Court report, H v APCOA, GDPR claim dismissed

MrJenkinsEsq

Observed this by video this afternoon, Norwich County Court, before DDJ Hunt. Claim 1768829688320680, H v APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd. H was a litigant in person. APCOA was represented by someone in-house (I think).

H disputed a PCN and asked APCOA to stop sending letters. H's case was that the debt letters carried on regardless. I think the PCN was only cancelled once the claim form arrived. H claimed compensation under the GDPR. The charge never being legitimate and the debt letters after disputing causing distress.

APCOA's case was that the processing was legitimate. It believed the PCN was legitimately issued and the debt was owed, so it chased it. APCOA asked H if he was the driver. H declined to say and APCOA asked the judge to draw an adverse inference. It sounded more like airing a grievance than a point on the claim.

H said the letters "kept on coming" after the cancellation but none were in evidence. When the judge realised this he said there could still be a claim for the period before cancellation but it would be much more difficult to prove. H had been fluent on his prepared points but struggled with the questions after that.

APCOA said the claim was issued too early for the later letters to count anyway. H couldn't have been distressed at the date of filing by letters that hadn't arrived. The judge said he understood the point.

The judge took a ten minute recess to consider judgment. Just before it H asked if the press were involved as my name was on screen. The judge said he had no idea, it was open court and I'd been allowed to observe. He invited me to speak but observers' controls are locked. Maybe I am a reporter, since I'm reporting it.

The judge was clearly most interested in the letters after cancellation. In his judgment he split the facts into before and after. Before, APCOA's processing was justified by its genuine belief that a debt was owed, regardless of H asking it to stop. After, he said the debt letters would have been of interest and there may have been a claim to hear if they had continued more than shortly after cancellation. There was no evidence of them.

Claim dismissed.

No costs. The judge said loss of earnings and leave didn't apply as APCOA wasn't a witness.

The judge seemed very fair. With the later letters in evidence and less haste in filing I think H would have had a much better prospect of success.

Coupon-mad

Yes it sounds like he might have succeeded if he had exhibited the demands that arrived after cancellation.

Just to add, APCOA never sue anyone so there was no claim from them.

Good on this person for trying but better evidence was needed to prove his point. And he will have cost APCOA at least a three figure sum to defend it!

MrJenkinsEsq

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82156742#Comment_82156742

To clarify, I think APCOA only cancelled the PCN when H's claim form arrived. May have been on LBC, I'm not 100% sure on the timing.

This PCN was for non-payment, so APCOA had at least an arguable basis for chasing it. My impression was the judge would have been more receptive on the period before cancellation if the PCN had been obviously unfounded from the start. An extreme example would be a car parked on the public highway, where APCOA could never have genuinely believed a debt was owed.

Since the start of September, when I started logging, APCOA have had one hearing listed as claimant and four with them as defendant.

Coupon-mad

"APCOA have had one hearing listed as claimant"

Wow!

Never ever seen one and I guess - if they were suing a motorist and not a supplier or client who they think owes them money - it would have been a high value claim.

MrJenkinsEsq

My hall of fame 😂 Number of hearings listed, that I've counted, since the start of September (and last few days of August) where the operator is the claimant. Not to be read into too much since we've no idea what defences were entered, the value of the claims, etc.

Edit: removed table in case it's not allowed.

DrLex

Are you scraping and summarizing a MoJ website for this table?

Coupon-mad

That's very useful indeed.

Is the source CourtServe?

Any chance you can start a bespoke thread and update it monthly or whenever makes sense? An ongoing comparison before & after the statutory regime comes in would be great.

I could use this info for the MHCLG.

MrJenkinsEsq

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82156897#Comment_82156897

I've been counting while looking for cases I can attend.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82156898#Comment_82156898

It's from here.

https://www.court-tribunal-hearings.service.gov.uk/search