Biting back with a vengeance

GettingOnInYears

This is a draft of the witness statement i intend to use.:

I, xxxxx, of xxxxxx, make this statement in support of my claim against the Defendant for breach of data protection law and unlawful access to my personal information via the DVLA.

2. Background and Context

On [insert date], I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from the Defendant regarding an alleged contravention at [location]. The correspondence was aggressive and relied heavily on intimidating language, including references to ParkingEye v Beavis, clearly intended to pressure me into payment rather than inform me of my rights. I had not consented to the release of my personal data, nor was I given any opportunity to challenge the basis of the claim before my details were accessed via the DVLA.

3. Impact on Me

My spouse, whose health has been steadily declining and is now in a care home with Alzheimer’s, is the most important person in my life. I visit her as often and for as long as possible while she still retains sufficient cognitive ability to recognise me. As her husband, I give her as much attention, support, and assistance as I can — emotionally, practically, and personally. I sit with her most days for hours on end, simply holding hands as she struggles to make conversation. At such times, as is the case at present I am very tearful.

This caregiving role defines my daily routine and emotional landscape. The stress and time burden imposed by the Defendant’s conduct has intruded upon this already demanding reality. I experienced sleep disruption, heightened anxiety, suicidal thoughts and a sense of injustice that lingered throughout the process.

In order to understand and challenge the legality of their actions, I was forced to undertake extensive legal research, draft formal correspondence, and construct a claim that complies with civil procedure. This process consumed dozens of hours — time that should have been spent attending to my spouse’s needs and safeguarding my own health.

I am not pursuing this claim for profit, but to hold the Defendant accountable for unlawful conduct and misuse of personal data, and to seek reimbursement for the many hours I have spent researching, drafting, and constructing this claim.

4. The Defendant’s Conduct and Its Implications

Receiving a Parking Charge Notice that I believe was issued unlawfully triggered a cascade of anxiety and uncertainty. The Defendant’s correspondence was misleading and coercive, invoking ParkingEye v Beavis in a way that appeared designed to intimidate rather than inform.

Ironically, the Defendant’s reliance on Beavis only underscores their own failure to comply with the very principles that case established. In Beavis, the Supreme Court upheld the charge due to clear signage, a legitimate interest in managing parking, and procedural fairness. The Defendant’s conduct — including their failure to follow proper compliance procedures and their unlawful acquisition of my personal data from the DVLA — stands in direct contradiction to those standards.

The precedent they rely on to justify their conduct is the very same authority that exposes their non-compliance. It is not a shield — it is a mirror reflecting their own procedural failures.

5. Legal and Regulatory Breaches

The Defendant’s conduct breached multiple layers of legal and regulatory safeguards:

• KADOE Contract: Access to DVLA data is conditional upon “reasonable cause” and strict adherence to data protection principles. The Defendant failed to meet these standards and did not demonstrate lawful basis for accessing my data.

• BPA Code of Practice: The British Parking Association’s Code prohibits misleading or aggressive language and mandates transparency. The Defendant’s correspondence failed to meet these standards and relied on intimidation rather than lawful process.

• Supreme Court Precedent – ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67: The conditions that rendered the charge enforceable in Beavis—clear signage, legitimate interest, and fair contractual terms—were not met in my case.

6. Pattern of Non-Compliance and Prior Notice

The Defendant has previously been made aware of compliance failures at the same location through my initial appeal against my PCN, adjudicated appeals, including my own POPLA appeal and the decision in Callum Hilton v [Defendant] (Annex A) which was an event subsequent to the defendant being informed of their breach. In that case, POPLA upheld the appeal due the lack of adequate signage:

Despite this formal finding, the Defendant continues to issue PCNs at the same site without remedying the deficiencies. This demonstrates a knowing disregard for lawful enforcement standards and undermines any claim of reasonable belief in compliance. Their conduct is not an isolated error but part of a sustained pattern of procedural failure and misuse of precedent.

7. Relief Sought

In light of the above, I respectfully ask the Court to recognise not only the distress caused by the Defendant’s unlawful access and use of my personal data, but also the broader implications of such conduct. I seek:

• A declaration that the Defendant’s actions breached data protection law

• An injunction to prevent further keeper's details from being accessed for this site as long as the necessary compliance requirements remain outstanding

• Compensation for distress and time spent on legal preparation

This claim is not about punishing the Defendant financially, but about affirming the rights of individuals to be treated lawfully and fairly. A clear judicial statement is necessary to deter similar conduct and restore accountability.
--------------------------------------------------
This is just a first draft and the actual bundle being prepared will add a hell of a lot more.

GettingOnInYears

I just received my data access details. It shows : Ranger Services Ltd on behalf of CP Plus Ltd, Car Parking Management, Ranger Services Ltd.
Do I need to change the defendant's details from CP Plus trading as Group Nexus

Umkomaas

GettingOnInYears said:

I just received my data access details. It shows : Ranger Services Ltd on behalf of CP Plus Ltd, Car Parking Management, Ranger Services Ltd.
Do I need to change the defendant's details from CP Plus trading as Group Nexus

Claimant's details, you are the Defendant!  Nope, CP Plus t/a Group Nexus is the Claimant. Copy the Claimant's name precisely as shown on the claim form. 

