GDPR. CASE LAW FOR NON CONSENT

NW6NW6

I am not  a predator like the parking companies. I am a very private person and this has distressed me, I do voluntary work for old people and this brochure could be seen as an endorsement for them.

They claim to have my consent but have refused to engage with me on this matter

NW6NW6

I have seen other cases awarded similar sums for non material damages

powerful_Rogue

You seem to be avoiding the important questions such as how do you arrive at the figure of £1000 per year? That's exactly the sort of question the judge will ask you. Have you actually filed this claim with the court yet?

user1977

NW6NW6 said:

I have seen other cases awarded similar sums for non material damages

Can you point us towards them?

Unless you're actually identified in some way, I can't see how it could be construed as an endorsement, let alone one worth £1000 a year.

Undervalued

NW6NW6 said:

I am not  a predator like the parking companies. I am a very private person and this has distressed me, I do voluntary work for old people and this brochure could be seen as an endorsement for them.

They claim to have my consent but have refused to engage with me on this matter

Well they have engaged with you by saying that. Can you prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they do not have your consent? (If indeed they even need it).

You keep ignoring the fact that this matter pre-dates the GDPR. Have you received any proper legal advice that you do have the rights you seem to fondly imagine?

Even if (repeat IF) you do, you cannot simple snatch a figure of £1000 a year for XX years out of the air. 

From what you describe you are simply one of a number of people in a photograph of one of their former residents?

NW6NW6

Please see articles 4,7 and 82

     Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance) (legislation.gov.uk)

NW6NW6

Case Law: TLT v Home Office, Damages of £39,500 for asylum seeker spreadsheet blunder – Aidan Wills – Inforrm's Blog

NW6NW6

Art. 82 (1) of the GDPR stipulates a claim for non-material damages if a

                 data controller breaches its obligations under the GDPR. A case recently

                 decided by Düsseldorf Labor Court (ArbG Düsseldorf, March 5, 2020 – 9

                  Ca 6557/18) underlines that this provision can also have an impact on the

                   employment relationship and can lead to considerable compensation 

                   obligations of the employer. A former employee had asserted various

                   requests for information concerning his employee data on his employer.

                   The employer not only responded to these requests for information

                    belatedly, but also, in part, insufficiently. The Düsseldorf Labor Court did

                    not discover a particularly serious breach. Nor did the employee suffer

                   any damage. Nevertheless, the Düsseldorf Labor Court

                    awarded the employee a claim for compensation for non-material

                    damages in the amount of EUR 5,000.

powerful_Rogue

You're seriously clutching at straws with the last three posts. Seems you're just out for the £££. You seem to neglect to answer any questions asked. If you have already filed a claim, I can see you being out of pocket paying costs to the other party.

Again, direct from the ICO:

You should also bear in mind that the court can award costs to you or against you in certain circumstances. For example, if you fail to demonstrate you have suffered damage or distress, the court will not award you compensation and could order you to pay the other party’s costs.

y3sitsm3

NW6NW6 said:

Case Law: TLT v Home Office, Damages of £39,500 for asylum seeker spreadsheet blunder – Aidan Wills – Inforrm's Blog

Hardly the same as having your photo on a website is it?  (It was also not a GDPR case but we'll ignore that for now.)

An asylum seeker having their personal information made public could very possibly have severe consequences (given many people's dislike of them) and there was even this

Several claimants gave evidence that authorities in the states from which they had sought asylum had become aware of this by virtue of the disclosure, causing them to fear for their safety. In the case of two of the claimants evidence was given that the Iranian authorities detained a family member until the claimants provided identity documents.

Which is a lot more than you being a "private person" who doesn't like their photo being taken.  What are the potential consequences of your photo being on that website?  None.