Not the Keeper nor the Driver

Pullmyfinger88

Unfortunately not 😞 I got this, this week, which came from no further contact from me, save filing my counterclaim. Even though, according to them, I obstructively refused to confirm my details 🙈 

@Coupon-mad, regards to the post you quoted, i messaged them both, twice. I Park refused to give me any data unless I admitted to being the driver or owner. DCBL left me 7 days each time then sent me automated replies asking me for ID, which is did to I park and was still told to sling my hook.

Coupon-mad

Follow up with I Park saying you are neither; this was a mis-trace this you are not the keeper nor driver.  But you are a consumer who has been wrongly served with a court claim (which used a slight change to the Defendant's first name which should be a red flag to data processors). As such, the data subject recipient of the court claim is entitled to see the trace, assuming a CRA was the source of the data error. You wish to see that trace. 

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

Laughable.

Agreed, but what are the odds that DCB will suddenly produce a copy of a "Letter before claim" addressed to the OP.

Coupon-mad

Even if they did.  Wrong person! 

Pullmyfinger88

Coupon-mad said:

Follow up with I Park saying you are neither; this was a mis-trace this you are not the keeper nor driver.  But you are a consumer who has been wrongly served with a court claim (which used a slight change to the Defendant's first name which should be a red flag to data processors). As such, the data subject recipient of the court claim is entitled to see the trace, assuming a CRA was the source of the data error. You wish to see that trace. 

I did. I did exactly that and they told me to get knotted.

Is there any point now @Coupon-mad ? DCBL say they’re working on it but regardless, N180s are in, it’s with our local court. Only WS to go and despite it being stressful, I’m more than happily to take it in front of a judge.

Pullmyfinger88

Hi everyone, I’m sorry as it’s a bit long but will you kind people please cast your eye over my witness statement and tell me what you think? I have a couple of weeks before it’s due in but I want to have it ready. Thanks in advance for any help or advice you can give me.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT EXETER

 

CLAIM No:  XXXXX

BETWEEN 

 

I Park Services Ltd

 and

PULLMYFINGER88
 __________
WITNESS STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT AND PART 20 CLAIMANT
 __________

1. I, PMF88 as the Defendant and Counterclaimant in this matter will say as follows in support of my defence and counterclaim.

2. The facts and matters referred to in my witness statement are within my own knowledge, except where I have stated otherwise. Where the facts are within my knowledge, they are true. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of the information, resources, and belief to be correct.

3. Whilst parts of this Witness Statement may be familiar to the Claimant, as a litigant-in-person it would not be right to be criticised for using all relevant resources and advice that has been available to me. This statement was prepared by me specifically for this matter and unlike the Claimant’s case, it deals properly and individually with the facts.

4. Exhibited to this witness statement are the following attached documents which I will rely on to support the facts and arguments contained in this statement:

a) All correspondences received from and made to I Park Services Ltd.

b) All correspondences received from and made to DBCL.

c) Screenshots of my work schedule for 21/04/23 & 23/04/23 

d) V5 for my vehicle

5. As DCBL’S DPO admitted that “This in your case has produced a mistrace in error” (See attachment XXXXXX) then their claim against me is totally baseless. The only matter to be determined is the quantum of my counterclaim.

6. For the avoidance of any doubt however, I make the following statements and provide the following proof so that my innocence may be established beyond any doubt.

7. I am not the owner or registered keeper of the vehicle mentioned by the claimant. I never have been and neither have I leased or hired the vehicle.

8. My vehicle’s registration from my V5 (Attachment XXXXX) is completely different, it’s a different make, model and colour from the vehicle pictured in the the junk mail I received. I own no other cars. 

9. Note that PULLMYFINGER88 is the name on my V5 (Attachment XXXXX) and is the name I use for official purposes. The data obtained by the claimant refers to a “PULL”, a name I only use with friends. This is red flag on its own.

