Tort for incorrect KADOE request?

Umkomaas

If your MCOL claim is for an unspecified amount, how are you going to pay the filing fee, the level of which is based on the amount being claimed?  Have I missed something along the way here?

nosferatu1001

You file for an amount no greater than... and pay the fee based on that amount
WHich is a silly way of doing it, as the fee for a £10k claim (you never want truly unspecified, it then goes into fast track) is huge. 

zhonguonuren

And in your case the £500 was an out of court settlement. This is the final offer I have made to Smart Parking in order to avoid going to court.

That was not a parking related case.  In my parking case I asked for £500 and the judge awarded just over £200 for breach of GDPR and the subsequent harassment (and we genuinely did feel harassed).  

Just saying that if you claim for over £1,000 and pay the first fee, there will be a second fee for the hearing - and you may not win if you cannot convince the judge you suffered damage.  

To me, a £25 filing fee followed by a hearing fee of £25 (if it gets that far) is worth a punt.  If many more people did this, it would help solve the problem (in my opinion).  

pould

zhonguonuren said:

And in your case the £500 was an out of court settlement. This is the final offer I have made to Smart Parking in order to avoid going to court.

That was not a parking related case.  In my parking case I asked for £500 and the judge awarded just over £200 for breach of GDPR and the subsequent harassment (and we genuinely did feel harassed).  

Just saying that if you claim for over £1,000 and pay the first fee, there will be a second fee for the hearing - and you may not win if you cannot convince the judge you suffered damage.  

To me, a £25 filing fee followed by a hearing fee of £25 (if it gets that far) is worth a punt.  If many more people did this, it would help solve the problem (in my opinion).  

Thanks - I don't want to go into the line of argument / law on this thread, but needless to say, I think a larger quantum can be obtained because of the underlying predatory nature of the "charge" I was sent and what they already knew when they made the KADOE request. In that context a settlement now of £500 is reasonable.

Your case was one of negligence, this is something else.

zhonguonuren

I also brought a claim against the parking company for breach of GDPR (and attempting to scam) which has been adjourned.  

pould

zhonguonuren said:

I also brought a claim against the parking company for breach of GDPR (and attempting to scam) which has been adjourned.  

Can you send me the details via private message, particulary the Particulars of Claim (and the reason it was adjourned)?

zhonguonuren

I am happy to post here.  Particulars of claim were brief as there is limited space on moneyclaim unless you send separately.  Initially the case was won by default and I issued a warrant after non payment.  The parking company had the judgement set aside claiming no correspondence was received (most of it was automatic via Northampton!).  The date was however then set for the hearing and witness statement filed (very detailed with help from posts here) but the Judge, although she could see the evidence (and it is pretty damning) wanted the exact sections of the DPA/GDPR referred to by way of photocopies.  I assumed (wrongly) the Judge would know the Act. Also the Judge needed me to clarify Vidal-Hall as she thought Google had appealed and did not know Google had settled.  Lesson learnt - some judges know more than others - never assume the judge knows every Act!
I have until June to produce the Act and some case law etc.  

Coupon-mad

Absolutely never assume a Judge will know statute law or case law!  Quite right.

Look how long it has taken us campaigners to finally get Judges to apply the CRA 2015. 

OVER 4 YEARS LATER they are finally realising, area by area, that the court had a legal duty all along to apply s71 of the CRA even if a Defendant doesn't mention it. 

So every court that has ever struck out a consumer defence for being 'inadequate to defend the claim' in the past 4 years v any parking firm, has failed in their legal duty.

zhonguonuren

Signed back in just to say thanks !  Posts at 3am (and brilliant at that)  make we wonder if you are half human, half machine.  Puzzling 🤔 

Coupon-mad

As a night owl, I find during lockdown I'm even more awake than usual once the family has gone to bed, so I come here!