Harassment by QEH Woolwich, Wise Parking, Trace Debt Recovery, BW Legal

london_memories

I am minded to file a claim against Queen Elizabeth Hospital Woolwich for incompetence handling parking, their part in harassing a vulnerable adult (me), breaching data protection and wasting my time.

A lot has happened in the past 6 months, and I don’t think I need to go into detail here, as there are similar cases all over this forum and the other popular one.

So I have 2 PCNs from Wise Parking on behalf of QEH Woolwich. I have defences worked out. For the first it’s a case of inadequate signage not providing an offer to people picking up and therefore no contract, and for the other it’s a case of “not parking in a marked bay” being that the place parked it was not possible to see whether it was a marked bay or not, due to mud and puddles. Also inadequate signage. I’ve defended in court before so I’m happy to defend in court again.

So I first contacted PALS to see if anything could be done. Instead of handling my complaint they forwarded my email to Parking Wise, including personal details of a family member, which is a clear violation of data protection. PALS failed to respond to an SAR as did Wise, and I’ve just filed an SAR with Trace and I’m about to serve one on BW Legal.

I just got a Letter of Claim from BW Legal, which is not fully compliant with the relevant Pre Action Protocol, so I see a claim for costs in my future, as I’ve complied on my side.

Essentially my case against the four of them is one of harassment, and I just need to work out the finer points. If you make a threat against a person with intent to collect money, you need to do some due diligence to ensure that the threat is enforceable, otherwise it’s just harassment. This principle applies to everyone in the chain, and the hospital are responsible for the actions of their subcontractors. Similarly, the solicitor issuing roboletters are in default of the SRA Principles 1,2, 4 and 5, and specifically SRA Regulation 2.4 which requires solicitors to only make assertions which are properly arguable.

So, without going into too much detail right here right now, do you think I have grounds to file against all four, or just the hospital? My family member whose data was the subject of the data breach will join me as joint claimant.

I have already spotted a few precedents that will bolster my case, but if you have any that spring to mind, please send me links.

GrannyKate

If PALS forwarded your email to the parking company and it contained personal information about a family member (possibly the patient) that is potentially a very serious breach of Information Governance for the Trust.  Formal complaint to the CEO should be the next move. 

london_memories

True. I've only delayed in this because I've been sending SARs to gather evidence. Nobody has complied with their SAR so far which bolsters my case. I have contacted the Board Secretary who has now put me in touch with the head of department, and I am preparing a letter to them, which, given I've now received a Letter of Claim will also be a Letter of Claim.

In other news, I should have mentioned that I previously saw word that if "boots on the ground" are taking photos for PCNs, then by rights they should be issuing tickets on the spot, and not waiting to get my details from DVLA. Can anyone elaborate?

Gr1pr

They do not have to issue a PCN windscreen notice on the day 

If they are using MNPR , they can also choose to send a PCN by post instead 

NB,  its currently an unregulated industry 

Coupon-mad

I am minded to file a claim against Queen Elizabeth Hospital Woolwich for incompetence handling parking, their part in harassing a vulnerable adult (me), breaching data protection and wasting my time.

Good!  More people should attack landowners for this sort of treatment.

I suggest you might want to ask @bargepole or @troublemaker22 if they see grounds to raise a claim (both know how to make claims).  Multiple claimants and multiple defendants can be messy and this would need to be properly pleaded.

london_memories

I was hoping you'd say something like that ! I previously tried to add the landowner to an existing parking claim against me but it was denied by the court, so I'm not sure how feasable that is for organisations outside the NHS, but if hospitals are responsible for the actions of their subcontractors, so should other landowners be, in theory. I successfully defended that claim and got very close to having a counterclaim awarded in my favour - it was only that I didn't have the presence of mind in the moment to link the regulations to the law, but now that I understand what the judge will be looking for in a data protection case, it won't slip through my fingers again.

I've quite some experience in the court, mostly as a claimant. I'll put together some draft particulars of claim and run it by @bargepole and @troublemaker22 to see what they make of it. Thanks.

london_memories

It occurs to me, while I'm formulating my particulars, and having just read Ferguson v British Gas that we should remind ourselves that harassment is actually criminal and should be reported to the Police and Trading Standards. A claim for money that cannot possibly succeed in court if the claimant's paperwork is not in order (eg, inadequate signage, POFA non-compliance, authority to issue, and assuming the defendant's capability to defend) is no better than the mafia turning up at your doorstep asking for protection money, and the burden should not rest with the individual (who typically lack the resources, knowledge and guts) to file a counterclaim. Whilst on the one hand, the Police and Trading Standards will probably do nothing with a single report, if and when they do receive enough reports about a particular company or body, they will become duty bound to investigate. It might be helpful to add a template to the FAQs along these lines. Thoughts?

Coupon-mad

They'll tell you it's a civil matter, sadly.  Criminal harassment has to be 'grave'. The Police will not listen.

london_memories

On a single case, absolutely I agree - they will ignore it, but it will become a statistic. I've been down this road with the Police before in a completely unrelated matter, concerning malicious communications by an individual, culminating in stalking. We filed with the Police around 7 times. At first they said, "There's not enough here right now, but keep filing with us every time something happens because that's how we build harassment cases." Eventually when it culminated in stalking the Police took action towards prosecution.

In a similar unrelated matter of fraud/theft, the Police did not take action until the fraudster had established a pattern of events, and the fraudster was prosecuted on the basis of a number of events.

I've also seen Trading Standards completely ignore my reports about an estate agent, but ultimately Trading Standards prosecuted him once the weight of evidence showed a pattern.

Similarly, an MP won't take action about a matter unless it's reported to him 6 times.

Reporting these matters to the authorities will almost never help you in your individual case, but if we want these fraudsters to be forced to act with any amount of decency, the reports from the community will be of great benefit to the community.

Coupon-mad

I've been down this road with the Police before in a completely unrelated matter, concerning malicious communications by an individual, culminating in stalking.

Me too.

The Police told me to get lost despite the perpetrator demanding money and tracking down and maliciously writing to my employer.  Thankfully that was a decade ago and the narc responsible is now dead. The Police were useless.

Reporting these matters to the authorities will almost never help you in your individual case, but if we want these fraudsters to be forced to act with any amount of decency, the reports from the community will be of great benefit to the community.

I don't disagree with the concept but in my case, working directly with the Government WILL get us there.  Regardless of Government we are nearly there with the statutory Code. 

london_memories

The Police choose to interpret the law in the criminal's favour because they are hugely underfunded and incapable of bringing enough prosecutions to make a difference. The statutory code, whilst being welcome, is nothing without enforcement. We have already seen these fraudsters flaunt the codes of practice laid down by the regulatory bodies they signed up to, because nobody is going to enforce it, except for the few of us willing and capable of going through the upset of going to court to achieve justice. In my previous case, my counterclaim only didn't succeed because I didn't have the presence of mind to link the code of practice to the law. I should have mentioned in court that the POFA requires compliance with the code of practice, so therefore a breach of the code is a breach of the law, so please award me for a breach of data protection. Even with the statutory code in place, I can't see things changing much unless we take a stand for ourselves.