10. On the date of the alleged contravention (22/4/23), I was in Azerbaijan. I landed there the day before, spent a day there and left for Frankfurt the day after. I have included screenshots of my work schedule showing my arrival and departure flights. (Attachment XXXXX)

Pullmyfinger88

 THE DEFENDANT COUNTERCLAIMS:- 

11. My counterclaim is that I Park Services Ltd and their agent’s course of conduct amounts to unlawful harassment pursuant under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.  

12. Also, numerous counts of data protection breaches, pursuant under the respective Data Protection Act 1998 and 2018 and GDPR. They unlawfully obtained, processed and passed on my data to a notoriously aggressive third party debt recovery agency and violated almost every one of the data protection principles. They then placed unreasonable obstacles in my way and initially refused my right of access, right to rectification and most importantly, my right to erasure.

13. I am a victim of appalling abuse of process and vexatious use of the court system in a blatant attempt to bully and enrich themselves without any lawful entitlement whatsoever. It is submitted that the principal object of my counterclaim is to hold I park Services Ltd and DCBL to account. Even knowing that there was high probability that this matter was absolutely nothing to do with me, they pursued me all the way into court, and then attempt to blame me for proceedings by “failing to mitigate”

14. I am seeking remedy for £900 for distress, anxiety and alarm caused by the actions of the Claimant and their agent pursuant to points 11 & 12 above.

15. Under the protection from Harassment act 1997, section 7(2) ‘References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress’

16. I concede that receiving their ‘junk’ mail once a month, over the course of almost a year, causes minimal alarm and distress. Even the ever increasing bloated fees and threats held little jeopardy as it did not pertain to me in any shape, way or form. Similar to the correspondence I receive from Elon Musk regarding Bitcoin & the messages threatening to expose my browsing history unless I pay a ransom, I deemed this letter inconsequential, junk, a scam and binned it. 

17. The same can not be said for receiving a claim form from the county court. I have never been involved with the courts, for any reason, and have zero experience of the process so extreme alarm and distress was caused. Of course, they know this and use it to great effect to bully money out of people. 

18. I work abroad and so received the claim form on my arrival home. It led to sleepless nights and distraction during my valuable vacation time which I would prefer to spend with my young daughter than researching what kind of trouble I’m in and how to get out of it.

19. The fact that I am often away for more than a month is particularly alarming as if my arrival home was not as luckily timed as it was, I would have had a default judgement entered against my perfect record when I am in fact, totally innocent.

20. Giving them the benefit of the doubt by disregarding their junk mail, in line with section 7.3 (a) of the protection from Harassment act 1997 ‘conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person’, then the alarm and distress could at this point be said to be limited to one occasion. 

21. I researched what to do next and sought advice. The advice I received was to email both DPOs (Attachment XXXXX and XXXXX dated 19/2/24), as no single point of contact was given, and advise them that they have the wrong person and request they erase the erroneous data they held on me. I requested a SAR and gave them seven days to confirm a discontinuance.

22. I immediately received an automated reply from DCBL with their telephone payment line and bank details on.

23. I received replies from I Park services on XXXXX (Attachment XXXXX) and DCBL on XXXXX (Attachment XXXXX) and it’s from here that my stress, anxiety and alarm increased greatly. Data protection principles are dismissed out of hand and the line is clearly crossed as both pursue a course of conduct which is encapsulated by the protection against Harassment act 1997 section 1(1) ‘a course of conduct which amounts to harassment, and which the defendant (the claimant and their agents in my case) knows or ought to know amounts to harassment’.

