CEL Whacked for £900 in DPA Breach Counterclaim

beamerguy

We all know that the DVLA will wriggle and squirm out of their obligations but would love to see the DVLA in court

The key right now is the bogus law firms the PPC's use.
Before they attempt one of their fake claims, they need to take stock of the claim from the PPC and advise them accordingly

In as much as involving the DVLA in a data breach in court, so should the bogus law firms be involved, not just the PPC.
Without the bogus law firms, I doubt that most PPC's would attempt court all by themselves

It is after all, the bogus legal firms who provide a witness statement

BWlegal, Gladstones, Wright Hassall, SCSLaw and even Miah
are not exempt from Data Breach claims

Ruurb

Stop for just 5 seconds at BHX - and you could be on your way to at least £750. APCOA, by-laws, not relevant land, non-PoFA and, if you ignore it long enough, get DRP dragged in too.

Nice couple of flights to the sun for you.

Interesting, I'm off on holiday beginning of July leaving from BHX.. maybe I'll take an extended drive round there So assuming bye-laws apply to the site, any reference to POFA can't apply and so keeper liability does not apply and only the Airport landowners can sue as per bye-laws?

Timothea

Ruurb wrote: »

So assuming bye-laws apply to the site, any reference to POFA can't apply and so keeper liability does not apply and only the Airport landowners can sue as per bye-laws?

You are basically correct. Some PPCs try to get around bye-laws by offering keepers a "pay £100 to avoid being taken to the Magistrates' Court" deal. This is, of course, no deal at all. PPCs know that nobody will ever be prosecuted, but some mugs will be scared enough to pay up anyway.

waamo

Ruurb wrote: »

Interesting, I'm off on holiday beginning of July leaving from BHX.. maybe I'll take an extended drive round there So assuming bye-laws apply to the site, any reference to POFA can't apply and so keeper liability does not apply and only the Airport landowners can sue as per bye-laws?

Liverpool is a better choice as you don't need to assume byelaws are in place.

nigelbb

Ruurb wrote: »

Not wanting to put a dampener on things here but if CEL had any common sense, they would slap in an immediate appeal to get it overturned and I think the chances of being successful is pretty high.

It will be an uphill struggle for CEL to be given leave to appeal considering they didn't bother to turn up for the case in the first place.

nigelbb

Castle wrote: »

Don't forget, your Vehicle Registration Number is personal data, (paragraph 6):-
https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/consultation-responses/2015/1431796/ico-response-to-dclg-parking-reform-consultation.pdf

Interesting that in the Information Commissioner's opinion

14. Organisations must also have strict retention policies that ensure that data collected about individuals is not kept for longer than is necessary. Once a vehicle has left a car park without contravening the conditions for parking there will not be any justification for continuing to hold the information about that vehicle and they should be deleted immediately. Organisations must ensure that they choose systems that allow them to select an appropriate retention period, and that these systems are properly configured to delete information at the appropriate time.

We know that immediate deletion of the VRNs of non-infringing cars does not happen as we hear of cases where PPCs produce a list of VRNs to demonstrate that a particular VRN was not entered when purchasing a ticket in a Pay & Display car park.

The_Deep

But a list of VRNs is not proof that ownership details were obtained.

Ivor_Pecheque

This is great stuff.


Are we any nearer to a "PPI reclaim" scenario ?

beamerguy

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

This is great stuff.


Are we any nearer to a "PPI reclaim" scenario ?

Where there is muck there is money

I am sure this will happen, maybe Martin Lewis will get this kicked off as he did with PPI.

Timothea

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

Are we any nearer to a "PPI reclaim" scenario ?

There will be no redress bonanza for people ripped off by PPCs. When the gravy train stops, owners will simply extract all the profits and cease trading. Big banks, on the other hand, cannot do that, so tens of billions of pounds have been paid out to financially-ignorant people, which they mainly spent on cars and holidays.

The only glimmer of light is the very unlikely possibility that DVLA will be found to have been complicit in the Private Parking Rip-Off scandal and the government decides to settle a large class-action claim. There was a guy trying to do this, as I recall, but not enough people came forward: the silence of the lambs.