PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking Eye - charge cancelled but still got court summons
JD^
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 18:23
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Member No.: 5,126



Hi all,

I have today received a claim form, but the charge was cancelled on the 2nd of Oct, should I still go to the effort of forming a lengthy defence or not? I parked in a hotel car park near Heathrow, luckily my employer managed to get the Hotel to get it cancelled as it's down to the staff to enter the registration code, the official letter from Parking Eye states:

------

Reference Parking Charge Notice - XXX

Dear Sir/Madam,

We refer to the Parking Charge on xx date at London Heathrow Marriot Hotel Car Park.

We can confirm that this Parking Charge has now been cancelled and there is no outstanding payment due.

-------

Obviously I'm still going to respond to the court form but in the area for writing the defence should it simply be something like:

Parking Eye wrote to me on the 2nd of October (copy supplied) stating the charge has been cancelled and there is NO outstanding payment, as the charge was due to an error on their behalf, on this basis I was not in breach of contract and no monies are due.

Any help appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 14)
Advertisement
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 18:23
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 19:22
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,917
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



You missed out the vital info of what is the date of the claim form (top right)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Slithy Tove
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 19:31
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,183
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



Are you sure you haven't picked up another charge from PE at any point? Assuming not, then, as well as acknowledging service, in this instance I think it's actually worth contacting PE directly, and remind them of the cancellation (make sure you include the PCN number, and even send them a copy of the letter). They may withdraw the claim when they see they have zero hope of success and will end up looking very stupid.

As for your defence, it still needs submitting, so as not to fall foul of deadlines. But it needs to be much more formal than what you have written. I am sure others will make suggestions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JD^
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 22:13
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Member No.: 5,126



It's definitely the same claim because the number matches exactly their letter with the number in "Particulars of claim", I did think this myself. The issue date is 8th Oct

In terms of the particulars this is the text there:

Claim for monies outstanding from the defendant, as registered keeper, in relation to a Parking Charge, issued 07/07/2018, for parking on private land in breach of the terms and conditions (the contract). ParkingEye's automated number recognition system, monitoring London Heathrow Marriot Hotel, Bath Road, Harlington, Hayes, London, UB3 5AN, captured vehicle XXXX XXX entering and leaving the car park, parking without a valid paid parking ticket. The signage, clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land, is managed by ParkingEye Ltd, and is paid parking site, along with other T+C's by which those who park on site agreen to be bound. In accordance with the T+C's set out in the signage, the Parking Charge became payable. Notice under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has been given under Sch 4, making the keeper liable. This claim is in reference to Parking Charge(s) XXXX/XXXXX
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 22:39
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,917
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE (JD^ @ Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 19:23) *
I have today received a claim form, but the charge was cancelled on the 2nd of Oct, should I still go to the effort of forming a lengthy defence or not? I parked in a hotel car park near Heathrow, luckily my employer managed to get the Hotel to get it cancelled as it's down to the staff to enter the registration code, the official letter from Parking Eye states:

------

Reference Parking Charge Notice - XXX

Dear Sir/Madam,

We refer to the Parking Charge on xx date at London Heathrow Marriot Hotel Car Park.

We can confirm that this Parking Charge has now been cancelled and there is no outstanding payment due.

-------

Parking Eye wrote to me on the 2nd of October


QUOTE
The issue date is 8th Oct


Great - defend - and counter claim for misuse of your registered keeper data (contrary to the DPA) and harassment (Protection from Harassment Act). £500 would not be too shabby for your counter claim under these circumstances and would cost a court fee of just £35.

Might be good to get the defence & counter claim in this weekend, not hanging around to let them discontinue quickly enough if they see this and/or realise their error. Once your counter claim is live, it forces a hearing even if PE discontinue in a hurry after.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 02:13
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,917
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



A counter claim is added directly under the defence.

You could adapt a short, factual defence written by bargepole (who posts here) which are shown as examples in the MSE forum NEWBIES thread. Then add on a counter-claim.

I've drafted one below which assumes you appealed first, failed, then had to involve your employer after a LBC? Correct anything that's wrong and re-draft your full defence and counter claim over the weekend - you snooze, you lose the chance to counter-claim in this one, as I reckon PE will discontinue fairly sharpish next week.

