Is this a breach of DPA?

Frozzylis

Hi!!

I own a static caravan situated on a Holiday Park. I decided that I did not want to renew my licence. The site offered me a pittance for the caravan yet selling same type for £12,000. I decided to sell to a buyer off site.

I received a call from my buyer to say the Park would not allow the van to be removed. A Sales Manager told him 'would you let a van off that owes money' then proceeded to tell my buyer how much and what for. (The actual debt they were relating to was one I had disputed a year earlier and as I had no received any further correspondence or demanding letters, accepted that this had been dealt with).

I am still waiting for the company to come back to me regarding this 'old debt' and my caravan is still situated at the park. I feel that their behaviour was a deliberate attempt to hinder the sale for their financial benefit.

Have they breached the Data Protection Act Section 7?

Thank you for any help :-)

daytona0

I think the bigger issue is the fact that your caravan is being held ransom over this debt which is allegedly owed...

- Assuming that you own it, and you haven't signed anything to give them ownership if you default on a payment, then they need to give it back to you. In fact, you could take them to court and potentially throw on charges relating to the failed sale in the right circumstances...

- If they believe that you owe a debt then they need to take you to small claims court over it... (unless you are being awkward and not disclosing your home address, which is a douchebag move on your part).

That's how this whole scenario should pan out! Serve them a letter before action for your property to be released. If they don't comply then take them to small claims court.


It is not a data protection breach, least of all because it is only what you ALLEGEDLY owe! If it had gone through the courts and you had a CCJ against you then *maybe*, but even then its not really personal/private information is it? DPA is more to do with your demographics (gender, age, sexual orientation etc) and personal information (email address, home address). It could be considered defamation of character, but only if it is not true...

Frozzylis

Lol they know where I live, contact number and my place of work!! We had caravans on this site for many years!! The park was taken over by one of the big holiday parks - my argument was I still had original agreement which stated water and rates were included in the pitch fee's. This was last year and previous general manager dealt with my dispute. Nothing more was said and I received no further demands or late payment fee's (this is another one of their favourites) so I assumed it had been dealt with.

Still feel they are trying to scupper sale so they get it. It is worth at least £10,000 to them!!

twhitehousescat

they can say , the caravan cannot be removed untill "£xx" is paid ,, "what for you say" , outstanding fees

they cannot say mr/mrs bloggs ows us £xx for an unpaid water bill

unholyangel

“personal data” means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified—
(a)from those data, or
(b)from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,

Which would qualify this as personal data (and therefore a breach of DPA imo). There are a few exemptions - such as where the disclosure is required by law (tax purposes for example) but afaik, none of those apply here.

OP, you should make a formal complaint to the company. You can also complain to the ICO although they prefer you to get a final response from companies before complaining to them (easier said than done sometimes as a lot of organisations just ignore DPA complaints). You're unlikely to be able to get any form of compensation though unless its actually caused you a loss in some way - for example you lost a sale of £9000 and later had to drop the price to £8000, you might be able to claim for the £1000...any damages that wouldnt have otherwise occurred if not for their breach basically.

What kind of caravan is it? There are some differences between the law around them. Also, were you given or did you sign any terms and conditions which allow them to place a lien? IIRC you can only place a lien in certain circumstances.

DoaM

unholyangel wrote: »

You're unlikely to be able to get any form of compensation though unless its actually caused you a loss in some way

I don't believe that is true. For example, there are cases where private parking companies (PPCs) have sought keeper data from DVLA in relation to a parking charge they've issue, where the PPC had no reasonable cause to do so ... I'm aware of two such cases where the keeper has sued the PPC for a DPA breach, and the sums awarded have ranged between £250 and £750.

You don't need to prove a loss ... I believe such a claim is because the PPC has committed a tort?

unholyangel

DoaM wrote: »

I don't believe that is true. For example, there are cases where private parking companies (PPCs) have sought keeper data from DVLA in relation to a parking charge they've issue, where the PPC had no reasonable cause to do so ... I'm aware of two such cases where the keeper has sued the PPC for a DPA breach, and the sums awarded have ranged between £250 and £750.

You don't need to prove a loss ... I believe such a claim is because the PPC has committed a tort?

It is a tort but damage still does need to have occurred in some way. For instance someone who had their medical records accessed by a partner which made their mental health condition worse was awarded compensation for psychological damage. Distress is not automatic and there are further qualifying criteria.

The DPA itself sets out when compensation can be claimed:

Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements.

(1)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.

(2)An individual who suffers distress 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 distress if—

(a)the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention, or

(b)the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes.

(3)In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this section it is a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the requirement concerned.

Special purposes are defined as:

3 The special purposes.

In this Act “the special purposes” means any one or more of the following—
(a)the purposes of journalism,

(b)artistic purposes, and

(c)literary purposes.

Which means that even if distress is caused, if the processing wasnt for the 3 purposes above, damage of some kind needs to have occurred before compensation can be claimed for distress.

Castle

unholyangel wrote: »

Which means that even if distress is caused, if the processing wasnt for the 3 purposes above, damage of some kind needs to have occurred before compensation can be claimed for distress.

Google vs Vidal-Hall ruled that damages can be sought for distress alone without any need for damage.

Coupon-mad

What about these two claims which were exclusively for distress and anxiety, not financial damage:

Vidal-Hall, as mentioned by Castle:

http://www.linklaters.com/Insights/Publication1403Newsletter/TMT-News-June-2015/Pages/UK-Google-Vidal-Hall-green-light-compensation-claims.aspx

''Finally, the Court found that the claimants can claim for distress without having to prove pecuniary loss. This greatly increases the scope for compensation claims in the future given an invasion of privacy will rarely be accompanied by actual monetary loss.''


And Halliday:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/333.html

''I would accept as a general principle that, where an important European instrument such as data protection has not been complied with, there ought to be an award, and it is to be expected that the complainant will be frustrated by the non-compliance.''

41. ''We proceed on the footing that it is not necessary for Mr Halliday to prove any ascertainable financial loss under section 13(1) in order that damages for distress can be recoverable under section 13(2).''

48. ''He says in his witness statement that he was highly distressed. In the circumstances, accepting that as it stands, I agree that the award should be in the sum of £750 for damages for distress under section 13(2), in addition to the £1 under section 13(1).''

System

Which operator? And more importantly what does your license say?

Your home is "parked" in the same way a car uses a car park. You have a temporary license to occupy the space until your ticket runs out or you renew.

Don't they have an arbitration scheme?

steampowered

The Data Protection Act permits disclosure of your personal data where "The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject", see Schedule 2 of the Act.

If a debt is owed, then I think disclosing details of that debt to a potential buyer could be lawful as falling within the extract I have posted.

Surely the more important question is whether they can stop you removing your caravan.

I would have thought you must be able to move your property, unless there is something in your contract which lets them stop you?

unholyangel wrote: »

The DPA itself sets out when compensation can be claimed

Section 13(2) of the DPA does indeed say that you can't claim for distress unless you have suffered damage. However that section of the Act was disapplied by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it is incompatible with EU law (the Data Protection Act simply implements the EU Data Protection Directive).

Personally I think that decision is likely to get overturned if it reaches the Supreme Court, and the case was on its way to the Supreme Court, but google settled before the case got there so we will never know what would have happened.