STILL REQUEST A SAR AFTER CCBC ISSUED?

Brenda_Mayers

Le_Kirk said:

Brenda_Mayers said:

MIL only provided our details after receiving the PPN in the post so Ardpark must have got MIL details from DVLA in the first instance? 

OK, what did you ask for in your SAR to the DVLA?  Did you ask if any PPC had requested details for the vehicle with VRM XXXXX or did you ask if any PPC had requested details for the MIL's name?  If you asked by VRM it looks like Ardpark have been naughty and should be reported.

MIL asked if any TP had requested details under VRM and they confirmed no TP requests have been recorded. Do you think we should ask Ardpark for an explanation to why they wont provide us details of how they obtained RK details or just make reference to this in my defence?

Ferrybird

A subject access request is made by a person who is a data subject (i.e you, Brenda) to release personal information related to them. That's you and your information only. The SAR will not contain information about the DVLA request about the RK of the vehicle as that is you MIL who is a different data subject. They cannot release your MILs data to you- that is s breach of data protection.

Your MIL would have to make a separate request herself to DVLA asking who accessed her details.

However, this seems minimally relevant as your main defence seems to be poor signage. I hope you've got pictures of the poor / misleading signs to use as exhibits for your WS that you will be writing after your defence is submitted!

Brenda_Mayers

Jenni_D said:

Who is the defendant in the claim? You or your MIL? (I'm assuming you but your MIL is the RK - yes?)

Correct (I'm defendant but MIL is RK) - someone on here suggested DVLA SAR as Ardpark are no longer named in the IPC AoS list so thats how this came about. 

Brenda_Mayers

@Ferrybird - yes we do have photos and video footage for WS. Sorry I haven't made this clear but the SAR to DVLA was made by MIL. Thanks

Redx

But the correct data subject should request their own data from these third parties

Each does their own

Usually we deal with one victim only , helping someone to assist someone else causes confusion

Brenda gets data about Brenda

If the RK is George , George obtains data about George

Brenda cannot obtain the George data , George cannot obtain the Brenda data

You cannot complain about their data protection issues if you compound them with your own data protection issues

Jenni_D

Jenni_D said:

Is your argument regarding how they got your MIL's details as RK if they didn't get them from DVLA? i.e. they got the details unlawfully, therefore their claim against you has a wobbly foundation because your details were essentially obtained via unlawful means - they shouldn't have been able to write to your MIL in the first place as they shouldn't have been able to know who she was. Is that the summary?

Just quoting this as I believe this describes Brenda's situation. Brenda has the court claim, and the claim is against Brenda as a driver as MIL named Brenda after receiving an NTK.

Brenda's question is regarding how Ardpark even knew the MIL's details in the first place, as they weren't obtained via DVLA (since MIL [not Brenda] has already asked the DVLA, and they've replied that nobody has requested MIL's [RK's] details - so not even a back-office organisation).

Whether this weakens the claimant's case at all I've no idea - I just wondered if the claim's foundation crumbles as it was (possibly) derived from an unlawful act.

nosferatu1001

I dont think that weakens the claim against a driver at all. How does it provide a defence?

Jenni_D

nosferatu1001 said:

I dont think that weakens the claim against a driver at all. How does it provide a defence?

Perhaps the original act (getting the RK details not from DVLA) was illegal (criminal) rather than unlawful (civil)? If the former then you can't profit from an illegal act. (I believe there may be a Latin term for this but I don't know it).

Slim I know, but ...........

nosferatu1001

Oh thats Ex Turpi..
However I think the chain would be a difficult one to convince a court of, and I doubt it would negate the basis of a claim against a known driver. 

Redx

seems 2 different issues to me

the court claim against Brenda as a driver does not seem to be affected because the keeper named the driver

the MIL should be thinking about reporting the PPC to the ICO and also thinking about a court claim themselves against the perpretrators who obtained her details outside of the official DVLA KADOE route (possible fraud and data breach)

each case stands or falls on its own merits, but Brenda should concentrate on her own case IMHO