I've adapted the basics of a counter claim I wrote for Henry Hippo who won his counter-claim (remember this is not the defence, so you need to add a factual defence above it and sign/date both documents) then email the whole scanned signed document as an email attachment to the CCBCaq justice email (see 'CCBC contact us') with a subject line something like this:

'URGENT DEFENCE & COUNTER-CLAIM - CLAIM NUMBER XXXXXXX PLEASE CALL (MOBILE PHONE NUMBER) TO TAKE COUNTER CLAIM FEE ON MONDAY 14TH OCTOBER'



Defence goes here, with statement of truth and signature & date under it, then:




PARTICULARS OF COUNTER-CLAIM


1. The Defendant raising this counter-claim against the Claimant, is an individual and is the registered keeper of the vehicle with the registration number xxxxxxx.

1.1. The Defendant's claim is for compensation for serious and significant distress and privacy intrusion, culminating in a meritless and wholly vexatious claim, after months of harassment by the Claimant, who demanded money with no reasonable cause. The Claimant's actions have been unreasonable, far past the line of negligence or error, and has made no checks and paid no regard to proper data processing rules, choosing to file an unfounded claim a week after stating that they had cancelled the unfair charge.

1.2. After trying and failing to ensure cancellation of the unfair charge himself, the Defendant suffered the professional embarrassment of having no choice but to involve his employer in the matter, to obtain the cancellation, to his immense relief. The court claim filed a week later arrived at the family home, seen by family members and thus exacerbating the distress of the Defendant.

1.3. The Defendant's remedy relies upon the consumer protections offered by primary legislation, in the form of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Data Protection Act 2018 ('the DPA' as amended by the General Data Protection Regulation), the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which in itself provided consumers with new remedies and means to sue traders in their own right for illegal conduct, rather than relying upon action by Trading Standards.


2. The Claimant in this original claim is a private parking company who are required to adhere to the British Parking Association's Code of Practice ('the BPA CoP') which was deemed by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') to be effectively 'regulation', full compliance with which underpins and secures the right to obtain and process DVLA-obtained consumer data. The BPA CoP holds all members out for the purposes of the DPA as a 'data controller' in Section 12.2:
''When you apply to the DVLA you must confirm you are a member of the BPA and the AOS (quoting your BPA membership number). You also have to confirm that you will keep to the Code, the Data Protection Act and any other legislation that applies. Under the Data Protection Act you will have to register as a data controller with the Information Commissioner.''

2.1. This status as a data controller is reiterated by the DVLA in the KADOE contract, under which an Approved Operator parking firm (the party known to the DVLA as 'the Customer') obtain data, which states: ''The Customer, separately from the DVLA, shall be the Data Controller of each item of Data received from the DVLA from the point of receipt of that Data by the Customer or its Link Provider and shall be responsible for complying with the principles of the DPA in relation to its further Processing of that Data.''

2.2. It follows that there is no question that this Claimant bears the responsibility of being a data controller in this matter.


3. The Defendant in this original claim, being the registered keeper of the car in question, is the 'data subject' in this matter. The registration number of the vehicle, together with the Defendant's name and address details, all constitute personal data. This has been confirmed by the Information Commissioner in paragraph 6 of a published and specific report about private parking operators, a report with which this Claimant and their Trade Body the BPA will no doubt be familiar.


4. It is common ground that the Defendant's vehicle entered and was properly parked at the London Heathrow Marriot Hotel Car Park on the date noted on a subsequent Notice to Keeper (a Parking Charge Notice - 'PCN' - issued by post by the Claimant). Due to the failure and sparse positioning of the Claimant's signage the Defendant was unaware of any contract and despite being a reasonably observant and circumspect driver, saw nothing proclaimed prominently, or at all, regarding any obligation to 'register' their vehicle.

4.1. In any case, the Defendant had the full authority of the Hotel to park (explain - in the third person as 'the Defendant' in what capacity - guest? were you working there?)


