PCN escalated to Court proceedings **EDIT - I WON**

nosferatu1001

Littlewadie said:

They were refused the right to appeal

They can still appeal, but i doubt they will. THey would have to show how the court erred in law, not in fact. 

Snakes_Belly

nosferatu1001 said:

Littlewadie said:

They were refused the right to appeal

They can still appeal, but i doubt they will. THey would have to show how the court erred in law, not in fact. 

Costs them to appeal plus they would have to obtain permission. Then they would need a transcript and possibly pay for a representative. Not many PPC's choose to throw more money at the case. 

Littlewadie

It's the first thing the advocate asked, she said they would like to appeal the decision, the Judge basically told her that there would be no possible way due to the way the emails were written and he said no right to appeal.
So PP Legal did me a favour and shot themselves in the foot by being incompetent. 

Le_Kirk

Brilliant a very good win.

beamerguy

Littlewadie said:

Thanks everyone for your hard work and help, Coupon-mad, you are a legend and your help was very much appreciated.

The court was 
Darlington County Court - District Judge Read - Case Number F0DP1T3F
I can post more information if needed, I don't think I included all the correspondence between PP legal and myself on here, I could if that helps.  ** Edit, I checked back and I have included all emails around pages 15 - 16 -17 I think***

Now in the ABUSE OF PROCESS THREAD
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/post/editdiscussion/6103933

zhonguonuren

Great result and sorry to be a party pooper but 27 pages and all your time and effort? Please consider sending a letter before action asking for £300 for abuse of process and harassment (Vidal-Hall v Google).  Send a chasing letter if they don’t reply and then consider a MCOL. I’ve served 3 this morning (I help other people - not offering or charging!) and I’m not even out of bed! 

nosferatu1001

Vidal-Hall was Data protection no? Not harassment. 

zhonguonuren

nosferatu1001 said:

Vidal-Hall was Data protection no? Not harassment. 

Vidal-Hall to quote only because the case  allowed for anxiety and distress whereas before you had to prove financial loss - (but bring the case under GDPR).

zhonguonuren

Apologies - should not assume everyone is familiar with GDPR/breach of/abuse of process/harassment/reasonably foreseeable etc - but a read of GDPR is useful in many cases, along with Vidal-Hall.  

Littlewadie

zhonguonuren said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Vidal-Hall was Data protection no? Not harassment. 

Vidal-Hall to quote only because the case  allowed for anxiety and distress whereas before you had to prove financial loss - (but bring the case under GDPR).

This is where I failed, the judge asked what financial loss I had suffered, I had no answer to that and he said what they did was not in his eyes harassment, I disagree but how can I argue, when I have no idea how to, telephone hearings are difficult at best, hard to hear a lot of it and not know if you are supposed to respond or not as you can not see them.