Tad Miffed

Coupon-mad

How about an online 'concern about misuse of your personal data' complaint to the ICO?

It's free and might get you compensation if the Information Commissioner agrees, as I believe they have that power.

It's specifically for data abuse concerns, so, you'd be saying:

- look here's the proof that the Claimant and their agents knew my current address for service, and had corresponded with me at that address

- here's the proof they used the OLD address to secretly send a court claim to my old address where they KNEW I didn't live, and here's the Order showing I lost by default because of that data misuse.

- here's the proof that I had no choice but to pay, which is surely unfair and against the DPA principles, to use an old address when they have the up to date address for service

- here's what the CPR says about using the right address for service:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06

Service of the claim form where before service the defendant gives an address at which the defendant may be served

- here's an article exposing parking firms who do just this

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/government-announce-ccj-review-due-to.html

- here is what the Government had to say about parking firms issuing court claims to the wrong address:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-protect-consumers-from-debt-claims

- and here is proof that the PPC knew from the DVLA, that they were not to continue to use outdated addresses rather than take reasonable steps. This is from a DVLA Freedom of Information Request (FOIR 3988) from June 2014 so the parking firm knew about the DVLA allowing the use of 'Trace' and the sensible reasons for using up to date addresses - but won't as they can get default CCJ's.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74821051#Comment_74821051

So, this trader used an old address they KNEW was inaccurate, and cost me £xxx as a result of their conduct, how can this be legal under the GDPR?

Eagles1905

@Coupon-Mad - thank you very much, this is one of the many reasons I continue to use this forum! Glad we have crossed paths again.

Good luck for the rest of the season by the way.

Coupon-mad

Ta...eeek...can't bring myself to say the same (I remember the seventies).



DPA section on compensation:

DPA 1998 Section 13. 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.

The_Deep

If yo have the tiniest suspicion that Gladstones acted unprofesionally complain here

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

The ICO complaint will be about the parking firm, not Gladstones.

Eagles1905

A formal complaint will be issued to both the Solicitor and Parking Firm in due course!

I am going to review all my documents when I return home this evening and will start putting some words together.

Thank you chaps.

Coupon-mad

I'm a female Seagull, but glad to help encourage another ICO complaint.

Fruitcake

Eagles1905 wrote: »

A formal complaint will be issued to both the Solicitor and Parking Firm in due course!

I am going to review all my documents when I return home this evening and will start putting some words together.

Thank you chaps.

… and chapesses.

Eagles1905

Forgive my ignorance ladies! Thank you

peter_the_piper

Eagles1905 wrote: »

Hi guys. Having contacted the court this morning I was informed the hearing had come and gone, the customer service agent advised two options:

1) Pay the CCJ amount in full
2) Apply to have the judgement set aside at a cost of £255.00

I have either been misinformed or have over reacted this morning, however what's done is done and I would just like to move forward now.

The claimant did indeed have my new address (and my telephone number!?) Would I be right in saying the court would issue documents to the address provided by the claimant? If I had the funds i would most definitely be pursuing this further.

Slight concern here.

Set aside £255
You paid £255
Was that definitely to pay the ccj or was it a set aside?

Just coincidence its the same figure?