5. The Claimant's ANPR camera system captured images of the VRN of the vehicle arriving and leaving, storing the VRN and images of the vehicle with the driver inside, following which they obtained the Defendant's personal data, including name and address, from the DVLA.

5.1. It is averred that, since the Defendant was a genuine, authorised Hotel visitor, and the Claimant's signage inside and outside the Hotel failed to create any 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' to 'register' the vehicle, there was no contract agreed with this Claimant at all and the Defendant already enjoyed a clear offer of the right to park from the Hotel themselves, without caveat. Even face to face, the Hotel staff were silent about any obligation to supply the VRN so that they could key it in to 'register' the vehicle, and the Defendant has since discovered in making strenuous efforts to cancel the unfair charge, that drivers were not required to do any such thing and the Hotel themselves had failed to ask for the VRN to exempt the vehicle.

5.2. This keypad, or perhaps an ordinary iPad, was never actually seen by the Defendant, and even the Claimant's PCN failed to clarify exactly what failure or conduct on the part of the driver was being alleged to have given rise to a parking charge. The Defendant was put to considerable time and trouble to resolve the matter and with mounting alarm, the appeal was rejected out of hand and the Claimant continued to demand a three figure sum, taking an incorrect presumption and position that the driver had 'agreed' to their charge by conduct, using the factually-different Beavis case as leverage in a series of letters that were clearly designed to intimidate, which they did.

5.3. It follows that, as soon as this Claimant learnt about the facts of the case when contacted, and knowing (or able to easily establish from their own site knowledge and records) that any keypad and any - surely vital - prominent warning sign regarding ''All Hotel patrons' VRNs must be input here or you will be liable to pay Parking Eye under contract, the sum of £100'' was either hidden somewhere or retained behind the counter by Hotel staff and not made available to the Defendant, the data relating to the Defendant should not have been stored, nor further processed.

5.4. Even if there was an initial lawful reason for the Claimant to obtain the data in the first place - which is denied, given the lack of signage and hidden terms which negate any 'reasonable cause' excuse and appear to be a common trap used by the private parking industry - there was no reason to continue to process it to demand money for conduct the Claimant knew, or should have known, was not the fault of the consumer.


6. The Defendant was astounded and horrified to find that the Claimant refused to cancel the 'PCN' when alerted to the facts of the matter. With undue haste, the Claimant subjected the Defendant to the alarm and distress of a Letter before Claim which paid no regard whatsoever to the facts, and it was only by turning to his employers to put pressure on the Hotel to cancel the charge, that a brief respite was achieved with an apparent climb-down in the form of a letter of cancellation from ParkingEye.

6.1. The Defendant has since learned that the series of PCN, rejection letter and Letter before Claim are in fact automated templates issued by administrators in the Claimant's in-house Appeals/Litigation teams and no checks appear to be made, no human intervention appears to have taken place, despite this being a mandatory requirement of the BPA CoP before even issuing a PCN based on automated images from ANPR systems.

6.2. The Defendant's research has shown that the Claimants themselves proclaim in various other template letters sent to victims, and when filing template POPLA evidence, that they carry out 19 checks (human intervention) before issuing any and every PCN. The Defendant funds that hard to believe and intends to question the Claimant regarding the number of PCNs issued per annum, and the number of employees engaged in these '19 checks' and establish from the Claimant why the system failed at the outset in this case, and failed even further when the charge was cancelled (if it ever actually was). The cancellation now appears to have been a deliberate or negligent falsehood.

6.3. The Defendant has felt increasingly harassed and intimidated by this aggressive pursuit, and the Defendant's distress was serious, immediate and prolonged. From the initial upset at the moment of opening the unwelcome and unjustified PCN in front of his family, the matter has escalated. It has felt as if the normally level-headed Defendant was on an emotional roller-coaster at ParkingEye's behest, suffering from hounding letters arriving at the family home, then put through the enforced involvement of the Defendant's employer, right through to the present date with the final insult of this claim. It is only right and it is enshrined in the primary legislation referred to in this counterclaim at 1.3. above, that a beleaguered consumer has the right to have a counter-claim heard, given the facts of this case.



