URBAN EXCHANGE-HIGHVIEW PARKING- DCBL LEGAL-PLEASE HELP

twhitehousescat

5/OCT/20- Claim form- Northampton CCBC- X1 - TOTAL £946.61
                                                                         x1 - total £279.39
28/oct/20- Judgment for claimant-  must pay 205.27 + £97 for costs= total £302.27. 

ok so have walked away with £302 , how the hell have they come up with that bumber 

nosferatu1001

It's doesn't really matter. The OP is never getting a set aside. 

nadiak91

Doing now- is this ok for the defence point 2/3?

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the leased vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

  

3.   The signs were unclear and the driver was not aware that they had breached any term and conditions of parking. 
 

thank you

nadiak91

No never hired the unknown car previously. Never seen it in my life. 

Coupon-mad

nadiak91 said:

Doing now- is this ok for the defence point 2/3?

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the leased vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

  

3.   The signs were unclear and the driver was not aware that they had breached any term and conditions of parking. 

Add in some more detail to tell the Judge what sort of car park it is.  But get this done tonight and decide if you will be counterclaiming for that £300 you are having to pay in error (I would, and YOU MUST decide now!).

A user of a leased (company?) car is a lessee, not the registered keeper.  So change that.

Example counterclaim - if you do this, you just add it straight under the signed and dated defence as a continuation and sign and date that too.  Numbering might not match.  If you want to do this, then for you to claim up to £300 is £25 in court fees, so I would forget then odd £20 (but you'd have to be confident to argue and explain why they owe you £300...are you confident to do that?  Counterclaiming also forces the case to a hearing):

COUNTERCLAIM 

19. The Defendant repeats the defence above, in support of the counterclaim. 

20. This counterclaim is for damages for distress and actual loss, caused by breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act (the DPA 2018).  

21.  The Claimant filed two claims against the Defendant at the same time.  Claim number xxxxxxxx ('the second claim') relates to a car that the Defendant does not recognise at all and has never, to the Defendant's knowledge, driven.  The Defendant has also never been the lessee or registered keeper of the vehicle identified in that second claim.   Due to the current pandemic lockdown and family/job and other immediate pressing concerns and the honest belief that the Claimant would realise their error, the Defendant did not file & serve a defence to the second claim and judgment in default caused an actual loss of £302.27. 

22.  The Defendant felt distressed and harassed and knew of no option but to pay that sum to the Claimant in November 2020, to avoid a damaging County Court Judgment for that erroneous second claim.   Whether by negligence or otherwise, that claim arose as a result of a failure by the Claimant to ensure accurate and fair data processing.  The Defendant has no idea how the Claimant attached their name to that claim, at all, and the Claimant is put to strict proof.  The Claimant cannot have obtained the Defendant's data from the DVLA in respect of that claim, because the Defendant is/was completely unconnected to that vehicle.

23.  The Claimants erroneously attached the Defendant's data to that case and issued the second claim in circumstances where there could be no cause of action, causing actual loss and distress to the Defendant.  The Defendant’s data is personal data within the meaning of the DPA 2018 and the associated General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). 

24.  Accordingly, at all material times the Claimants were data controllers, and the Defendant a data subject, within the meaning of the Acts. The Claimants were thereby under a statutory duty to process the Defendant’s data only in strict accordance with the DPA 2018 and the GDPR Articles 5 (1)(a) and (b) and 6 (1)(f)). 

25.   Article 5 of the GDPR sets out seven key principles which lie at the heart of the general data protection regime. These are broadly the same as the DPA Principles. Article 5(1) requires that personal data shall be:

 “(a) processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to individuals (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency’); 

(b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; (‘purpose limitation’); (c) adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (‘data minimisation’); 

(d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (‘accuracy’); 

(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed (‘storage limitation’); 

(f) processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate measures (‘integrity and confidentiality’).” 

26. Article 5(2) adds that: “The controller shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with, paragraph 1 (‘accountability’).” 

27. Article 6(1)f of the GDPR states an exemption if processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data. 

28. None of the above conditions applied.  Accordingly the processing of the Defendant’s data was not “necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract” and nor, since further communication with the Defendant had no prospect of furthering their purpose, did the Claimants have any legitimate cause to continue processing the Defendant's data. 

29.  In accordance with the DPA 2018 and the GDPR, they were no longer permitted to either process, keep or share the Defendant's data.  In summary, the Claimants as data controllers were and continue to be in breach of their statutory duty under the DPA as follows :-

 i) by obtaining and processing the Defendant’s personal data without a lawful basis for the second claim, contrary to the DPA Principles and GDPR article 5(1)(a) and

 ii) by processing the Defendant’s personal data unlawfully and unfairly and for a purpose other than pursuing the Claimants’ legitimate interests, contrary to the DPA 2018 and GDPR article 5 (1) (a) and (b) and article 6 (1)(f).

Damages 

30. By reason of the matters aforesaid, the Defendant was distressed by the second claim and suffered an actual loss of £302.27, having paid that claim in full in November 2020 to avoid damage to the Defendant's credit rating, which was a very real concern.  The Defendant in any case suffered serious distress and anxiety as a result of the two baseless claims and relies upon the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Vidal-Hall v Google Inc (2015) EWCA 311, in that compensation for pure distress is capable of being claimed, notwithstanding actual loss.  The Defendant has suffered both substantial damage and loss and respectfully seeks damages in the sum of £300 pursuant to GDPR Article 82 and the 2018 Act sections 168-169.

AND THE DEFENDANT COUNTERCLAIMS:- 

1. Compensation in the sum of: £300 

2. Court fees: £25.00 (plus a hearing fee, in the event of the Claimant discontinuing) 

3.  Interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984, at such rates / for such periods on the sums found due to the Defendant as the Court may deem fit. 

4. Costs to be assessed.  As a result of the Claimants’ unreasonable behaviour in filing two claims, one of which had potential to damage the Defendant's credit rating for six years despite the vehicle identified in the second claim having nothing to do with this Defendant, the Court is respectfully invited to order the Claimants to pay the Defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules, rule 27.14 (2) (g). 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts contained in this Defence and Counterclaim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. 

Name …………..………………………….. 

Signature ………….……………………….. 

Date ………………………  

nosferatu1001

OP - do not ask further. You're in a race. I'm not sure you realise this. 

If you delay, you lose. You may already have lost. So. Get. That. Defence. Dione. Tonight. 

nadiak91

Nightmare the printer is not working! Will have to find a printing shop early tomorrow theres literally nothing else I can do. Yes I will also appeal the £300 as it is not my car. I can only explain the truth which shouldn't be too challenging. do you think its worth it or should I just try to get the 900 dropped and cut my losses? 

 The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the lessee of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.   The signs were unclear and the driver was not aware that they had breached any term and conditions of parking. The car park is for a small retail and leisure development. 

Thank you guys!!!

nadiak91

Should I use docusign?

Coupon-mad

You don't need a printer.   
You can sign and date a white piece of paper and take a photo of it on your phone, then crop and re-size it.

Or use an online electronic signature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m_S5dFjDGg

KeithP

You don't need a printer.

Put your signature on a piece of white paper and photograph it.
Embed that image in the appropriate place in your Defence.
Save your Defence as a PDF and send it as an email attachment as described in the first post on this thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1