DPA Breaches - Compensation

DoaM

With reference to this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5594074

This seems to suggest that claiming (and getting) a sum from a PPC for a DPA breach may not be on as sound a footing as we (and Pranky) may think.

Thoughts?

twhitehousescat

conpletly situation , did the company state "Mrs X" owes for outstanding water rates , OR simply the caravan cannot be moved till outstanding fees have been paid ?

on the PPC game we have a secret tool "kodoe" ,

bargepole

DoaM wrote: »

This seems to suggest that claiming (and getting) a sum from a PPC for a DPA breach may not be on as sound a footing as we (and Pranky) may think.

"We" don't think it's a straightforward matter at all, every case turns on its own facts, and it is necessary for the Claimant to establish which principles of the DPA were breached, and why they are entitled to damages for that breach.

Not every PCN which is cancelled by POPLA, or claim dismissed in Court, necessarily constitutes a breach of the DPA, contrary to what some over-excitable posters assert in some forums.

So in order to decide whether there is a cause of action for a claim, two questions have to be answered:

1/ Did the PPC have reasonable cause to request RK data from the DVLA in the first place?
2/ If they did, and were subsequently provided with relevant information by the keeper or driver, were they acting lawfully in further processing that data?

If either answer is no, a potential claim arises.

But even then, with a fully evidenced and properly pleaded case, claimants will be subject to the lottery of 'DJ Bingo', just as PPCs are when taking cases to court. I would expect the success rate to be around 50%, but time will tell.

Half_way

As far as i know a DPA breach as a result of a PPCs actions hasn't yet gone through, the fuel is there for the fire, but until someone light the match its a case of waiting and seeing.
There are a few figures being banded around,, between £250 and £750, and to be honest, i think it would be unwise to go for the £750 unless it could be demonstrably proven that that amount of damage had been done. Anyone going for a DPA claim/counter claim should keep things on the conservative side, or risk the DJ lottery seeing it as a frivolous claim.
Also if and wherever possible whatever entity contracted the parking company should also be in the firing line, the only exception to this would be a one person buisness, or a local committee type set up, big corporations and large company's should know better and have staff/resources to scrutinise business decisions

The_Deep

I am dealing with an Apcoa PCN under contract law on railway land at present.

The PPC issued a windscreen ticket which was ignored. They then issued a NTK/O which started off politely asking the name of the keeper/owner, then they started to get ansty, "a charge is payable and must be paid by ..., Why?, by whom? I ask.

As they give PoPLA details, and the invoice is addressed to the RK, I assume that they want the RK to pay it. Yet they know full well he/she is not liable.n

So, it should not be difficult surely to persuade a judge that the details were obtained without reasonable cause.

Similarly, if a PPC windscreen tickets you in your own space, and you complain to the MA, if the PPC then obtains your details from the DVLA, they may well have not had proper cause to access your data.

I can see that a RK request in a shopping Centre car park is less clear cut, but if they do not have proper authority from the landowner, or the signs are not up to snuff, or they have failed to factor in grace periods, and a court or PoPLa finds for the motorist, they could well have obtained your details improperly.

As OP says, let us see what the courts decide.

Half_way

Some of the easiest claims would be the residential cases where the driver is either the landholder, or has had permission form the landholder to ark in that space and their lease is in the clear regarding parking

safarmuk

I think it will be Residential Parking cases where this DPA breach has the most legs. For example:

So in order to decide whether there is a cause of action for a claim, two questions have to be answered:

1/ Did the PPC have reasonable cause to request RK data from the DVLA in the first place?
2/ If they did, and were subsequently provided with relevant information by the keeper or driver, were they acting lawfully in further processing that data?

Think of it this way - the PPC gives you a PCN in your allocated bay or your visitor in a visitors bay. You write to the PPC saying that you are the leaseholder (and providing evidence) and they should cancel the ticket immediately as you have a right to use the allocated bay or the visitor has a right to use the visitors bay as per your lease. You state that they must desist immediately.

The PPC don't cancel the ticket and dont desist, proceed to get the RK details for the car and send a letter to the RK.

At this point IMO there is a breach. Simply because they were told the true facts, ignored them and then deliberately went ahead and retrieved data they shouldn't have.

They key point is they were warned not to, but continued to do so.

The_Deep

It is the "own space" cases which are the most insidious. Many of my tenants have been foreigners, other may be on HB. Tenants in blocks of affordable flats are more likely to be poor and/or vulnerable than say the debnizens of Dolphin Square.

What is needed is somewhat of the calibre of Roger Davey or Laura Jopson to give them a good kicking.

Coupon-mad

it should not be difficult surely to persuade a judge that the details were obtained without reasonable cause.

I think in the sort of case you describe, DP, it would be a lot easier if the recipient first responds to APCOA and informs them that:

- they decline the invitation to name the driver
- as this was the only purpose for which the DVLA released the keeper's data, that purpose now ceases to exist
- as this is not 'relevant land' there can be no keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the POFA
- therefore there is no reasonable cause to continue to process the keeper's data.

Make that a Section 10 Notice 'objection to processing' under the DPA giving them 21 days to confirm the data has been deleted and then, if APCOA ignore that (especially good if they ignore it then share the data with debt collectors to hound the keeper a la Ferguson v British Gas) that's the time for a LBCCC to APCOA and the landowner.

Always the landowner too (in fact, whoever has contracted the PPC). Jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agent.

The_Deep

Problem is CM, this is for my Son in Law, who is far too busy working all hours keeping my daughter in the manner to which she is accustomed to faff around with car park persons.