Not the Keeper nor the Driver

Pullmyfinger88

thanks @Coupon-mad. I’ll make the changes. 👍

GrannyKate

I totally fail to see at 44/45 how the exemption can apply.  Telling you the source of information does not seem to be relevant in this context at all. 
Individuals have the right to know:

• what information is being used
• why it’s being used
• where it came from
• who can see the information

Information used for management forecasting or planning – There is an exemption from complying with a DSAR if it relates to personal data being used for management forecasting or planning such as sales projections, staffing plans and financial forecasts. Disclosing this information could prejudice the business and reveal sensitive information about company operations and future plans.

KeithP

In paragraph 36 you write about a letter from DCBL which mentioned "our client may be prepared to settle this case".
Was that letter headed "Without Prejudice"? If so, then you cannot mention that letter until the matter of costs is being discussed.

Pullmyfinger88

@GrannyKate I thought the same but I’ve done so much reading and studying that I didn’t have the energy to check it. I think I’ll look tonight and see if I can find it. Thank-you 

Pullmyfinger88

@KeithP yes the letters and emails were all “without prejudice” am I not even allowed to mention that I received them in my witness statement?

KeithP

Pullmyfinger88 said:

...yes the letters and emails were all “without prejudice” am I not even allowed to mention that I received them in my witness statement?

If all the letters were so marked, then I think you might need to rethink this.
Wait for others to comment.

GrannyKate

The relevant exemption is an exemption to GDPR as created by DPA 2018.  Fail to see what this has to do with telling you the source of your data.  You do not need to reference the old DPA 1998 as all events are post DPA 2018. 

• Relevant provisions in the Data Protection Act 2018 (the exemption) - Schedule 2, Part 4, Paragraph 22

  External link

• Relevant provisions in the UK GDPR (the exempt provisions) - Articles 5, 13(1)-(3), 14(1)-(4), and 15(1)-(3)

  External link

  
  

Pullmyfinger88

thanks @KeithP and @GrannyKate

Pullmyfinger88

thanks @GrannyKate. I knew when I wrote that I assumed she knew what she was talking about it would come back to bite me. 🤣 you’re absolutely correct, It’s got nothing at all to do with my situation. Shame on me for leaving that stone unturned. Thank-you

Coupon-mad

Just to follow up, to confirm that you cannot reference nor exhibit documents that are offers and are marked 'without prejudice'.

Hopefully that doesn't include this golden nugget:

5. As DCBL’S DPO admitted that “This in your case has produced a mistrace in error” (See attachment XXXXXX).

Don't rush this as we have all weekend.

What I think you are missing is an explanation as to where you got the figure of £900 from, as opposed to inventing it.

I'd say you need to adduce the Vento bands and point out how modest this counterclaim is. Search the forum.

And you need other case law that I used for someone only last week in trying to persuade them to run a counterclaim.  Search the forum for Halliday Vidal Hall and change the search to newest (and look for posts in April by me).

Pretty sure I set the case law out that shows that awards can be made for pure distress and data abuse.

You can also use Simon Clay v CEL, AND VCS v Ferguson, the transcripts for which is also kicking around the forum.

The latter got awarded a grand, I think, and like your case it was about him being the wrong person and he had protested throughout (like you) but was still sued, so he counterclaimed (just like you).

You need that one!