Breach of GDPR- level of compensation?

Gavin83

CFWJOB said:

So their offer to me of £200 seems quite low. 

How much do you think would be reasonable?

sheramber

That is what he/she is asking us?

MH1927

Jenni_D said:

Breach of GDPR claims (like harassment claims) do not have to show a quantifiable loss. Anecdotal evidence over recent times from the Parking board has shown GDPR compensation payments of between £250 and £750 being awarded by judges.

PS - if you want/have to show time spent on this, your time should be claimed at the Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour.

Actually this has been changed by a number of rulings such as Lloyd Vs Google and Rolfe and others v Veale Wasbrough Vizards LLP.

The court noted that “Just because information relates to a person’s family and private life, it will not automatically be protected by the courts: for instance, the information may be of slight significance, generally expressed, or anodyne in nature. While respect for family and private life is of fundamental importance, it seems to me that the courts should, in the absence of special facts, generally expect people to adopt a reasonably robust and realistic approach to living in the 21st century.”

MH1927

In Rolfe and others v Veale Wasbrough Vizards LLP Master McCloud even states "What harm has been done …” before holding that “We have a plainly exaggerated claim for time spent by the Claimants dealing with the case and a frankly inherently implausible suggestion that the minimal breach caused significant distress and worry or even made them ‘feel ill’."

Jenni_D

Supreme Court and High Court, so those rulings should be binding on lower courts. However neither rules out claims for GDPR breaches, nor sets limits - they only aver that the burden of proof of the impact of said breaches must be greater.

GDPR claims can still be made, and the "loss" amount doesn't have to be substantiated, so your responses don't change the validity of my previous post at all.

MH1927

You read what you want. At no point have I have said it is end of GDPR claims.

The ruling clearly states the damages (AKA the "loss") must be substantiated. Not only that but De Minimis Non Curat Lex must be applied and the damage/loss must be greater than "A Person of ordinary fortitude should be expected to suffer".

And it is legally binding not "should be".

And the LiP rate is only applicable to certain elements of the claim as per CPR46, not for the entire length of the dispute

Jenni_D

MH1927 said:

You read what you want. At no point have I have said it is end of GDPR claims.

The ruling clearly states the damages (AKA the "loss") must be substantiated. Not only that but De Minimis Non Curat Lex must be applied and the damage/loss must be greater than "A Person of ordinary fortitude should be expected to suffer".

2)And it is legally binding not "should be".

And the LiP rate is only applicable to certain elements of the claim as per CPR46, not for the entire length of the dispute

Assuming the judge takes cognisance of the higher court ruling. Something which may be unlikely (as it's not legislation*) and so would be for the other party to bring to the judge's attention.

* Even then County Court judges can be unaware of their requirements to take on board legislation ... we've seen it time and again in the Parking board where the Consumer Rights Act mandates a test of fairness, and this must be accounted for in court even if it is not brought to the judge's attention, yet judges fail time and again to apply it as they're unaware.

CFWJOB

Jenni_D said:

Breach of GDPR claims (like harassment claims) do not have to show a quantifiable loss. Anecdotal evidence over recent times from the Parking board has shown GDPR compensation payments of between £250 and £750 being awarded by judges.

PS - if you want/have to show time spent on this, your time should be claimed at the Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour.

I think I have spent over 50 hours on this business- utterly ridiculous as this may seem! If their procedures followed their published policy, it should have been a simple 5 minute email.  Instead it's taken 4 linked complaints over a 3 year period and all the correspondence and research which goes with that.  I initially thought this was just due to human error, but it turns out that they have an internal policy which is entirely at odds with their published statements and with the principles of GDPR. ( I have this is writing.)
I'm assuming they have made a commercial decision to adopt this policy and most people will probably give up in frustration or accept a small settlement. 
I've had another email today asking for an update so I think I will use this helpful formula.  Thanks

MobileSaver

CFWJOB said:

Jenni_D said:

if you want/have to show time spent on this, your time should be claimed at the Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour.

I think I have spent over 50 hours on this business- utterly ridiculous as this may seem!

Yes, it does seem ridiculous for "20 emails, calls, letters" so good luck with that, I think you'll need it.

The court case that @MH1927 referred to seems to sum up your situation quite well "We have a plainly exaggerated claim for time spent by the Claimants dealing with the case and a frankly inherently implausible suggestion that the minimal breach caused significant distress".

If you can negotiate up to say £400+ I'd take it; the risk with court is that although it's taken an age to sort, the breach is trivial and you'll be tempted to exaggerate your claim and won't be believed so could end up with just nominal damages.