UKPC/SCS LAW- Over £1000 County court claim- Residential parking

Coupon-mad

Dr_shadow wrote: »

What a shame! I would like to think If i win in court then i have made them pay financially for always harassing the residents (At least one resident in my block is terminating their rental agreement prematurely as they are sick of getting tickets in their own bay from UKPC). My idea for counterclaim came from the advise on NEWBIE 2 regarding counterclaiming if contesting a ticket for your own bay.

Out of interest, have their been any successful counterclaims in similar circumstances?

Yes, but not many.

Henry Hippo used a counter claim I helped him write, on pepipoo forum v UKPC (I post there as SchoolRunMum) and it was very much like your case:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=114450

Read the posts there carefully.

He said what clinched the counter claim being awarded was his evidence of distress and appearance in person, appearing distressed. Build that picture now...

You can use his claim number as a citation in your counter claim and you can certainly copy the style of words as it's there on the thread I think. I think he even got a transcript that was never made public, I recall he wanted it so he could go after another PPC using it as evidence of a previously successful counter claim.

Not sure if he will see your message but it might be worth you registering on pepipoo (NO HOTMAIL EMAILS ALLOWED) & pm-ing him to ask about his experience and if he did get a transcript that could be used for the greater good.

Show us the draft counter claim first, in case he used anything that is out of date now.

Dr_shadow

Many thanks for all your replies. Coupon-mad the link you provided was extremely useful. I have read all 19 pages carefully. I have also messaged henry hippo as advised on the off chance he sees it and has the script. Does anyone have the case number. It didn't seem on the forum although if i have to be honest i did become a little delirious by the time i got to the final pages so i might have missed it.

My counter-claim is based on the fact that no contractual contract was formed since the car park did not comply to the BPA COP and as such my information should not have been processed and constituted a DPA breach. My question is, should i include anything about me being a resident and is the parking company in breach of the DPA if it processes the information of tenant in their own spot. The only caveat with that is the parking company might claim they did not know i was a tenant until i answered the county court claim and submitted my defence hence why i did not include it. I am happy to be told otherwise!

My counter claim (based on the similar counter-claim from henry hippo but several changes made to suit my case) :

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

2. (i) The Claimant in this original claim is a private parking company who are required to adhere to the British parking association Code of Practice, which holds all members out for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998, as a 'data controller' in Section 12.2 ‘Under the Data Protection Act you will have to register as a data controller with the Information Commissioner’

(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 a data controller in this matter.

3. The Defendant in this original claim, being the registered keeper of the car in question, is the 'data subject' in this matter. The registration number of the vehicle, together with the Defendant's name and address details, all constitute personal data.


4.(i) The Claimant's operative photographed the vehicle, capturing and storing the VRN and an image of the vehicle, following which they obtained the Defendant's personal data, including name and address, from the DVLA. The land in question did not comply with the claimants regulatory body, British parking association, in requiring there to be sufficient signage, include entrance signage to form a contractual agreement. Since the claimants are in breach of the BPA code of practise, they are therefore not adhering to the KADOE contract which requires adherence to the code of practise and which constitutes a DPA breach.

(iii) It follows that the data relating to the Defendant should not have been stored, nor further processed.


5. It follows that this Claimant had no reasonable cause to use that VRN to obtain the Defendant's name and address. Significant distress has been caused as a direct result of this data processing, as well as loss of time and costs for defending this matter. Each demand that arrived in the post caused serious distress for the household, despite the honest belief that a registered keeper's data could not be used in this way by this Claimant, regarding this location and lack of contractual obligation. Furthermore, the defendants data was passed to a debt recovery agency, with subsequent legal threatening letters which caused significant alarm and distress to the defendant. In forcing the Defendant to answer to the matter in court, serious distress has been caused which will be fully outlined in a Witness Statement and at the hearing. Indeed, being required to attend a hearing and working on a Defence and Counter-Claim in the Defendant's own time, has caused loss of leave.


6. Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) indicates that Data may only be lawfully processed if one of the conditions set out in the Schedule applies to that processing. Those conditions are:

(1) The individual whom the personal data is about has consented to the processing. and (5) The processing is necessary:
(a) in relation to a contract which the individual has entered into; or because the individual has asked for something to be done so they can enter into a contract, or
(b) The processing is necessary because of a legal obligation that applies to you (except an obligation imposed by a contract)
© The processing is necessary to protect the individual’s “vital interests”. This condition only applies in cases of life or death, such as where an individual’s medical history is disclosed to a hospital’s A&E department treating them after a serious road accident.
(d) The processing is necessary for administering justice, or for exercising statutory, governmental, or other public functions
(e) The processing is in accordance with the “legitimate interests” condition.

None of the above apply since no contract was entered.


7. By reason of the obtaining and/or storing and processing the data, the Claimant acted in breach of its statutory duty under Section 4(4) of the DPA, in that it processed the personal data unfairly and/or unlawfully in contravention of the Defendant's rights under the First Data Protection Principle.


