Biting back with a vengeance

Umkomaas

👆👆very helpful, detailed advice. 

Just one point from me on your draft POC, your Statement of Truth is many years out of date. A quick Google search will find the one you must use now. 

GettingOnInYears

Coupon-mad said:

Which case?

Jackson Yamba 

GettingOnInYears

doubledotcom said:

Whilst I can sympathise with your situation, I fear you are bulldozing on with this in the wrong way and are likely to end up wasting all this time and effort for nought.

IANAL but I do have a family member who is a very long serving district judge and having been involved with this and the FTLA forum for many years and gathering a lot of legal experience on the way, I hope you take the following as constructive criticism.

Your Particulars of Claim (PoC) need redrafting

1) What’s wrong with the current PoC

• It reads like a witness statement, not a PoC. A PoC must be a concise statement of the material facts, the legal basis, and the remedy sought (and, if claiming interest, the required interest particulars). It should not contain narrative, evidence, argument, quotations or exhibits. See CPR 16.4 and PD 16.

• The draft includes background narrative (care responsibilities and insolvency), quotations/case extracts, POPLA commentary, “public interest” submissions, and rhetorical language. Those are matters for a witness statement (and later skeleton/authorities), not for the PoC. 

• Disclosure/Part 18 requests inside the PoC are inappropriate. Part 31 disclosure does not apply to small claims, and requests for further information (Part 18) are made separately and only with the court’s permission if appropriate. They do not belong in the PoC.

• Injunctive relief is a different remedy that significantly complicates the case and is rarely suitable for the small-claims track; if pursued it may lead to different procedure, fees and undertakings. It should not be tacked onto a simple DPA damages claim.

• Statutory citation: the right to compensation sits under Article 82 UK GDPR and section 168 DPA 2018 (not “section 13”). If you plead interest, CPR 16.4(2) requires you to set out the statutory basis and the dates/rate.

2) Do not plead a Fraud Act allegation in a civil PoC

• The Fraud Act 2006 creates criminal offences. Only the police/CPS (or a separate private prosecution) can bring a Fraud Act charge. A county court dealing with a civil DPA claim cannot determine criminal liability under the Fraud Act, nor order a criminal-style “finding of fraud”.

• Your current PoC includes a “Secondary case of Fraud under section 2 Fraud Act 2006” and seeks a finding/apology. That is not justiciable in this civil claim and risks strike-out or delay. If you suspect crime, report it to the police separately. 

• If you wish to rely on dishonesty/bad faith to support aggravated damages in the DPA claim, you may plead those facts succinctly. But do not frame them as a Fraud Act count. (Note: civil deceit/fraudulent misrepresentation is a separate tort with exacting pleading standards under PD 16 ¶8.2 and is not recommended here.)

3) What a compliant PoC should look like (structure)

Keep it to the essentials:

1. Parties and site (one paragraph).

2. Cause of action: unlawful processing of personal data contrary to Art 82 UK GDPR / s.168 DPA 2018 (no reasonable cause to obtain DVLA data; absence of entrance signage means no legitimate interest/necessity).

3. Key facts only (dates: parking event, DVLA request, cancellation/appeal outcome).

4. Damage: non-material damage (distress). (If seeking aggravated damages, say so briefly and why.)

5. Remedy: damages (state value or bracket), interest (s.69 CCA 1984—give rate and dates), issue fee.

6. Statement of truth.
   (No exhibits, quotations, POPLA extracts, disclosure demands, or injunctive relief.)

4) Model short PoC (for this case)

1. The Claimant brings a claim under Article 82 UK GDPR and section 168 Data Protection Act 2018 for compensation for non-material damage (distress) arising from the Defendant’s unlawful processing of the Claimant’s personal data.
2. On [date] the Defendant (a private parking operator) requested and obtained the Claimant’s keeper data from the DVLA in relation to an alleged parking event at [location] on [date], and issued a PCN.
3. The site lacked mandatory entrance signage on the material date. Accordingly the Defendant had no reasonable cause/legitimate interest to obtain or process the Claimant’s data and the processing was not necessary or lawful under Article 6(1)(f).
4. The PCN was later cancelled following appeal, but the unlawful data access and ensuing demands caused the Claimant distress.
5. The Claimant seeks: (a) damages for distress under Art 82 UK GDPR / s.168 DPA 2018 [state amount or “not exceeding £….”]; (b) interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 at [rate]% from [date] to judgment; and (c) the issue fee.
Statement of Truth.

