IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
KNOCK KNOCK Mrs May, anyone at home ??? what are you doing about these CCJ's
Comments
-
Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »It's worth dropping him an e-mail, I think he's on a steep learning curve.
As I understand, he's more interested in the "surprise" ccj aspect of it all.
I agree with Ivor, if you don't try, you'll never know0 -
What I'm surprised no one has mentioned is the Data Protection Act.
It is a requirement of the Act the data shall be accurate & up to date.
If Parking Lie or some other this come after you twelve months down the line & you have since moved, I think you would have a very good chance of coming after them for compensation. One of our rights under the Act.
Also, if they are going after people using old information, why don't these people get the Information Commissioner involved.
A nice hefty fine from her might make them think againPrivate Parking Tickets - Make sure you put your Subject Access Request in after 25th May 2018 - It's free & ask for everything, don't forget the DVLA
0 -
-
What I'm surprised no one has mentioned is the Data Protection Act.
It is a requirement of the Act the data shall be accurate & up to date.
If Parking Lie or some other this come after you twelve months down the line & you have since moved, I think you would have a very good chance of coming after them for compensation. One of our rights under the Act.
Also, if they are going after people using old information, why don't these people get the Information Commissioner involved.
A nice hefty fine from her might make them think again
The issue here is that the PPC ONLY knows that one address unless told otherwise.
What must be addressed is how they can take people to court and get a default because the person did not attend.0 -
The issue here is that the PPC ONLY knows that one address unless told otherwise.
.
Yes, but the important bit of the Act is the up to date bit
What has also been mentioned on this thread is their uncanny ability to find the correct address once they have got their default judgements.
The ICO has been issuing fines, like they are going out of fashion at the moment, to cold call companies.
One of the defences put forward was, at some point in the past, the individual had agreed to cold calling.
That didn't wash, ICO said you should have checked that the information was up to datePrivate Parking Tickets - Make sure you put your Subject Access Request in after 25th May 2018 - It's free & ask for everything, don't forget the DVLA0 -
Yeah, it's easy enough for them to confirm the details are up to date, before starting court action, even if you had an initial response.
Of course, forcing them to take court action within a reasonable time frame, like 6-12 months, would make it far less of an issue.0 -
Yes, but the important bit of the Act is the up to date bit
What has also been mentioned on this thread is their uncanny ability to find the correct address once they have got their default judgements.
The ICO has been issuing fines, like they are going out of fashion at the moment, to cold call companies.
One of the defences put forward was, at some point in the past, the individual had agreed to cold calling.
That didn't wash, ICO said you should have checked that the information was up to date
No.
The data protection principles referred to in the DPA don't apply to disclosures made in connection with legal proceedings under Part IV, section 35 of the act.0 -
-
pappa_golf wrote: »and such a simple amendment , could stop the fake CCJ fiasco in one fell swoop
Not a simple amendment at all. You can't simply remove this clause from the DPA. It is there for a very good reason - court proceedings would become untenable if parties were unable to disclose documents (or request disclosure from third parties) because they would be in breach of the DPA in doing so.
This is just one unfortunate consequence which would be better dealt with by reform to the default judgment procedure, not amendment of a highly important and wide reaching section of the DPA.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards