Biting back with a vengeance

GettingOnInYears

Ouch. I wrongly used PC Plus instead of CP Plus. I'll need to start all over again

GettingOnInYears

So, bloody hell ......
I visited the town centre yesterday. The entry point has now had a sign erected Evidence enough of the lack of compliance prior to this eh?
In the meantime I have done a fair amount of research on Ranger Services part in this and i get back to the same point every time. If they have no personal involvement - they aren't authorised to access the DVLA database. "a company cannot access DVLA data on behalf of another parking company if the first company has no reasonable cause to do so. Under Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002"

If anyone thinks this is wrong then please let me know asap as I have a Letter Before Action ready to send naming them as a co-defendant with CP Plus.
--------------------------------
addition 
The Claimant received confirmation from the DVLA that Ranger Services Ltd accessed their vehicle keeper data in connection with a parking charge issued by CP Plus Ltd.
CP Plus Ltd lacked reasonable cause to obtain this data due to non-compliance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice, which is a condition of access under the KADOE contract.
 Ranger Services Ltd, whether acting as a subcontractor under Clause D5.1(a) or accessing the data independently, cannot rely on a principal’s defective authority to legitimise its own processing. The access was therefore unlawful, and both parties are jointly and severally liable for breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR.

All of that will be in a new Particulars of Claim. In the meantime I have - at long last - compiled a new Witness Statement. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1__6AiuVb6sQp_36IpL3gNpU5z2BTRpAe/view?usp=sharing

Car1980

They have a weird setup.

As I understand it there is:

CP Plus trading as CP Plus or Group Nexus
Ranger Services Ltd trading as Group Nexus
Group Nexus Ltd trading as Group Nexus
Ranger Services Holdings Ltd trading as unknown (accountancy)

They have "merged" CP Plus and Ranger Services, but this appears to be an informal arrangement as they are separate legal companies and it has no legal status. But there appears be nothing to stop you giving all your companies the same trading name, as long as the limited company names appears too.

There signage says "an application will be made" to the DVLA. The question is whether they are permitted to hand over your details to a separate Ltd company, and pass the data obtained over. Who is the creditor? CP Plus Ltd presumably.

What reasonable cause does company B have?

A SAR to Ranger asking what data they hold on you might be an idea. You need to find out what CP Plus passed across to them and whether they provide it or not will be telling.

GettingOnInYears

Car1980 said:

They have a weird setup.

As I understand it there is:

CP Plus trading as CP Plus or Group Nexus
Ranger Services Ltd trading as Group Nexus
Group Nexus Ltd trading as Group Nexus
Ranger Services Holdings Ltd trading as unknown (accountancy)

They have "merged" CP Plus and Ranger Services, but this appears to be an informal arrangement as they are separate legal companies and it has no legal status. But there appears be nothing to stop you giving all your companies the same trading name, as long as the limited company names appears too.

There signage says "an application will be made" to the DVLA. The question is whether they are permitted to hand over your details to a separate Ltd company, and pass the data obtained over. Who is the creditor? CP Plus Ltd presumably.

What reasonable cause does company B have?

A SAR to Ranger asking what data they hold on you might be an idea. You need to find out what CP Plus passed across to them and whether they provide it or not will be telling.

The way I see this is that Ranger Services Ltd on behalf of CP Plus obtained my details. There's no mention in that lot of GroupNexus. It's only those 2 specific companies that are implicated here. This is the email I sent to Ranger Services Ltd yesterday. I expect it'll be ignored which could well be in my favour : 
I have a print-out from the DVLA that Ranger Services Ltd - acting on behalf of CP Plus- accessed my personal DVLA details in February.

Could you please explain the relationship between the 2 companies and what personal interest you had in making that request. 

The DVLA shows the reason as ‘breach of terms and conditions of a private car park’ yet I have never been into a car park that was signposted as being monitored by Ranger Services Ltd. 

Did Ranger Services have an individual reasonable cause to access my data, or was it just to pass that data across to CP Plus Ltd?
Let's see if they do respond. In the meantime I'm sending the letter before Action tomorrow.

Car1980

The way I see this is that Ranger Services Ltd on behalf of CP Plus obtained my details. There's no mention in that lot of GroupNexus. It's only those 2 specific companies that are implicated here.

