Counter-claiming for emotional stress

The_Deep

I know this is very difficult to get this past a judge, doctors' letters, psychiatric reports, prescriptions for temazipan, etc., will be asked for, but to prevent the PPC from cancelling at the eleventh hour, after you have spent hours sweating over your defence, counter-claiming for a small sum, say £50 so that you can have your day in court. You could throw in a tenner for trespass if this is an "own space" scam.

If you win, you can ask the judge for CPR27(2)(g) costs due to their unreasonable behaviour, and perhaps, add a DPA claim.

I know that court, even SCC is not everyone's glass of chardonnay, but the more robust who come to us, might like to give it a go.

What do others think?

Coupon-mad

Yes, I think there should be more counter-claims, now that we've seen a little bit about how the land lies. But not all cases lend themselves to a counter-claim (residential ones, and byelaws land ones, and double-dips, and very short overstays - like eleven minutes - and disabled driver cases, and all MIL cases, will likely be ripe for it).

Not for your bog-standard ParkingEye 50 minute overstay at Asda, sadly.

But yep, people should consider it, and I reckon the counter-claim should be three figures, at least matching what the scumbags are demanding. If we now do this more, and threaten it clearly at LBCCC reply stage, then this could make some PPCs think twice. I have been writing counter-claims for people and start by making it clear that the Defendant (victim of the original claim) is the data subject and the PPC is the data controller.

I have this as a first point now, in any counter-claim (below). I've tried to show the Judge that there is no question that the PPC 'holds itself out' as a data controller, so I said this as my first point in a fairly lengthy counter-claim for someone (only fully applicable where the data came from the DVLA):


1. The Defendant raising this counter-claim against the Claimant, is the registered keeper of the vehicle with the registration number xxxxxxx.

2. (i) The Claimant in this original claim is a private parking company who are required to adhere to the International Parking Community's Code of Practice, which holds all members out for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998, as a 'data controller'. In Section B (5): Data Processing: ''You are required to be registered with the Information Commissioner as a data controller.''

(ii) This status as a data controller is reiterated by the DVLA in the KADOE contract, under which an Approved Operator parking firm (the party known to the DVLA as 'the Customer') obtain data, which states: ''The Customer, separately from the DVLA, shall be the Data Controller of each item of Data received from the DVLA from the point of receipt of that Data by the Customer or its Link Provider and shall be responsible for complying with the principles of the DPA in relation to its further Processing of that Data.''

(iii) It follows that there is no question that this Claimant bears the responsibility of being, and holds itself out as, a data controller in this matter.

The_Deep

Yes, I think there should be more counter-claims, (Coupon Mad)

Widening this a bit, how about counter claiming for negligence where a default judgement has been obtained by a PPC who has failed in their duty of care to trace an alleged debtor who has changed house some years ago.

The law seems pretty clear, the tort of negligence may have been committed where a person has failed to act as a reasonable person to someone to whom s/he owes a duty, as required by law under the circumstances. Is it because at present PPCs do not owe their victims a duty of care?

If through a default judgement about which they were unaware someone is unable to get a mortgage, business loan, etc., it could cost them several thousand pounds, and the stress could be immense. Should not the PPC be forced to compensate them in such circumstance.

Half_way

What about the entity that too the PPC on to act as its agents?

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

Widening this a bit, how about counter claiming for negligence where a default judgement has been obtained by a PPC who has failed in their duty of care to trace an alleged debtor who has changed house some years ago.

The law seems pretty clear, the tort of negligence may have been committed where a person has failed to act as a reasonable person to someone to whom s/he owes a duty, as required by law under the circumstances. Is it because at present PPCs do not owe their victims a duty of care?

If through a default judgement about which they were unaware someone is unable to get a mortgage, business loan, etc., it could cost them several thousand pounds, and the stress could be immense. Should not the PPC be forced to compensate them in such circumstance.

