Biting back with a vengeance

GettingOnInYears

Umkomaas said:

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

If it goes beyond a County Court I might be open to that.
The last time someone tried to screw me, Direct Digital who did hospital advertising, and who were known scammers as they failed in many respects to fulfil any contracts, and were a whole bunch of lying sods, thought they could pin me for over £12k for a failure to pay. They had called into my wife's shop and literally scammed her, didn't leave any contractual documents, took two and half grand deposit, left a business card proclaiming him to be the Finance Director - which of course was easily knocked out by searching Companies House records.
I did months of research, found that in Australia where they offered the same service, they had been fined $210,000 by the Supreme Court for unconscionable conduct. I built a damn good case, warned them they didn't have a hope in hell of winning their claim and I was eager to get it heard. I warned them. I told them they were effing with the wrong person. but they issued the claim anyway. Another scammed customer who lives nearby visited me with his barrister friend. I told them I was going for £3506.24 in damages. He sniggered and said that even if I won, I'd only get minimal costs.
When I came out of the court, I was smiling. I rang him up and said I'd won the whole amount. My defence also included wording similar to the stuff I'm using in this case, only that it was based on the fear of them bankrupting my wife's business and how it impacted our 50th wedding anniversary plans to take a long cruise.
So, I'm up to speed on how to handle a county court. If it does progress higher I may well get legal advice and involvement as I sure as hell intend to win the case.
I've already spent the best part of 4 days on research, when I have been free from visiting my wife.
I think you get that when I even deliberately get a parking ticket, it's done with clear knowledge of how to handle things, such as in the shopping trolley incident.

GettingOnInYears

Coupon-mad said:

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

That's one really good point. Thanks for that. It will be included in my Particulars of claim

GettingOnInYears

I'm just about there with drafting the Particulars of Claim. Take a look and see if there's anything that may need some change. I've taken out the claimant's and defendant's name at this stage for quite obvious reasons.
It's a bit of long read but I think it brings out all the salient points.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sbgX8uL8a2I7bqVyPMCSvwLaJXYqQeEV/view?usp=sharing

Car1980

I think you're going to have to tackle reasonable cause.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6508303/dvla-gdpr-breaches-where-the-ppc-operates-on-non-relevant-land

This is the shield they use for absolutely everything, so you're going to need to face it head on.

GettingOnInYears

Car1980 said:

I think you're going to have to tackle reasonable cause.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6508303/dvla-gdpr-breaches-where-the-ppc-operates-on-non-relevant-land

This is the shield they use for absolutely everything, so you're going to need to face it head on.

Appreciated. However I'm tackling this from a different perspective. I'm not taking the DVLA to task as I know it's a pretty insurmountable task that has failed on so many previous occasions.
My take is that it's the parking company itself that has no reasonable cause to access the DVLA data unless it is in strict compliance to the BPA Code Of Practice as highlighted in the Beavis case as an absolute necessity.
I think your pointer to DVLA cases may well be presented as rebuttal though so I will be ready to differentiate between the two sides of the same coin - as it were. The DVLA releases the information in full expectation that the operator has fulfilled it's own compliance - so rightfully cannot be held responsible for any failure of that. At least that's my take on it. It comes down to the operator getting unlawful access rather than the DVLA making unlawful release.
Ah. Just thought - since I didn't include who the Defendant was you made a stab at it being the DVLA. It's actually a Parking Operator. I would have loved it to have been ParkingEye where I could use the Beavis case which they won on the premise of compliance to the BPA Code of Practice, and see it backfire for their failure to comply. Maybe another day - in fact ------ something may just drop into my in-tray shortly.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Just done an AI search for likely defences that could be used. This is the result of that:

 Likely Defences by the Defendant

1. De Minimis Harm Defence (Rolfe v VWV)

They may argue that any distress suffered was too trivial to warrant compensation, citing Rolfe v Veale Wasbrough Vizards LLP [2021], where the court dismissed a claim for minor upset caused by a misdirected email.

Rebuttal:

Your case is fundamentally different. You’ve documented:

• Suicidal ideation

• Emotional collapse

• Disruption to caregiving

• Financial strain

This clearly exceeds the de minimis threshold, aligning more with TLT v Home Office and Gulati v MGN Ltd, where serious emotional harm was compensated.

2. Lawful Access via DVLA KADOE Contract

They may claim they accessed your data lawfully under the DVLA’s KADOE (Keeper at Date of Event) contract, which allows parking operators to request keeper details.