Tort of deceit

7. In ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338, ParkingEye (this Claimant) sent demands in a series of letters to customers. In the third such letter, ParkingEye falsely stated they had authority to bring civil proceedings against those who did not pay, committing the tort of deceit. At para 13, the Court of Appeal stated that the original Judge in Somerfield found ''not only that the third letter contained falsehoods, but that those falsehoods were deliberately made by the relevant ParkingEye executive, albeit without dishonesty. Hence the judge found ParkingEye was guilty of the tort of deceit on those occasions when the third letter was sent on its behalf''. The judge accepted that the sending of that letter would give rise to the tort of deceit if the deception induced the recipient to pay even if he was not liable to make the payment in question. ParkingEye did not challenge this decision.

7.1. The original judge found that the claimant had committed the tort of deceit on a systemic basis in the collection of parking charges and the Court of Appeal agreed but held that the deceit was too remote from the contract with Somerfield to render it unenforceable. The illegality was incidental to part of the performance of the contract but far from central to it.

7.2. However, in the extant case, the tort of deceit is central to this case, plain to see, aimed directly at the Defendant and is certainly not ''too remote'' for a court to consider a legal remedy for the innocent party, the Defendant.

7.3. On any reasonable interpretation, by writing on 2nd October 2018 to tell the Defendant (with no apology) that the parking charge was finally cancelled, but then continuing to process the Defendant's DVLA-harvested data and file a claim dated 8th October 2018, inducing the Defendant to the stark reality of having to either pay an increased sum to make it go away, or defend a claim for which there was no basis, the Claimant is guilty of (possibly) fraudulent conduct. At the very least, it is the Defendant's case that the Claimant was and continues to be (to date) guilty of harassment, deceit and a specific breach of the data protection principles.


Compensation for distress

8. This Claimant has proceeded with a Court claim despite saying in an earlier letter that the charge had been cancelled. The alarm caused to the Defendant throughout this ordeal has been enormous, causing anxiety, professional embarrassment, significant family upset and the matter continues to impact on the Defendant's peace of mind.

8.1. Significant distress has been caused as a direct result of this harassment and unjustified data processing, as well as loss of time and costs for defending and counter-claiming. Each demand that arrived in the post caused serious distress for the Defendant family, and ParkingEye knew or should have known this was likely, reviewed the facts and the signage/whereabouts of any missing keypad at the site and apologised. They took no such action and have never apologised.

8.2. The Defendant observes that the Claimant had ample time, resources and opportunity after Somerfield sacked them and sued them, to clean up their act but in recent years despite crowing about the victory in the Beavis case, they have in fact lost major contracts with Asda and plenty of other clients, and the current 242 diabolical TrustPilot reviews tell a desperate story of despair from victims like the Defendant. These outraged vocal accounts cannot all be from careless or rogue parkers, and the Defendant certainly was neither.

8.3. The Court is urged not to be misled by any veil of legitimacy emanating from the case that the parking industry painted as 'clarity' in Beavis, and instead take note of the fact that Parliament is now resorting to a Parking Code of Practice Bill, to stamp out the worst offenders, and ParkingEye were singled out, on 2nd February 2018. Hansard records reveal that MPs up and down the Country are fed up with such firms and agreed that the industry operates an ''outrageous scam''. Excerpts include, from Stephen Doughty MP: ''I want to point out several companies with which I have had particular problems, and against which I have had to advocate on behalf of constituents: {including} ParkingEye. I also want to highlight the firms of solicitors that work with those companies. We might refer to such firms as “roboclaims” firms, and they often have a close and cosy relationship with the parking companies...'' and Kevin Brennan MP: ''In my constituency, I have had dozens of complaints about ParkingEye, which is engaged by a local hospital'' and Pete Wishart: ''Self-regulation has obviously failed dramatically. The British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the middle of Gobi desert. The parking cowboys hide behind BPA membership to give a veneer of legitimacy.''

