Data Protection Act Guidance

Below is an example of an LBCCC to be sent to the PPC and Landowner before issuing a Claim for breaches of the DPA. It will need to be modified to suit the particular facts and circumstances of the case.

I believe it's important to conjoin the landowner, most of those will care about their reputation and be more likely to pay up than a PPC:

The Company Secretary
[Name of PPC]
[Address]
[Postcode] [DATE]


LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM

Dear Sir or Madam,

First Defendant: [Name of PPC]
Second Defendant: [Name of Landowner]

This letter is sent in accordance with the Practice Directions on Pre-Action Conduct. The conjoined defendants named above are held to be jointly and severally liable for compensatory payments in respect of breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), as set out in the following paragraphs.

Facts of the Case

1. This matter arises from the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by the First Defendant at [LOCATION], on [DATE]. The Second Defendant is the landowner of this property, and at all material times [Name of PPC] were acting with the authority of, and under instructions from, [Name of Landowner], so that the agent / principal relationship giving rise to joint and several liability is clearly established.

2. Subsequent to the incident, I received a Notice to Keeper from [Name of PPC], who had obtained my registered keeper details from the DVLA. Following my refusal to pay a charge of £100 for [INSERT REASON FOR CHARGE], and after protracted appeals processes with [Name of PPC] and an independent adjudicator, a court Claim Form was issued by [Name of PPC] on [DATE}, Claim Number [XXXXXXXX}.

3. The hearing of the Claim was listed for XXXXXXX County Court on [DATE], and at the Trial, the Claim was dismissed because [INSERT REASON CLAIM DISMISSED].

4. As evidenced by the above, there was clearly no reasonable cause for [Name of PPC] to request my keeper data from the DVLA, or to process the data for any lawful purpose..

Legal Issues Arising

5. It follows that, not only were [Name of PPC] in breach of their Keeper At Date Of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA by obtaining and processing my personal data when they clearly had no reasonable cause to do so, but they were also in breach of the Second Principle of Schedule 1 of the DPA, which states “Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.”

6. Pursuant to s13 of the DPA, “Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements”, the Act states at 13(1) that “An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage”.


7. I rely on two significant authorities in support of my claim, which are Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311, and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333. In Vidal-Hall, it was held by the Court of Appeal that compensation was payable upon the fact of breach, and that it was not necessary to quantify a direct pecuniary loss. In Halliday, the Court of Appeal held that a compensatory sum of up to £750 was deemed ‘appropriate and sufficient’

8. Both of the above cases arose as a result of material breaches of the DPA by the respective defendants, and can be considered to provide binding precedents for my own situation. The consequences of the breach were perhaps less serious in my case than the two cited cases, and accordingly, my claim is for £250 at the lower end of the scale. A similar ruling was made by a District Judge at Liverpool County Court on 7 December 2016, in case no. C9DP2D6C, VCS v Mr. M.

Actions Required by Defendants

I now require you to remit the sum of £250 payable to me at the above address, within 14 days of your receipt of this letter, deemed to be two working days after the date of posting. Failure to pay the sum due, or to otherwise furnish a substantive response, will result in the issue of a Money Claim through the County Court Business Centre at Northampton without further reference to yourselves.

In the event that a Claim is issued, you may incur additional costs in the form of court filing fees, hearing fees, and such other costs as are recoverable on the small claims track of the County Court. A judgment against you may also result in a downgrading of your Company’s credit rating, and further costs for enforcement action, which may include seizure and disposal of your corporate assets by Court appointed bailiffs.

Yours faithfully,


[Your Name and Address]
cc: Company Secretary, [Name of Landowner]

The_Deep wrote: »

That is all very well Mr B, but to put that into effect one needs to have been taken to court and won, so a win on a DPA breach is more or less a slam dunk. The people who take PPCs to court are not shrinking violets, they have the tee shirts. What is needed is a form of words to encourage the less robust. ...

Exactly right, Mr TD, that is a template for people who have won their cases in court. A different version will be required for other types of cases.

But the 'less robust' type of OP is unlikely to make a suitable Claimant who is prepared to pursue a PPC all the way to court, and gamble £50 in filing and hearing fees to do so.

As I've said before, this sort of thing is not for the faint-hearted, and if you are not the sort of person who can take a hot buttered crumpet up the rear end without blubbing, you probably should not get involved in this.