24. My first real reply was from the claimant’s DPO (Attachment XXXXX) on 22/2/24, 5 days after my email. It was, as expected, obstructive and violates almost every one of the data protection principles. It stated that they can “only provide data to either the registered keeper if the driver has not been identified”. This violates my right under the data protection act 2018 ‘to find out what information other organisations store about you’

25. Keeping in mind that I told them that they have the wrong person and to erase the erroneous data they held on me, they also violated my rights to have ‘incorrect data updated’ and to have ‘data erased’. Data protection principles state that they must make sure that the information is “used fairly, lawfully and transparently”, “accurate and where necessary, kept up to date” and I would argue that knowing that I’m the incorrect data subject, they are in violation of the principle ‘used in a way that is adequate, relevant and limited to only what is necessary’

26. The I Park Services DPO insisted on photographic ID, which I know from ICO guidance is not mandatory. I am uncomfortable providing these predators with any personal information, especially when they use it so irresponsibly. I did reply and send their original paperwork and a redacted utility bill to prove my identity and therefore move forward. (Attachment XXXXX dated 23/02/24)

27. Later on 22/02/24, I received a copy and paste reply from DCBL. It requested even more, different information, which I refused to part with (Attachment XXXXX dated 23/02/2024). Especially when I had already parted with more than I wanted to to the claimant.

28. In both replies I reiterated that they had the wrong person. I requested they erase the erroneous data and issue a discontinuance in the next 7 days.

29. Looking back now, I regret the disrespectful tone I used but it clearly highlights the distress being caused by their obstructive approach to my situation and the frustration being caused by the threat of impending court action. I am not unreasonable but the feeling is that they don’t want to know, they just want you to pay. 

30. This would have been the perfect opportunity to look at their evidence, realise they had the wrong person, issue the discontinuance and erase the spurious data they held on me as I had asked. It would have put an end to my distress and ended the waste of their, my and ultimately the court’s time.

31. I park services’ DPO replied (Attachment XXXXX dated 27/02/24) and made it quite clear that they were not going to cooperate, the tone extremely bellicose in nature. This is a continuation of the harassment I was feeling, causing me more alarm, distress, anger and sleepless nights.

32. The email states clearly in no uncertain terms, in all 3 of the first paragraphs that they will not provide me with any of the information I requested. Under the Data Protection Act 2018 I have the right ‘to find out what information other organisations store about you’. This is a clear violation of my rights.

33. The DPO then goes on to say that they obtained my name and address from the DVLA which is a downright lie. It is absolutely impossible. Per section 1(2) of the protection against harassment act 1997, this moved them clearly into territory which, ‘the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to [or involves] harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other’. A reasonable person who saw the DVLA information would see instantly that it is not my address and even if they weren’t big enough to apologise, would end it there, issue the discontinuance I requested and delete the spurious data they held on me.

34. The same day, I get the same cut and paste reply from Mr. Hinton of DCBL (Attachment XXXXX) requesting the same personal information he requested a week earlier, which I had already refused to part with.

35. Due to my frustration and anxiety triggered when dealing with these firms, I did not contact either any further. My thoughts were “what’s the point?” . Payment is the only course of action made easy and readily available , anything else is purposefully made to be cumbersome, obstructive, obfuscated and frustrating. Despite the extra stress & loss of extremely limited and precious time that I’d prefer to spend with my daughter, I began research and sought advice on how to file a counterclaim. I felt it was my only chance of a discontinuance and protection of my personal data. I was sure that this is the only form of communication these people will take any notice of, and I was proven correct very quickly.

36. Within days of filing my counterclaim, 12/3/24, I received a letter from DCBL (Attachment XXXXX) stating, “to assist the court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case”, “discontinuing their claim, on the basis you are agreeable to withdrawing your counterclaim, and both parties bear their own costs”. This was accompanied by another letter, asking me to call to discuss a settlement (Attachment XXXX dated 15/03/24) and an email saying the same a week later (Attachment XXXX dated 25/4/24).  All they needed was a counterclaim filing against them.

37. I did call, spoke to a lady named Sarah, who offered me the same “enticing”conditions. My costs at this point were £70 where as theirs were £35. Why would I agree to that? I told her that it was not acceptable and they needed to do better. She said she would speak to the client, and get back to me after the easter holidays. At the time of writing (4/5/24), I have never heard back from her.

38. On 19/03/24 I received an email from DCBL’s DPO (Attachment XXXXX) This email was totally unsolicited and arrived without me providing any of the identification or information requested by Mr. Hinton previously. It asked for another month to provide the information on top of the month it had taken for them to reply. It appears that they didn’t need more information to honour my request after all, again, they just needed a counterclaim filing against them.

39. My SAR finally arrived on 8/4/24 from DCBL’s DPO (Attachment XXXXX). As you can see, it is total nonsense. It has the wrong name, an address that it claims was “provided by trace”. Then the same VRN at,the bottom with no information attached to it, the VRN I have maintained all along is nothing to do with me. There was no mention of the DVLA and the reason is because they did not return my address. It was a clear attempt to placate me and a rushed, half cocked attempt to prevent me claiming that they refused to provide me with the SAR I requested.

40. I replied quickly (Attachment XXXX) and informed Ms Stokes that the trace cannot be from the DVLA, enquiring what trace returned my address?

41. An exchange then followed between Ms Stokes and I where I felt she continued to attempt to obsfucate the details I sought and palm me off with the DCBL privacy policy on the website. The information felt incomplete so I continued to press her (Attachment XXXXX)

42. Her reply (Attachment XXXXX) is where she admitted that “A trace actioned by DCB Legal has given a secondary address for the name on file. This in your case has produced a mistrace in error.”

43. That alone rendered their case against me over. It also confirms the fact that the I Park Services DPO lied regarding my details coming from the DVLA. It also proves that, given even the smallest investigation, they would have realised that they had the wrong data subject which would have put a stop to all of this before we got anywhere near this point.

44. Still she hadn’t answered my question so I replied again (Attachment XXXXX), seeking further clarification of the source of my home address. Her reply (Attachment XXXXX) informed me that under the exemption rule, ‘management forecasting and planning’ she is exempted from providing the information I requested on the basis that it would be likely to prejudice the conduct of their business activities.

45. I’m not sure of the law regarding that and feel I’ve researched enough, but I felt she was experienced in dealing with these matters so assumed she knows what she was talking about. My issue is that it took 7 exchanges to arrive at the truth. Every exchange is designed to cause maximum distress and results in very little progress. My SAR is incomplete in my opinion and it is yet another clear violation of the data protection principle, “used fairly, lawfully and transparently”. Not to mention it’s lack of accuracy.

Pullmyfinger88

DEFENCE TO MY COUNTERCLAIM AND CONTINUED HARASSMENT 

46. Finally, I’d like to highlight the lies, half truths, misconceptions and what is a clear continuation of harassment that is Mr Hinton’s shameful defence to my counterclaim. (Attachment XXXXX). This is at the point where the game is up and they know I’m not the person they’re looking for, yet they persist.

47. At 6 (I) the claimant says I failed to mitigate in the circumstances. As I said in point 16 above, there was nothing about their letters that pertained to me. I deemed this letter inconsequential, junk, a scam and binned it. I am not obliged and don’t have the time to respond to junk mail, especially junk mail saying I owe them money. 

48. In actual fact, I did call DCBL early on in the proceedings. After several letters, I did call them despite knowing their modus operandi and being fully aware it would be a waste of time. I withheld my number and after an age on hold was connected with a dismissive, arrogant and belligerent operative that repeatedly informed me that as the registered keeper, I was liable for the debt. I restated that I was not the registered keeper but was told my details had been obtained from the DVLA, which I knew was impossible. This lead to an increasingly frustrated and heated discussion, the operative eventually hanging up on me. 

49. Same paragraph, “if the defendant genuinely believes that they have been mistraced”. It’s not what I believe, it’s what I know, and what DCBL’s own DPO admitted, so they knew it too.

50. Same paragraph, “due to the correspondent refusing to confirm their details in accordance with DCB Legal’s data protection procedures”. I did confirm my details to I Park Services DPO (Point 26 above) and it was a waste of time. Why would I bother providing more, different information to DCBL? (point 27 above). Having said that, as soon as my counterclaim was filed, DCBL’s data protection procedures went out the window (point 38 above). Either they’ve broke their own procedures or the procedures were there as a roadblock and to aggravate me in the first place. To call me obstructive and unreasonable is rich and is totally unnecessary from a professional. I have an emotion involvement in this matter, he should not, it’s his job. Yet more unreasonable behaviour causing distress and alarm.

51. 6(v) the claimant states, “if the Defendant has been caused “distress and anxiety” then it is only because of their decision not to pay the charges”. Why would I pay charges for something that is nothing to do with me? How is this not a perfect example of ‘if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other’?. I’m innocent, I was minding my own business when these predators attacked me, why would I pay? Why would the claimant even write this? Surely anyone wrongly accused would defend themselves and not just pay up. If I wrote to DCBL and said they owed me £500 would they pay? It would be an exercise in futility.

52. 6(vi). Yet more lies. They knew my details hadn’t come from the DVLA. This point is completely moot.

53. 6(vii) My witness statement highlights the harassment I have suffered. I am innocent. This whole thing has been unwelcome in my life and I shouldn’t be dealing with any of it. In reference to 6(iv.b) my distress and anxiety is directly a result of the claimant. If they had their facts straight , I wouldn’t have experienced any distress or anxiety. If they’re not to blame, who are? (point 59 below)

54. Same paragraph, charges may have been issued correctly but they were to the wrong person, an innocent person. Why continue the charade? They know I’m innocent. The debt may be legally owed but it’s not owed by me. I am innocent. Again, another moot point and an attempt to obfuscate the matter at hand.

55. 6(viii) I Park Services and DCBL issued court proceedings against me, not the other way round. I say again, was minding my own business going about my life. I am not the aggressor here. I told them they had the wrong person, twice, and gave them 7 days to prevent any of this, twice, but as I mentioned above, they only paid attention once I was left with no alternative but to file a counterclaim. How dare they blame me for court proceedings being issued? 

56. 7 This is most certainly not a counterclaim that can be categorised as baseless because the remedy I seek is not a remedy unknown to the law.

TO CONCLUDE

57. I have satisfied that in the balance of probabilities that the claimant knew or ought to have known that this claim had no merit and I was not liable in law. I have further strengthened my position that the Claimant was negligent and lazy and their sole aim was to bully me for money which they had no lawful entitlement to.

58. I have satisfied the balance of probabilities that the Claimant has committed numerous counts of Data Protection material breaches by unlawfully obtaining and misusing my details, by initially refusing me access to that data, and for failing to erase the erroneous data they held about me. 

59. Furthermore the harassment for monies that was never due by me was unwarranted. It is to be noted that the protection from Harassment Act 1987 does not provide any defence for “accidental” harassment. Confirmed by Lord Justice Jacob in the case between Lisa Ferguson vs British Gas Trading Limited [2009] EWCA civ 46. Nor there is any policy reason why big corporations such as the Claimant and their agents, who are among the biggest players in the parking and debt recovery Industry, should be exonerated for conduct which, if carried out by an individual, would amount to harassment.

60. I have provided sufficient evidence and information to show that the Claimant and their agent knew the conduct amounted to harassment, or that it ought to have so known it was and their course of action is capable of causing alarm and distress. In accordance with what I understand in the Laws of Agency - the Claimant is ultimately responsible for the third parties conduct and actions. I did everything that was reasonably expected as a vulnerable appellant in a territory virtually unknown to me at the time.

61. This case highlights the dangers of companies “Robo Claim“ business model, impersonal approach , spewing out robotic responses, and making no attempt to pay attention to or care about anything presented to them.

62. They admit that they made a mistake. I contacted them to discuss an amicable settlement but they have not offered a settlement. They continue to waste the courts, my and their own time, money and resources, playing the victim when they’re clearly the aggressor.

63.  As such, it is without a doubt they are engaging in unreasonable conduct in litigation and still continue with the same pattern of behaviour that constitutes a course of conduct amounting to harassment and intimidation. This case, without a doubt, falls comfortably within those types of cases in which the Court should exercise its powers under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and give out the strongest sanctions allowable .