8.4. Unlike other parking operators, this Claimant cannot hide behind a third party ''robo-claim'' firm as being to blame for filing and serving a court claim, whilst knowing that the charge in question had been cancelled. ParkingEye has its own in-house Legal Team, headed by salaried Solicitors, and whilst it is not believed for one moment that a Solicitor has individually supervised this claim, nevertheless, the Solicitor remains answerable for the firm's breach of the CPRs. It is averred that, over and above this Counter-claim, when considering the matter of costs this Claimant should not be granted relief from sanctions for their wholly unjustified, unreasonable and vexatious claim which is a serious default. Taking the Court of Appeal case of Denton v White [2014] EWCA Civ 906 as setting the line, filing a claim after writing the week before to tell a consumer that the unfair charge was cancelled, cannot be described as 'trivial'.

8.5. Serious distress has been caused which will be expanded in the Defendant's Witness Statement and at the hearing. The specific breaches of the consumer legislation referred to in 1.3. will be identified at the appropriate time, however the Defendant takes this opportunity to address a wronged consumer's right to compensation under the two Acts, as set out below, and trusts the Court will note that the right does not restrict a consumer to merely claiming any actual or financial losses.



The course of conduct and the consumer's right to compensation - PFHA

9. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 provides for a Civil remedy:

Prohibition of harassment.

''(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(1A) A person must not pursue a course of conduct —
(a) which involves harassment of two or more persons, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and
© by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)—
(i) not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or
(ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.

(2) For the purposes of this section...the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to, or involves, harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—
(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
© that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

3(1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question. (2) On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment.''



9.1. None of the above defences apply to the course of conduct exhibited by the Claimant against the Defendant, and the accepted authority for this position is the case of Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 where the victim of debt demands where there was no liability was awarded compensation.

Jacob LJ said ‘British Gas says it has done nothing wrong; that it is perfectly all right for it to treat consumers in this way, at least if it is all just done by computer.’ and ‘I accept that the course of conduct must be grave before the offence or tort of harassment is proved . . It has never been suggested generally that the scope of the civil wrong is restricted because it is also a crime. What makes the wrong of harassment different and special is because, as Lord Nicholls and Lady Hale recognise, in life one has to put up with a certain amount of annoyance: things have got to be fairly severe before the law, civil or criminal, will intervene . . I am quite unable to conclude that the impugned conduct is incapable of satisfying the test. On the contrary I think, at the very least, that it is strongly arguable that it does. I ask myself whether a jury or bench of magistrates could reasonably conclude that the persistent and continued conduct here pleaded was on the wrong side of the line, as amounting to ‘oppressive and unacceptable conduct’. I am bound to say that I think they could.’



The GDPR - breach - and rights of a data subject to compensation

10. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) updated the DPA 2018. Article 5 of the GDPR sets out seven key principles which lie at the heart of the general data protection regime.

Article 5(1) requires that personal data shall be:

“(a) processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to individuals (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency’);

(b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes shall not be considered to be incompatible with the initial purposes (‘purpose limitation’);

c ) adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (‘data minimisation’);

(d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (‘accuracy’);

(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed; personal data may be stored for longer periods insofar as the personal data will be processed solely for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes subject to implementation of the appropriate technical and organisational measures required by the GDPR in order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of individuals (‘storage limitation’);

(f) processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures (‘integrity and confidentiality’).”

Article 5(2) adds that: “The controller shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with, paragraph 1 (‘accountability’).”


10.1. By reason of the obtaining and/or storing and processing the data, the Claimant acted in breach of its statutory duty under the DPA, in that it processed the personal data unfairly and/or unlawfully in contravention of the Defendant's rights.


11. Further by pursuing the Defendant for monies which it was not entitled to recover, the Claimant has unlawfully infringed the Defendant's right to privacy and has misused the Defendant's private information.


12. Further and in the alternative, the Claimant's persistent and continued conduct crossed the line of harassment, and the level of seriousness was sufficient to come within the PFHA. There is no excuse for the Claimant, even if they try to argue that the Defendant knew their demand and subsequent claim was unjustified. In Ferguson, British Gas had sought to downgrade it by saying that Ms Ferguson knew the claims and threats were unjustified. The Court of Appeal held: ''That is absurd: a victim of harassment will almost always know that it is unjustified. The Act is there to protect people against unjustified harassment. Indeed if the impugned conduct is justified it is unlikely to amount to harassment at all.''