GettingOnInYears

No. That's the usual scenario but it's me taking court action against them for breach of the DPA. If you read the case details so far, you'll get the gist of it. So with hat in mind what name should I put for the defendant?

Castle

CP Plus Limited t/a Group Nexus (Use their registered office address, which is).
Jack Straw's Castle,
12 North End Way,
London,
NW3 7ES


(Ranger Services Ltd will just claim to be acting on the instructions of CP Plus Limited).

Umkomaas

GettingOnInYears said:

No. That's the usual scenario but it's me taking court action against them for breach of the DPA. If you read the case details so far, you'll get the gist of it. So with hat in mind what name should I put for the defendant?

Ah right, understood. Missed the reverse of what we're used to! 👍

GettingOnInYears

Umkomaas said:

GettingOnInYears said:

No. That's the usual scenario but it's me taking court action against them for breach of the DPA. If you read the case details so far, you'll get the gist of it. So with hat in mind what name should I put for the defendant?

Ah right, understood. Missed the reverse of what we're used to! 👍

It's an easy mistake given that the words "court action" and "CP Plus" appear in the post.
They still have until the end of the 19th of September to acknowledge the Letter Before Claim. I hope like hell they don't. I want to have a court rule in my favour which will be useful for many other people. It won't quite be another Beavis case but I'm hoping for it to reach the High Court if I win and they make an appeal.
The cost doesn't bother me. It's the legal precedent that I want to get.

GettingOnInYears

I'm now well into preparation of my Particulars Of Claim and Witness Statement. For no other reason that to set the tone of my need for retribution against the unlawful access to my DVLA details, I need to bolster the language. It sets the scene. Everything in the Personal Impact section in my witness statement is absolute fact. I believe it will have a profound effect on any judge. Here goes with that section wording:

The Defendant’s actions have caused me significant distress and disruption. I am the primary caregiver for my spouse, who now resides in a care home with advanced Alzheimer’s disease. In the months leading up to this incident while she was still at home with me, her condition had deteriorated severely — she was frequently confused, frightened, and unable to recognise me or her surroundings. I spent long hours by her side, trying to comfort her through episodes of extreme cognitive disorientation, often leaving me emotionally drained and mentally exhausted.

Her confusion and anger extended to mirrors and reflective surfaces, where she didn’t recognise herself and believed she saw strangers coming to take me away from her. She threatened the mirrors and the other surfaces that showed her reflection. She became convinced I was having affairs — despite 56 years of faithful marriage. These delusions were heart-breaking and devastating, and I had to navigate them daily with patience and as much emotional resilience as I could muster. Only those who have personally experienced the effects of Alzheimer’s on a loved one will fully understand the emotional toll it takes on family members. It was an ongoing nightmare for me, both personally and financially.

During this period, I was also forced to initiate insolvency proceedings to close my wife’s shop, which she could no longer operate due to her illness. This resulted in the loss of a vital source of income, while I was simultaneously making significant payments for her care home residency. The financial and emotional pressures were immense.
All of this time I was also having to do all the necessary things to run the household such as making the meals, washing and ironing, cleaning and so on, all the while keeping watch that my wife didn't disappear up the road to try to find the people she saw in the mirrors - something that happened from time to time.

The cumulative strain left me in a state of profound despair. I have never shed so many tears in my life. At one point, I felt so overwhelmed and hopeless that I wrote a letter for the police and left it on the back seat of my car, explaining why I had driven into a bridge abutment at speed. While I did not act on that impulse, the fact that I reached that point underscores the seriousness of the emotional harm I suffered.

The receipt of a baseless PCN from the Defendant — and the subsequent need to investigate, respond, and prepare legal action — intruded into this already overwhelming period. I had no spare capacity to absorb the burden of legal research and correspondence, yet I was forced to do so to protect my rights and prevent further harm.

I have now spent many hours researching the legal framework, drafting correspondence, and preparing this claim. I have incurred costs in printing, postage, and travel, and have had to divert attention from my caregiving responsibilities to address this matter. I have the personal need to visit my wife as often as possible and for as long as I can, not only to give comfort to my wife but also to try and lighten my own grief and loneliness.

The emotional impact has been considerable. I felt violated by the unlawful access to my personal data, and the aggressive tone of the PCN caused anxiety and frustration. I am meticulous and law-abiding, and the fact that someone unlawfully obtained my details from the DVLA to extract money from me only added to the immense burden already on my shoulders. The distress and disruption I’ve suffered as a result of the Defendant’s unlawful conduct clearly exceed any de minimis threshold. This is not a case of mere inconvenience — the emotional harm, financial strain, and psychological toll have been profound and sustained. I understand that the legal threshold requires seriousness, and I believe my circumstances meet and surpass that standard.

NB. I will add to this anything else as my work continues, that I feel will strengthen my case so what you see here is really only a draft.

Coupon-mad

So sorry to hear that, Lynnzer.

I haven't had time to read all your prepared arguments but the thin skull rule supports the argument you are making about significant harm caused to you: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

Umkomaas

I wonder if Jackson Yama via Contestor Legal can help here on a no win no fee basis?