Very constructive advice. Thanks for that. I'm never one to go against good advice. I think this case may be best handled by a lawyer - perhaps? Especially as I expect that a win for me would result in an appeal.

Would legal costs be OK to add onto the sum claimed?

Just as a matter of interest, after reading all the salient points, does this look like a win?

Car1980

• Disclosure/Part 18 requests inside the PoC are inappropriate. Part 31 disclosure does not apply to small claims, and requests for further information (Part 18) are made separately and only with the court’s permission if appropriate. They do not belong in the PoC.

Alternatively you can request key documents prior to starting a claim:

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), state:

3. Before commencing proceedings, the court will expect the parties to have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position, make decisions about how to proceed and support the efficient management of those proceedings.

6. Steps before issuing a claim at court

The parties should exchange correspondence and information to comply with the objectives in paragraph

3, bearing in mind that compliance should be proportionate. The steps will usually include —

 (c) the parties disclosing key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

Of course in reality there is no obligation, but in your Witness Statement you can state you requested XYZ and if they are indeed key documents and non-disproportionate to supply they would look unreasonable.

Thorndorise

GettingOnInYears said:

Thorndorise said:

GettingOnInYears said:

Thorndorise said:

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.

You could always make a claim against the operator as I'm doing. Both for breach of DPA and in my case fraud. The Statute of Limitations gives you 6 years

It was on my radar and certainly threatened (both them and DCBL who had no right to share onward with DCB Legal) - Legal dropped it like a stone when I flagged it, the operator, well, they're not too bright. I even considered Jackson Yamba as an option and started preliminary discussions. Thing is, circa 3000 individuals details were shared unlawfully by this operator, unfortunately I don't have the capacity (time wise) to take it all the way through.

Interestingly I raised a complaint about them with the ICO, they also just went and checked the website and said, yeah, they're okay to share (actually even as it stands now I disagree). But I will follow this up due to the above. Watching with interest!

Thanks for drawing my attention to that case. It's highly relevant in my own circumstances and will be in a redrafted Particulars of claim. The fact that this is a very recent case that went as far as the Appeals Court will add a lot of weight. I see that the appeal was heard on the 2nd September. Do you have any knowledge of how it went?

No case was brought by me, sorry I cannot help with that! I thought about it, just didn't

GettingOnInYears

Thorndorise said:

No case was brought by me, sorry I cannot help with that! I thought about it, just didn't

No. I was referring to the Jackson Yamba case you mentioned. The hearing is on Youtube and to be honest VCN's legal representative was absolute crap.

Umkomaas

GettingOnInYears said:

Thorndorise said:

No case was brought by me, sorry I cannot help with that! I thought about it, just didn't

No. I was referring to the Jackson Yamba case you mentioned. The hearing is on Youtube and to be honest VCN's legal representative was absolute crap.

VCS v Carr

GettingOnInYears

I just trawled the BPA membership records. Neither CP Plus or Group Nexus have membership shown, However Ranger Services Ltd does. It was Ranger Services Ltd that accessed my details on behalf of CP Plus. That sounds very iffy to me. It's making a proxy situation where CP Plus use Ranger Services for its own needs. However that must be questionable as CP Plus, not being a member of the BPA has no legal authority to use a proxy, and cannot be held accountable under the law, surely? 
Now here's a further complication.; The BPA membership records Ranger Services Ltd as Ranger Services Ltd T/A GroupNexus.
Talk about double Dutch.
How does this stand for legality.
Oh, by the way I have redrawn my witness statement after considering the points raised earlier by @doubledotcom Here goes https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jbn7NhCpEOoMX1anr6ZOL4VgMKoG9tOb/view?usp=sharing
I'll be doing the Particulars of Claim again asap