Counterclaims have been tried in a number of cases based on DPA breach, and so far the only ones which have succeeded have been cases where the PPC didn't turn up. In every contested hearing so far, Judges have accepted the argument that the PPC were entitled to pursue the defendant on the basis that there was an allegation of damages owed for breach of contract.

Whether a PPC owes a duty of care to a motorist who has an old unpaid ticket is a question yet to be asked in court, but I suspect that the ruling would be that the PPC correctly served papers to the last known address, and that would be good enough. That may change, subject to any new independent CoP brought in by Parliament on the back of Sir Greg Knight's PMB.

The current thinking is that counterclaims (or new claims against PPCs) will stand a better chance if based on the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. I have been advised to go along that route by different Judges in different courts. In order to prove the claim, OPs will need to have kept all the begging letters from the PPC, their lapdog dodgy debt collectors, and the likes of Gladrags. Watch this space.

logician

The_Deep wrote: »

Yes, I think there should be more counter-claims, (Coupon Mad)

Widening this a bit, how about counter claiming for negligence where a default judgement has been obtained by a PPC who has failed in their duty of care to trace an alleged debtor who has changed house some years ago.

The law seems pretty clear, the tort of negligence may have been committed where a person has failed to act as a reasonable person to someone to whom s/he owes a duty, as required by law under the circumstances. Is it because at present PPCs do not owe their victims a duty of care?

If through a default judgement about which they were unaware someone is unable to get a mortgage, business loan, etc., it could cost them several thousand pounds, and the stress could be immense. Should not the PPC be forced to compensate them in such circumstance.

I seem to recall that Mike Green casehub attempted a class action at one point for this, which like all others fell flat on its face

bargepole wrote: »

Counterclaims have been tried in a number of cases based on DPA breach, and so far the only ones which have succeeded have been cases where the PPC didn't turn up. In every contested hearing so far, Judges have accepted the argument that the PPC were entitled to pursue the defendant on the basis that there was an allegation of damages owed for breach of contract.

Whether a PPC owes a duty of care to a motorist who has an old unpaid ticket is a question yet to be asked in court, but I suspect that the ruling would be that the PPC correctly served papers to the last known address, and that would be good enough. That may change, subject to any new independent CoP brought in by Parliament on the back of Sir Greg Knight's PMB.

The current thinking is that counterclaims (or new claims against PPCs) will stand a better chance if based on the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. I have been advised to go along that route by different Judges in different courts. In order to prove the claim, OPs will need to have kept all the begging letters from the PPC, their lapdog dodgy debt collectors, and the likes of Gladrags. Watch this space.

IMO, It would help also then if OPs not only kept the begging debt collector letters but engaged with them denying the debt. Harassment is very difficult to prove and if the OP can show the debt was constantly denied, but was still written to with increasing demands, then this would demonstrate unreasonable conduct and indicate more harassment.

The_Deep

I agree with Logician, I always keep a paper trail. I once sent seven letters to Orange and received not one reply. Their behaviour left the Ombudsman unimpressed and I prevailed. .

The_Deep

Thank you for your comments.

Bargepole makes the point that a judge might take the view that court papers have been correctly served when sent to the last known address.

Indeed he/she might, but he might take an opposite view, that before a CCJ is issued in absentia, an event which could have a disastrous effect on a person's life, perhaps even leading to suicide, strenuous efforts should be made by the PPC to trace the alleged debtor.

I do not think that POFA is sufficiently clear on this, known to whom?

Unless someone is subject to witness protection, it is not usually very difficult to trace them. There are tracing agents all over the internet which will attempt to do it for a fee, social media, telephone directories, reverse lookup, 192.com, electoral rolls, google, Dacebook, lost friends websites, etc.

Recently on here, a Doctor received a CCJ by default, surely a doctor should be easy enough to trace, it took me seconds to find my own doctor.

Perhaps we should think seriously about of advising victims of such default CCJs, if they are prepared to take a punt, to make claims against a PPC who has made little or no effort under the Law of Negligence.

If I were such a victim I would, the applicable Law seems much easier for an everyman to understand than Contract Law..