks CM for the detailed post. My Christmas reading will be the 1998 Data Protection Act.

What gets me uptight about this case is,

The signage at that site was deliberately not prominent and of such a small size that any motorist could be totally unaware of the car park being private land.
The PPC was too lazy to make the PCN compliant with POFA 2012 to hold the keeper liable.
The PPC made no attempt to justify their case at POPLA but started the debt recovery process before any adjudication could have taken place.
The keeper wasn't the driver or was anywhere near the parking event.
A deliberately misleading letter trying to act as different company to the original debt collecting agent DRP yet using the original company registration number.
The Zenith letter has a highlighted sentence,
It is OUR intention to collect this debt and pursue it to a legal conclusion if necessary. (My capitals)
This sentence is particularly intimidating given the fact that the keeper was never liable, the agent debt collector is never able to bring proceedings in their own right as the alleged debt hasn't been assigned.

This document is worth reading and I need to follow this up.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/debt-letters.pdf

The_Slithy_Tove

Castle wrote: »

Two more losses being reported by the Prankster due principally to there being no valid deed of assignment. (The question is; why aren't the courts chucking the cases out before the hearings?)

And even if the deeds of assignment were valid, they are breaching the DPA every single time they assign one of these bogus debts. I don't know what investigatory powers the ICO has, but surely they should be looking into this in a wider way than just looking at individual complaints. If the police get multiple reports of dodgy goings on in some area, they tend to dig deeper and potentially uncover lots more that's been unreported. Surely the same should be happening here.