Thorndorise

GettingOnInYears said:

I just trawled the BPA membership records. Neither CP Plus or Group Nexus have membership shown, However Ranger Services Ltd does. It was Ranger Services Ltd that accessed my details on behalf of CP Plus. That sounds very iffy to me. It's making a proxy situation where CP Plus use Ranger Services for its own needs. However that must be questionable as CP Plus, not being a member of the BPA has no legal authority to use a proxy, and cannot be held accountable under the law, surely? 
Now here's a further complication.; The BPA membership records Ranger Services Ltd as Ranger Services Ltd T/A GroupNexus.
Talk about double Dutch.
How does this stand for legality.
Oh, by the way I have redrawn my witness statement after considering the points raised earlier by @doubledotcom Here goes https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jbn7NhCpEOoMX1anr6ZOL4VgMKoG9tOb/view?usp=sharing
I'll be doing the Particulars of Claim again asap

I agree it's confusing, not sure on the legalities, but Ranger services did approx half a million KADOE request on behalf of CP Plus this last year!

CP Plus are 'new' to KADOE insofar as they now have an entry (as you say T/A GroupNexus) and only started making KADOE requests this last year to the tune of 3758.

That is the only mention of GroupNexus in the KADOE lookup.

GettingOnInYears

Thorndorise said:

GettingOnInYears said:

I just trawled the BPA membership records. Neither CP Plus or Group Nexus have membership shown, However Ranger Services Ltd does. It was Ranger Services Ltd that accessed my details on behalf of CP Plus. That sounds very iffy to me. It's making a proxy situation where CP Plus use Ranger Services for its own needs. However that must be questionable as CP Plus, not being a member of the BPA has no legal authority to use a proxy, and cannot be held accountable under the law, surely? 
Now here's a further complication.; The BPA membership records Ranger Services Ltd as Ranger Services Ltd T/A GroupNexus.
Talk about double Dutch.
How does this stand for legality.
Oh, by the way I have redrawn my witness statement after considering the points raised earlier by @doubledotcom Here goes https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jbn7NhCpEOoMX1anr6ZOL4VgMKoG9tOb/view?usp=sharing
I'll be doing the Particulars of Claim again asap

I agree it's confusing, not sure on the legalities, but Ranger services did approx half a million KADOE request on behalf of CP Plus this last year!

CP Plus are 'new' to KADOE insofar as they now have an entry (as you say T/A GroupNexus) and only started making KADOE requests this last year to the tune of 3758.

That is the only mention of GroupNexus in the KADOE lookup.

It's not only confusing but as far as I can ascertain illegal Here's what the AI programme says when I posed the question of legality:

Yes, Lynn—you're absolutely right to press this point. Based on the DVLA’s KADOE contract terms and the BPA Code of Practice, only the entity that intends to use DVLA data for enforcement must be a direct signatory to the KADOE agreement and a member of an Accredited Trade Association (ATA).

So in your case:

• CP Plus Ltd, as the issuer of the Parking Charge Notice and the party pursuing enforcement, would need to be the named customer on the KADOE agreement.

• Ranger Services Ltd, even if a BPA member, cannot lawfully obtain DVLA data on behalf of CP Plus Ltd unless CP Plus Ltd is also a member of the ATA and has its own KADOE agreement or is explicitly authorised under Ranger’s contract—which the BPA Code (para 12.3) expressly prohibits unless the third party is also a member.

This all sounds to me that I need full legal representation here, or perhaps in an appeal whoever wins the case. But I think the potential of finding a nearby solicitor with the knowledge needed in such a case would be minimal. As a LIP it'll be a matter of great delight if I win, but I would need some forbearance from a judge to collate and understand all the complexities

I'm up against some big guns here eh? Lord Austin of Dudley to name one of them. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02595379/officers