Rebuttal:

You can challenge this by showing:

• No entry signage at the location, breaching BPA Code of Practice

• Therefore, no lawful basis for issuing the PCN

• Which invalidates the KADOE request under DVLA’s own terms (which require compliance with BPA standards)

This turns the KADOE access into an unlawful data request, breaching UK GDPR Article 6 (lawfulness of processing).

3. Cancellation of PCN = No Harm

They may argue that since the PCN was cancelled, no harm was suffered and the matter is resolved.

Rebuttal:

Cancellation does not erase the breach or its consequences. The emotional harm occurred before cancellation, and the Defendant:

• Ignored your data breach complaint

• Offered no apology or redress

• Forced you to undertake legal research and preparation

This aligns with Vidal-Hall, which confirms that distress alone is compensable, even without financial loss.

4. No ICO Enforcement = No Breach

They may suggest that because the ICO didn’t investigate or penalise them, no breach occurred.

Rebuttal:

ICO involvement is not a prerequisite for a claim. Article 82 UK GDPR gives individuals a direct right to compensation, independent of regulatory action. The court is empowered to assess the breach and its impact.

5. No Causal Link Between Breach and Distress

They may argue that your distress was caused by your spouse’s illness, not their actions.

Rebuttal:

This is where the Eggshell Skull rule comes in. As established in R v Blaue [1975]:

You were already vulnerable, and their unlawful conduct exacerbated your distress. That makes them fully liable for the aggravated harm, not just the baseline.

Car1980

Yep, obviously the PPC will say they wouldn't have been given the data if they weren't legally entitled to it and that they demonstrated the reasonable cause necessary.

So then we get onto how the DVLA has the power to sell data but does not have any duty to vet. Reasonable cause can be satisfied by the fact anyone willing to pay £2.50 for the data must have reasonable cause because they are willing to pay £2.50 for the data 

I don't know if it helps you that the DVLA CAN and HAVE vetted. They do hand out 30 days suspensions where failures have meant no reasonable cause exists (Combined Parking Solutions, 2012). So there is precedent.

But how old is KADOE? If it wasn't around in 2012, I'm guessing the "simplified contract" has replaced the previous vetting ability. 

I know you aren't majoring on the DVLA aspect, but just thinking out loud because they'll make a big thing of it in their defence.

GettingOnInYears

Car1980 said:

Yep, obviously the PPC will say they wouldn't have been given the data if they weren't legally entitled to it and that they demonstrated the reasonable cause necessary.

So then we get onto how the DVLA has the power to sell data but does not have any duty to vet. Reasonable cause can be satisfied by the fact anyone willing to pay £2.50 for the data must have reasonable cause because they are willing to pay £2.50 for the data 

I don't know if it helps you that the DVLA CAN and HAVE vetted. They do hand out 30 days suspensions where failures have meant no reasonable cause exists (Combined Parking Solutions, 2012). So there is precedent.

But how old is KADOE? If it wasn't around in 2012, I'm guessing the "simplified contract" has replaced the previous vetting ability. 

I know you aren't majoring on the DVLA aspect, but just thinking out loud because they'll make a big thing of it in their defence.

The original KADOE was withdrawn in 2020 and a new contract was implemented - that is the one under which continuing access to keeper's details was subject to the compliance to the mandatory Code of Practice.
I think if they bring this up, they're on shaky ground. It's all useful stuff for me to be ready to rebut though, so thanks for that.

GettingOnInYears

Got a response from the DVLA. It shows that it was ranger Services Ltd on behalf of the defendant - oh !!!!!! - let's just say it out loud, on behalf of CP Plus who asked for my details. That adds another layer of complexity. If they are acting on behalf of, they must still be shown on the DVLA's Kadoe contract as being entitled via CP Plus. They must have been informed of that.
So, the PCN was issued by CP Plus on a site that has signage (elsewhere) that names Nexus. Then the keepers details are accessed by Ranger Services and the PCN comes from CP Plus. It's a bit convoluted and not at all transparent as to how they operate.

Thorndorise

Interested in this @GettingOnInYears, I did approach the DVLA about a breach of the CoP (IPC at the time) and therefore they had no right to access my data as they had breached their 'contract' (sorry memorandum of understanding) with KADOE/DVLA.

DVLA were not interested, their argument being that breaches were to be dealt with by the ATA, and when they sought comment on the apparent breach they then regurgitated back the tripe from the industry, shocking really, I gave up, all too stupid.

Car1980

Trade Associations hold no regulatory or legal powers whatsoever.