13. The Claimant is a member of the Trade Body known as the BPA, which requires that its AOS members shall comply with the statutory provisions of the DPA 2018. In this case, the Claimant has failed to comply with that statute, and is therefore operating in breach of the BPA CoP, and further, the Claimant is also demonstrably in breach of the ICO Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras (including ANPR) which the BPA also requires operators to comply with and has warned of the repercussions of excessive, unjustified or unchecked ANPR use, which can and do involve the ICO banning operators from using ANPR systems.


14. In consequence of the processing the Claimant has suffered damage and distress.
Pursuant to Article 82 of the GDPR (right to compensation for material or non-material damage) “non-material damage” includes distress. Pursuant to section 169 of the DPA 2018, Compensation for contravention of other data protection legislation:

(1) A person who suffers damage by reason of a contravention of a requirement of the data protection legislation, other than the GDPR, is entitled to compensation for that damage from the controller or the processor, subject to subsections (2) and (3).
(2) Under subsection (1)—
(a) a controller involved in processing of personal data is liable for any damage caused by the processing, and
(b) a processor involved in processing of personal data is liable for damage caused by the processing only if the processor—
(i) has not complied with an obligation under the data protection legislation specifically directed at processors, or
(ii) has acted outside, or contrary to, the controller’s lawful instructions.
(3) A controller or processor is not liable as described in subsection (2) if the controller or processor proves that the controller or processor is not in any way responsible for the event giving rise to the damage.
(4) A joint controller in respect of the processing of personal data to which Part 3 or 4 applies whose responsibilities are determined in an arrangement under section 58 or 104 is only liable as described in subsection (2) if the controller is responsible for compliance with the provision of the data protection legislation that is contravened.
(5) In this section, “damage” includes financial loss and damage not involving financial loss, such as distress.


15. The Claimant relies on two binding authorities in support of the 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’.


16. 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 the Defendant's own situation. The Defendant seeks to claim £500 for pure distress, at the lower end of the scale and not a sum that appears excessive, given the circumstances of harassment, CPR breach and DPA breach by a Claimant pursuing a wholly vexatious claim and unreasonable three-figure sum.


17. 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. Also in Claim No D6GM2199 at the County Court at Bury Court: Civil Enforcement Ltd v Mr B, where District Judge Osborne accepted the argument about the DPA breach by a Parking Company who could not hold a registered keeper liable, yet still pursued that party. He accepted the tort of damages. He agreed £500 not unreasonable, given the distress of demands and a court claim. He said he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case.

17.1. A court transcript of that latter case at Bury is being obtained and will be filed in evidence in support of this Counter-Claim. The Court's attention is respectfully drawn to the fact that exemplary costs of £405 (as requested) was granted. This is understood to have arisen due to the claim being found to be false and/or vexatious, or where a party is found to be guilty of misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The Defendant avers the extant case matches that description and seeks costs on the indemnity basis, not least to send a message to the Claimant, as a deterrent.



PARTICULARS OF DAMAGE AND DISTRESS:

18. As a result of the issuing of a private 'Parking Charge' by the Claimant, the Defendant, a Litigant in Person with no previous civil litigation experience, has suffered the quantifiable cost of the counter-claim, as well as travel and other costs for attending a hearing in due course, plus the loss of his own time, something which is not adequately covered by the limited costs awarded in the small claims court hearing. In addition there are non-pecuniary losses, not least as a remedy for the pure distress caused by the unwarranted demands, which to any untrained eye were harassing, unjustified, impersonated authority, were deceiving and written to cause alarm and to force payment and which misled the Defendant, also causing professional embarrassment due to the involvement of his employers.

18.1. This series of threatening letters and the unfounded court claim have caused untold worry and distress to the Defendant and have caused a loss of family time and peace of mind that will never be reclaimed.


THE COUNTER-CLAIM:

19. (i) Damages in the sum of £500 for breach of statutory duty pursuant to the GDPR and DPA 2018 and/or misuse of private information, and/or a serious breach of the PFHA causing fear, alarm and distress.