64.  Lord Denning MR’s aptly described the concept of abuse of process in a dissenting judgment in the Court of Appeal case, namely Goldsmith v Sperrings and others [1977] 1WLR 478. He said at p.489:  “In a civilised society, legal process is the machinery for keeping and doing justice. It can be used properly, or it can be abused. It is used properly when it is invoked for the vindication of a man’s rights or the enforcement of just claims. It is abused when it is diverted from its true course so as to serve extortion or oppression: or to exert pressure so as to achieve an improper end.  When it is so abused, it is a tort, a wrong known to the law. The judges can and will intervene to stop it. They will stay the legal process, if they can, before any harm is done. If they cannot stop it in time, and harm is done, they will give damages against the wrongdoer. Sometimes abuse can be shown by the very steps being taken in the courts. At other times the abuse can only be shown by extrinsic evidence that the legal process is being used for an improper purpose. On the face of it, in any particular case, the legal process may appear to be entirely proper and correct. What may make it wrongful is the purpose for which it is used. If it is done in order to exert pressure so as to achieve an end which is improper in itself, then it is a wrong known to the law. This appears distinctly from the case which founded this tort. It is Granger V Hill 1838 4 Bing (NC) 212 which arose out of the old process of Capias. The plaintiff recovered damages for abuse of the process. It had been abused because it had had because it had been taken as Tindal CJ said at page 221, "to effect an object not within the scope of the process unquote": and as Bosanquet J said at page 224: the process was enforced for an ulterior purpose. ... I know that the remedy by staying the process is a strong remedy, and only to be exercised in exceptional cases. But there are cases in which justice may require it to be done. And then it should be done if the evidence is sufficient for the purpose."

65. The ideas inherent in this reasoning have flowed through case law right up to recent times some 45 years on. For example, reviewing the authorities, especially the judgment of Lord Clarke in Fairclough Homes Limited v Summers [2012] UKSC 26, it seems to me clear that the chief purpose of abuse of process lies more in achieving procedural fairness before trial, than it does in featuring in the disposal of a claim after trial. This is not to say that the Court can never resort to it after a trial, but this would be rare. Lord Clarke said “The test in every case must be what is just and proportionate. It seems to us that it will only be in the very exceptional case that it will be just and proportionate for the court to strike out an action after a trial.” [Para 61 of Fairclough]. 65. Rule 3.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules which enables the Court “to strike out the whole or part of a statement of case which discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending a claim” (CPR 3.4(2)(a)), or which is “an abuse of the process of the court or otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings” (CPR 3.4(2)(b)).''



66.  Accordingly, it should not preclude the Court from concluding that the Claimant’s behaviour was altogether unreasonable. They started this action and pursued it without a sight of discontinuance or even a hint of remorse or apology, and this must fall into the category of unreasonable conduct attracting the costs sanction of CPR 27.14(2)(g) in favour of the Defendant.

 67. * (i) Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd  [2009] EWCA Civ 46

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html  

where Sedley LJ held: 

[52] ''...For my part I would draw attention to the fact [...] that harassment is a crime as well as a tort. Contrary to what was more than once suggested, this does not modify in any way the constituents of the wrong. 

[53] Parliament's intention in passing the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was to criminalise the kind of serious and persistent unwarranted threat which is alleged here, giving a right of civil action as a fallback. In this situation it ought not to be left to hardy individuals to put their savings and homes at risk by suing. The primary responsibility should rest upon local public authorities which possess the means and the statutory powers to bring alleged harassers, however impersonal and powerful, before the local justices.'' 

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH:
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth

Name: 

Signature: 

Xx xx 20xx

Coupon-mad

Very good!

I'd remove 20.

And put DPO in full.  Not the acronym.

1505grandad

A pedantic observation:-

"13. I am a victim of appalling abuse of process and vexatious use of the court system in a blatant attempt to bully and enrich themselves without any lawful entitlement whatsoever."

Perhaps include "me" after bully?