DVLA MISUSE OF PERSONAL DATA UNDER GDPR - GROUP ACTION - NO WIN, NO FEE

patient_dream

This is an old BBC video and the ony thing that has changed is a ban on clamping.
Nothing else has changed in the last 10 years and in the video you will see the DVLA and the BPA waffle on ..... just as they do today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs24RJtSGD4

Half_way

davemcc said:

Whilst the DVLA may be guilty of breaching the Data Protection laws, surely the main culpits are the Parking Charge companies themselves?

If they persist in obtaining Keepers' details for allegations of 'offences' that have been disproved in the courts then requesting Keeper information is in breach of at least one of the points set out in the guidelines;

Everyone responsible for using personal data has to follow strict rules called ‘data protection principles’. They must make sure the information is:

• used fairly, lawfully and transparently
• used for specified, explicit purposes
• used in a way that is adequate, relevant and limited to only what is necessary
• accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date
• kept for no longer than is necessary
• handled in a way that ensures appropriate security, including protection against unlawful or unauthorised processing, access, loss, destruction or damage

While here are some serious issues with the so called parking companies as highlighted, the single source for the data leak is and always has been the DVLA sitting on top of the pyramid.

At the top you have the DVLA followed by the so called parking companies, then the landowners who allow the so called  parking companies onto their land.

In the days of clamping it was advised that people went after the landowner to get their money back, as well as the clamper,  as the clampers often went out of business and then re emerged under a slightly different company name (aka phoenixing )

 many of these ex clampers are now running these so called parking companies , and there are plenty of PPCs about

So at the top is the DVLA, and at the other end are the corporations that allow parking companies to operate, the likes of the big supermarkets, large land owning corporations  and so on.

 If we do end up at a stage where things go all PPI for the PPCs then any compensation should be taken first from the PPC industry and then from the large corporations who should have known better - and be equiped with legal teams etc than to allow an un regulated PPC to prey on their customers/visitors

tommoCF

Sandtree said:

tommoCF said:

...sounds like there could be some costs in the event of a loss (though probably less if you purchase and ATE insurance policy..(+ who knows how much?)

That in itself is wrong because its the solicitors that buy the ATE insurance and are the legal beneficiaries of the policy. 

That would make more sense. As mentioned though the information on this KLUK website says:

"5.     What Do I Pay If I Lose?

5.1           If you lose you do not have to pay our basic charges provided that you have complied with our Terms and Conditions. However, you may be required to pay our disbursements and expenses, although these may be covered by any ATE insurance policy you have purchased"

Specifically any ATE insurance "you" have purchased. There's clearly confusion re this - surely KLUK would wish to make clear it's the solicitors who buy the ATE insurance, if that's the case as far as KLUK are concerned?

95Rollers

I recently discovered this excellent report by Martin Cutts (assisted by a former police detective sergeant from the Fraud & Economic Crime squad) who raises up some great points and exposes some very worrying (I imagine most of the main forum people will have already seen it or possibly wrote it). Anyway a good read and worth reposting as it is very relevant. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/aaf9e928/files/uploaded/DVLA-BPA-Cutts12June2012_v2_mf.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjcwpD7mNbyAhWVRkEAHe0wBSkQFnoECAoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3U5hUissLpWkh5T6eg6SQI

D_P_Dance

Also this

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/motorist-wins-18-month-ticket-battle-870812

Beano456

tommoCF said:

Sandtree said:

tommoCF said:

...sounds like there could be some costs in the event of a loss (though probably less if you purchase and ATE insurance policy..(+ who knows how much?)

That in itself is wrong because its the solicitors that buy the ATE insurance and are the legal beneficiaries of the policy. 

That would make more sense. As mentioned though the information on this KLUK website says:

"5.     What Do I Pay If I Lose?

5.1           If you lose you do not have to pay our basic charges provided that you have complied with our Terms and Conditions. However, you may be required to pay our disbursements and expenses, although these may be covered by any ATE insurance policy you have purchased"

Specifically any ATE insurance "you" have purchased. There's clearly confusion re this - surely KLUK would wish to make clear it's the solicitors who buy the ATE insurance, if that's the case as far as KLUK are concerned?

How can Keller Lenkner UK afford to take on no-win no-fee cases?

We expect to win the vast majority of our no-win, no-fee cases. And, when we do, the defendant has to pay your costs, fees and disbursements.

However, we also take out insurance to insure against the risk of losing a case. This is called ‘After the Event’ insurance (ATE). With ATE insurance, if we lose your case any costs will be paid by the insurance provider.

95Rollers

So K&L's own ATE will cover the clients  cost if there was to be a loss instead of anything coming out of the client's pocket?

tommoCF

Beano456 said:

tommoCF said:

Sandtree said:

tommoCF said:

...sounds like there could be some costs in the event of a loss (though probably less if you purchase and ATE insurance policy..(+ who knows how much?)

That in itself is wrong because its the solicitors that buy the ATE insurance and are the legal beneficiaries of the policy. 

That would make more sense. As mentioned though the information on this KLUK website says:

"5.     What Do I Pay If I Lose?

5.1           If you lose you do not have to pay our basic charges provided that you have complied with our Terms and Conditions. However, you may be required to pay our disbursements and expenses, although these may be covered by any ATE insurance policy you have purchased"

Specifically any ATE insurance "you" have purchased. There's clearly confusion re this - surely KLUK would wish to make clear it's the solicitors who buy the ATE insurance, if that's the case as far as KLUK are concerned?

How can Keller Lenkner UK afford to take on no-win no-fee cases?

We expect to win the vast majority of our no-win, no-fee cases. And, when we do, the defendant has to pay your costs, fees and disbursements.

However, we also take out insurance to insure against the risk of losing a case. This is called ‘After the Event’ insurance (ATE). With ATE insurance, if we lose your case any costs will be paid by the insurance provider.

i'm tempted to sign up with KLUK, as I had a CN in 2019 - BUT, there seems to be inconsistency in what they say about the crucial ATE insurance.. As others have mentioned, on their website they say that ATE insurance is taken out by KLUK themselves.

But significantly in two places on the agreement itself (which they get you to sign and which I assume would be legally binding?), it refers to the ATE insurance YOU take out. 'You' as in the person signing the contract, as per section 5 of the contract above ('What do I pay if I lose?'), and also in section 3 below:

"3.       Paying Us If You ‘Win’

3.1           If your claim is successful you are liable to pay all our basic charges, our expenses and disbursements and a success fee, together with the premium for any After The Event (‘ATE’) insurance you take out."

It seems that in the adverts for the scheme the ATE insurance in referred to as something KLUK take out, but in the contract they ask you to sign, the ATE insurance has sublty changed to being something YOU take out.. Unless they mean the ATE insurance can be taken out by both parties? But if so they shoud say.

That inconsistency and confusion re this concerns me with regard to signing up, tempted as I am.. 

 

Umkomaas

That inconsistency and confusion re this concerns me with regard to signing up, tempted as I am.. 

Why not send them a quick email to settle any concerns?  Perhaps you could let us know what they say, then this thread can be made more certain on the issue of ATE insurance. 

spencer999

the current issue of Private Eye magazine (the new issue is out tomorrow) has an interesting article on the rip off that is ATE legal insurance