(ii) An order is sought, pursuant to the GDPR, for the blocking and/or erasure and/or destruction of the data held by the Claimant, whether stored as digital data or otherwise and any photographs or other relevant material.

(iii) It is averred that this Claimant's claim falls within the scope of exemplary/punitive costs and the principles established in Denton must apply. A sum of double the amount claimed is suggested as not unreasonable under the circumstances, however, the Judge is invited to use discretion to grant such costs in this case as are deemed warranted, pursuant to the ruling in Rookes v Barnard 1964 in that the conduct of this Claimant was wholly unreasonable, vexatious and indeed misleading, engaging the tort of deceit and breaching various consumer protection laws.


STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.


[Signature of Claimant]


Full name ......................................


Date .........

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 02:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JD^
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 11:48
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Member No.: 5,126



I am going to submit it today, I can do it online and do the email as you mentioned assume I need to file the defence online today to be in with a chance? As it only lets you put a certain amount of lines, will they take the defence from the printed/signed email. Or should I be posting the whole thing as well as the email. If so do I leave the enclosing the fee part blank on the form? Sorry for these simple questions!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 12:11
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,037
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You do NOT use MCOL to submit anything.
Just email. Write your sign on a piece of white paper, scan it in - phone camera is fine! and append to the statement of truth.
You do not post as well. You just email. Do it before 4pm otherwise it is not filed today, but later.

Was tere anything you needed to change? Bear in mind that SRM hsa had to ASSUME a lot of details, you MUST go through and congfirm every single line is correct. Do not take the legal process lightly, this is not just another email!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 12:18
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,422
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Your signed defence as a PDF email attachment to the court. Subject is case No., Case title (PE v Jd), Defence. PDF keeps the formatting, makes it easier for the judge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JD^
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 13:47
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Member No.: 5,126



Thank you for the assistance on this, I will let you know how it goes. I have filed it via email signed PDF to ccbc@justice.gov.uk and cc ccbcfees@justice.gov.uk as wasn't sure which.

I did read through and remove/alter some statements, both from the defence and counter claim I will post all here if successful. Only cockup I made was in the defence the bullet point number does a sudden jump from 3 to 13 unfortunately I don't have time to correct it now. Hopefully that won't go against me.

Anyways worth a punt against them as to be honest it has been very stressful chasing it up through work, I have actually lost a lot of working time via endless phone calls so it would be fair to receive some compensation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 14:29
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,422
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



The loss of formatting is why I suggested a PDF attachment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 18:01
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,917
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
I will let you know how it goes. I have filed it via email signed PDF to ccbc@justice.gov.uk and cc ccbcfees@justice.gov.uk as wasn't sure which.

Neither. I mentioned:

QUOTE
email the whole scanned signed document as an email attachment to the CCBCaq justice email (see 'CCBC contact us')


Re-send it to the CCBCAQ email.

Just checking, did you sign & date the defence under a statement of truth as well as sign & date the counterclaim? 2 signatures.

You will need to speak to them Monday morning anyway to pay the Counter Claim fee, so why not phone & check if they got it?

Forward it tonight anyway to ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JD^
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 10:27
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Member No.: 5,126



Have paid the fee this morning, they had it down as just a defence the person I spoke to said he will query this and put me through to make the payment anyways as I insisted, I am going to ring back up later to check that it is down as counter-claim.

it was one PDF signed and dated on both parts DEFENCE & PARTICULARS OF COUNTER-CLAIM, they said we are waiting to contact Parking Eye to see if they want to proceed, even though the subject says COUNTER-CLAIM as per SchoolRunMum's post! Will have to now read through some more newbie threads on what happens from here.

This post has been edited by JD^: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 10:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 12:22
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,110
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



PE can decide not to pursue their claim, but only you or the court can stop your counterclaim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 13:54
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,037
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yep
PE can still choose to get rid of the claim
That has no effect on your counterclaim. If they fail to file a defence to countercalim then you need to apply for a defaut judgement. If they withdraw the claim, you will need to (assuming it gets that far) pay the hearing fee.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 18th October 2018 - 10:26
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.