Is this a breach of DPA?

unholyangel

Castle wrote: »

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

Its not over yet - they've been granted an appeal by the supreme court and the basis of the appeal basically hinges on damages and whether the court of appeal erred in their application and interpretation of damages to include non-pecuniary losses when its common ground that damages does not include non-pecuniary loss.

Available here if you fancy a read: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/311.html

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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

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).''

Halliday was also claiming for damage to his reputation - not just distress. He was awarded £1 for damages to his reputation which paved the way for his £750 damages for distress.

Also, as said in the appeal judgement:

Mr Halliday submits that merely to award nominal damages, and indeed nominal damages plus damages for distress, would not meet Article 24. The court also ought to impose a penalty. Mr Halliday points out that the expression "Member State" would include organs of the Member State including its courts.

In my judgment, there are three answers to this point. Firstly, this provision is about the adoption of measures, by implication legislative measures. The Member State (the United Kingdom) has done that by enacting the Data Protection Act 1998, which contains a large number of provisions designed to implement the Directive in a variety of ways. This particular provision is not, in my judgment, directly enforceable by an individual in private law proceedings. In order for it to be directly enforceable the provisions of the Directive relied on must be "unconditional and precise". They refer there to Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337 at paragraph 12. It is a well-known principle, and there is nothing which is specific in this Article to enable Mr Halliday to enforce it.

The second point that I would make in answer to the argument under this Article is that it is not the function of the civil court, unless specifically provided for, to impose sanctions. That is done in other parts of the judicial system.

Thirdly, "measures", and going back therefore to the wording of Article 24, would include all sorts of measures, for example administrative remedies or provisions for records and so on, and criminal penalties. They would not simply be limited to an award of a monetary amount in favour of a particular complainant in civil proceedings. Indeed, it might well be thought that that was not an appropriate way to impose a sanction as such, as opposed to compensation.

ETA: Originally they had not even heard his case for distress as they had ruled nominal damages didn't entitle you to damages for distress. The appeal agreed with the claimant that there was no provision for damage to be substantial in order to qualify for distress.

Coupon-mad

Its not over yet - they've been granted an appeal by the supreme court and the basis of the appeal basically hinges on damages and whether the court of appeal erred in their application and interpretation of damages to include non-pecuniary losses when its common ground that damages does not include non-pecuniary loss.

It is over so the result stands.

https://www.burges-salmon.com/news-and-insight/legal-updates/damages-for-distressed-data-subjects-google-withdraws-its-appeal/

...until future events around Brexit change things, there is scope for claims for DPA breach. Going back to the OP, I believe telling a third party about disputed money allegedly owed by the OP surely breaches DPA principles.

unholyangel

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It is over so the result stands.

https://www.burges-salmon.com/news-and-insight/legal-updates/damages-for-distressed-data-subjects-google-withdraws-its-appeal/

...until future events around Brexit change things, there is scope for claims for DPA breach. Going back to the OP, I believe telling a third party about disputed money allegedly owed by the OP surely breaches DPA principles.

That article says the appeal was withdrawn because the parties reached a settlement. Granted the judgement still stands - as do the potential challenges to it. You aren't allowed to appeal purely because you don't like the judgement. You can only appeal on a point of law or in some instances, fact.

steampowered

unholyangel wrote: »

That article says the appeal was withdrawn because the parties reached a settlement. Granted the judgement still stands - as do the potential challenges to it.

I agree that the decision seems a bit questionable to me. However the decision of the Court of Appeal is binding legal precedent. The county court, High Court and Court of Appeal are all bound by it.

The only way it could get overturned would be if a similar case was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. Realistically that is never going to happen with regards to the Op.

pinkshoes

Pay the money supposedly owed with a note saying paid under duress or similar (get it in writing that they will not let you remove caravan until debt is paid), sell the caravan, then take them to court for the money you had to pay that you didn't owe.

Coupon-mad

unholyangel wrote: »

That article says the appeal was withdrawn because the parties reached a settlement. Granted the judgement still stands - as do the potential challenges to it. You aren't allowed to appeal purely because you don't like the judgement. You can only appeal on a point of law or in some instances, fact.

No-one said otherwise, but you said it wasn't over.

It is over and the CoA decision sets a binding precedent that people can cite to claim for distress in DPA misuse claims.

Frozzylis

To be fair I am not actually looking for compensation, it is the principle of the whole situation. Caravan sales are the big thing at the moment and these big companies sell caravans at extortionate prices but put in an attractive package, i.e. free pitch fee's for two years and only £*** per month. People snap them up and once pitch fee's start coming into play they actually realise they cannot afford them so as per licence agreement you have to give company first refusal. They offer you 'book price' which is usually 20% of what you paid. They also have clauses in the agreement that if you sell privately, not only do you have to give them a % of the sale but the purchasers would have to pay a higher pitch fee... Because of the aggravation of selling privately they end up selling back to the company at a pittance, who then put it on the forecourt £10,000 more with the attractive package and it all starts again.

I refused to sell my van to the company out of principle. I would rather an small independent company get the profits. I know this would have annoyed the park as my van was worth a good £8 - £10,000 to them, I feel that they deliberately tried to put the seller off by making out I was a 'risk'.

The alleged outstanding bill (nothing else is outstanding) was for a Water Rates bill. When this Company took over they assigned my pitch licence. I have never signed anything new with them or have so everything in my old agreement legally stands. In my agreement (which we showed them) it stated that the Water Rates were in with the Pitch Fee's.

I disputed this last year and when I put this to the General Manager, he never came back to me or disputed my claim. In fact I never received a demand letter or late payment charges, which this company tends to send out pretty quickly from what I have been told.

It is a week now and they haven't come back with an answer. The Caravan is still on the pitch and pretty much at a stale mate.

I do not rent the van, I rent the pitch so I agree that they cannot hold a van that actually does not belong to me anymore. I have read through my agreement and there is nothing on there that states they can do this. Again it all falls back to my old agreement and their's.

I am going to pen an email today formally complaining about their actions and hopefully resolve the situation.