8. Further or alternatively, by pursuing the Defendant for monies which it was not entitled to recover, the Claimant has unlawfully infringed the Defendant's right to privacy and has misused the Defendant's private information.


9. The Claimant is a member of the Trade Body known as the British parking association. In accordance with the Code of Practice as laid down by the BPA (such rules being held by the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as 'effectively regulatory'), a parking operator ''shall comply'' with the statutory provisions of the DPA 1998. In this case, the Claimant has failed to comply with that statute, and is therefore operating in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.


11. In consequence of the processing the Claimant has suffered damage and distress. Pursuant to s13 of the DPA, “Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements”, the Act states at 13(1) that “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”.


12. The Claimant relies on two binding authorities in support of the Claim, which are Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311, and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333. In Vidal-Hall, it was held by the Court of Appeal that compensation was payable upon the fact of breach, and that it was not necessary to quantify a direct pecuniary loss. In Halliday, the Court of Appeal held that a compensatory sum of up to £750 was deemed ‘appropriate and sufficient’.

13. Both of the above cases arose as a result of material breaches of the DPA by the respective defendants, and can be considered to provide binding precedents for my own situation. My claim is for £750, and given the number of PCNs that I have been issued, this is not a sum that appears excessive, given the circumstances of harassment and DPA breach by a Claimant pursuing a wholly vexatious claim and unreasonable three-figure sum.

THE COUNTER-CLAIM:

14. (i) Damages in the sum of £750 for breach of statutory duty pursuant to Section 13(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 and/or misuse of private information.

(ii) An order pursuant to Section 14(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998 for the blocking and/or erasure and/or destruction of the data held by the Claimant, whether stored as digital data or otherwise and any photographs or other relevant material.


STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.

Dr_shadow

I am slightly confused about the Counter-claim process. Do i submit it on the same page as the defence? or do i submit two separate documents? Do i have to pay the court costs straight away?

I would appropriate any feedback with regard to my defence and counter-claim. I am hoping to submit them tomorrow.

Coupon-mad

Same page - underneath the signed/dated defence, a counter claim duly signed/dated.

And you will need to ring up the CCBC to pay the filing fee over the phone once you have emailed the defence & CC to the CCBC.

Does anyone have the case number.

Bargepole might well do, he also assisted that person.

KeithP

When were your parking events?

The DPA 1998 was superseded by the Data Protection Act 2018 on 25th May 2018.

Dr_shadow

The parking events where in September/October 2018.

Should i message Bargepole directly? From reading these forums, i have gleaned that the popular posters like Bargepole keep their inbox full to stop people inundating with hundreds of messages!

Apart from the DPA act KeithP has kindly pointed to, do you guys think that the defence and counter-claim are okay to submit in their current form?

Again i appricate all your help.

Coupon-mad

I'll give him a link to this thread.

I know he had paperwork about Henry Hippo's cases v UKPC and District Enforcement and when HH won the first case & counterclaim v UKPC I recall he asked for a transcript of that hearing to help with his other one.

So there should be a transcript around too...very useful for you if HH has it.

Dr_shadow

I'll give him a link to this thread.

thank you Coupon-mad. Your input is greatly appricated.

If we do get hold of those scripts, that will be a fantastic!

One other question i had. After this whole ticket fiasco, i contacted the managment company for the flats and they sent me these so called "permit". Yet despite this permit on full display and while i was parked in my spot i got another ticket last week. I contact the management agent who was confused by this and said she will ask UKPC to explain themselves and in the meantime, they will be asked to cease patrol. Lo and behold, despite that i was issued a second one yeaterday. My question is should i use this as evidence that they run a fraudulent operation in my current court case (evidence of the email to managment company as well as pics from ukpc clearly showing my car with a permit) and that they will issue tickets regardless?

Coupon-mad

Yes, use it but if you were phoning this woman, stop. Email her and ask her to explain what's happening in the light of her promise that UKPC would be told to cease patrols, bearing in mind you got another PCN on xx date despite displaying the permit.

Her reply can then open up a decent line of defence for you.

Bargepole doesn't have the claim number and never saw the transcript that Henry Hippo said he'd get for the UKPC case.

I have no time but I suggest you read BOTH his threads on pepipoo forum (one about UKPC and one about District Enforcement) as I seem to recall somewhere in there - maybe int he latter thread - the UKPC claim number was cited. I think he used one case to support the other, albeit the second one he tried was dismissed.

Have a read of the D/Enforcement one as I have an inkling the UKPC claim number was in that defence or Witness Statement.

Dr_shadow

How could i modify my counterclaim to meet the 2018 DPA guidelines? All the advice i have seen for counter claiming online seems outdated and references the DPA 1998. Does anyone have an update template? Or would anyone be kind enough to do some changes to my counterclaim. Thank you.