Yep, there are two limited companies, none of which is GroupNexus Ltd, but all three trade as Group Nexus sometimes, when they feel like it. bizarrely.

Throw in a SAR though because seeing CP Plus hand your personal details to a separate limited company could come in handy.

GettingOnInYears

What a hell of a learning curve this has been. I have now FINALISED - at long last - the witness statement and POC. They're all way too long to include here so it's back to Google Drive links again. 
I've run these through AI programmes that suggested some points to highlight the substance but I think I have everything covered that needs to be brought out. If anyone sees a glaring mistake or anomaly let me know otherwise what's seen will be what the court gets. I don't expect a response to the SAR's but will wait until the end of the calendar month time for them to get back to me before I submit the claim.
Particulars of Claim
Witness Statement

GettingOnInYears

XMAS has come early.
The postman brought me an early gift - a letter from Yvette Yates, solicitor and head of the Enforcement Team. My LBA specifically mentioned that I knew that a new sign had been erected on 6/9/25. Well the letter was a real treasure : 
Thank you for your correspondence dated 7th September 2025, the contents of which have been noted. I have looked into the issue regarding the missing signage and it appears it was removed without our knowledge or consent and for that I apologise. I confirm a new replacement sign was in stalled on 2nd September 2025. As previously advised, it is our position that we are not liable for compensation under these circumstances, This is our final stance on this matter. Also, as previously advised should any proceedings be issued against either CP Plus Ltd and/or Ranger Services Ltd they will be vigorously defended. We are not able to respond to any further correspondence regarding this matter, save to defend our position in any court proceedings.
WOW ---- Who would want to employ an idiot like that, I ask. You'd think she was only good enough to chase outstanding PCN payments, eh?
I think I'll file early now as I don't think hanging on for the SAR time to expire will contribute much now. I just have to redraft the statements once more to reflect this free gift.

Coupon-mad

Nice admission by her!

doubledotcom

I have only had a look at your PoC and they are problematic.

The PoC reads like a witness statement and legal submissions rolled into one. CPR 16.4 requires a concise statement of the material facts relied on, not argument/evidence, and PD16 sets out what belongs in the PoC versus schedules/exhibits.

Your narrative (paras 1–24; 53–70; 71–92) is far too long, argumentative, and emotive for a pleading. Trim to: (a) who the defendants are; (b) what they did (date of DVLA access; lack of lawful basis); (c) the legal causes of action; (d) relief sought.

You mix material facts with argument (“admission by conduct”, “misleading conduct”, “bring it on” tone). Move argument to a skeleton or WS. Keep PoC factual. 

Attach a short Schedule of Loss (and keep receipts) rather than embedding quantum throughout the narrative. PD16 envisages separate schedules for expenses/losses.

I could go on, but the PoC should be concise and there is so much narrative going on in your PoC, they are far more likely to do your claim harm than good.

Keep the PoC concise and factual per CPR 16/PD16; move argument and evidence to WS/skeleton.

State exact roles: CP Plus controller; Ranger processor, own controller, or joint controller—plead in the alternative.
Set a tight chronology: incident, missing entrance sign, exact DVLA access time/date, correspondence, outcome.
Core claim is unlawful processing under UK GDPR/DPA: no reasonable cause means no Art 6(1)(f); breaches of Art 5(1)(a),(b).

Treat PPSCoP as context; anchor “no reasonable cause” on KADOE and signage deficiency.

Use minimal authority (e.g., Vidal-Hall). Save case law detail for the skeleton.

Causation: link distress only to the unlawful data obtain/use and persistence after notice. Keep it clinical.

Quantum: one defensible distress figure plus fee/disbursements; no LiP time as damages; add an interest claim.

Tone: neutral, non-pejorative. Structure: numbered, 3–5 pages.

Immediate fixes: add company numbers/registered offices; quote DVLA timestamp; delete speculation/emotive lines; plead Ranger alternatives; add interest and a separate one-page schedule.

GettingOnInYears

I sent the claim to Northampton already. There's no payment with it though. I asked them to call me to make payment so i'll tell them to scrap it and I'll redo it  ------   again. They won't process without payment I guess