ECP DCB Legal court claim

Coupon-mad

Do nothing unless you move house.

Mattallicawolf

Hi all

Still…16 months on from the Stay being lifted we are yet to hear anything back…..whats the backload like n the courts for these things these days?

Coupon-mad

Looks like it's been forgotten, but it ISN'T dead, so only prod the snake's nest if your address changes.

Mattallicawolf

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82092382#Comment_82092382

Thanks

Are these things able to just stay in motion but not be actioned forever or do they have to "auto expire" eventually?

Coupon-mad

Potentially, it hangs over you forever.

But I have previously advised people in your shoes to email the CNBC a data concerns complaint, asking them to pass this data concern to their Data Protection Officer, telling them that:

• this is a data processing objection, invoking UKGDPR and the DPA 2018, as well as the Data Use (and Access) Act 2025;
• it is highly prejudicial that cases can stay in limbo but can be resurrected by parking firms years later by lifting the stay;
• whilst the Defendant's address for service is still correct for 2026, it MUST NOT be automatically assumed by the Court Service or Claimant to be the same forever;
• it is unjust to expect a victim of the rogue parking industry to remain beholden to a frozen claim indefinitely and to have the burden of updating any changes in their postal address for the rest of their life;
• this is an unfair and improper burden, especially given the fact that the pre-action protocol requires Claimants to check postal addresses before suing a party, but bizarrely, when it comes to (post-action) applications to 'lift a stay' out of the blue - years later - the CNBC fails to recognise the likelihood of inaccurate address data and fails to require Claimants to re-check a Defendant's address;
• this seems to be a tick-box exercise with no meaningful human involvement by the CNBC, if the Claimant ever applies to lift the stay, therefore it is Automated Decision-Making ('ADM');
• please consider this a formal objection to ADM in this case and to mark the file that the Defendant has objected to any data processing that relies upon or automatically uses the postal address currently on file, which must not be used from 2027 onwards, unless the Claimant demonstrates that they have carried out a 'soft address trace' first and have also contacted the Defendant by email.

See what the CNBC comes back with and the idea is to escalate the complaint to the ICO, that the CNBC is using ADM to store, process and automatically re-use (with no questions asked of the legally represented Claimants) address data for litigant-in-person Defendants many years later.

This cannot be legal and needs investigation by the ICO. After a considerable passage of time, a person's postal address data is likely to be inaccurate data, in circumstances where a claim has sat 'on hold' (stayed) for more than mere months.

Yet the CNBC is using ADM in such cases to 'unstay' claims years later without the same level of (or any) data safeguards that exist in the pre-action protocol, and the CNBC has not responded satisfactorily to the Defendant's valid data concern.

It cannot be a fair or proportionate obligation to impose on a data subject, to have to tell the Court Service about every house move for the rest of their life, just in case a member of the (known rogue) parking industry who filed a claim in 2026 then let it slide unprocessed, suddenly decides on a whim to resurrect it, years later. The consumer harm risk is immense and intolerable and surely breaches data protection and fair/timely/accurate data use DPA Principles. A late application to 'lift a stay' should not be accepted by the CNBC unless the Claimant can demonstrate that they have checked the Defendant's address again and used email and other methods of contacting them to avoid using an old address and causing a CCJ by default.