Would like to sue Management Company for DPA 1998 BREACH

[Sassii]

Dear all

Hope to find someone could help me as would like to sue management company as their contractor issued PCNs to me and served the Claim form to my old address and got default Judgement against me. I beaten that parking company several timesbefore they got that default Judgement. so could please help me to review the below proposed LBC to Management Company and please comment or advise for any correction or something could be added.

Regards

The Company Secretary of xxxx
Address:
Date:

LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM

Dear Sir / Madam,

This letter is sent in accordance with the Practice Directions on Pre-Action Conduct. You are liable for £xxxx compensatory payments in respect of breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) and misuse of my personal data, as set out in the following paragraphs.

Facts of the Case
1. This matter arises from the issue of a Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) by your contractor Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd to a vehicle I was keeper of it at xxxx Development, on xxxx and xxxx while the vehicle was stopping / parking lawfully and legally under lease contract terms and conditions. As at all material times Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd were acting with the authority of, and under your Company’s instructions and interests, so that the agent / principal relationship giving rise to joint and several liability is clearly established.

2. Subsequent to the incident and following my refusal to pay a charge of £200 for ‘’Parked within a restricted area’’, and after protracted appeals processes with Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd & IPC a court Claim Form was issued by Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd on xxxx (2 years and 9 months from the alleged parking incidents), Claim Number xxxx.

3. The Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd chose to serve the Claim Form for the case mentioned above to my old address to get a default Judgement against myself for the intention to cause damage especially after they been informed and knew my new / current address from emails, letters and other court cases before launched that case in question.

4. I knew about the default Judgement against me on xxxx after receiving bank letter and checking my credit score. I applied for set aside application which the hearing was listed for xxxx County Court on xxxx and that Default Judgement against me was set aside for the reasons mentioned in this letter.

5. Your site manager xxxx knew all details and had all correspondences about PCNs and been informed about the bad behaves of your contractor Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd against Residents of xxxx and how that contractor breached the agreement with your company. Also I asked your site manager to communicate with your contractor pcm to discontinue the court case and cancel that PCNs but no action been taken helping for that.
6. Residents of xxxx signed a petition and sent formal complain, about your contractor Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd, to your company dated xxxx and your Company finally removed that contractor from site on xxxx after more than a year of the complaint.

7. Also your company legal team were reluctant to help and to present the agreement between Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd and your company.

8. As evidenced by the above, there was clearly breach of DPA 1998 and misuse of my personal data as there were no reasonable cause for Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd to process my personal data to their Debt Recovery agent / solicitor for any lawful purpose and no reasonable cause to use my personal date inaccurate.


Legal Issues Arising

It follows that, your contractor Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd were in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Principles causing financial damage, financial loss, wasting times & efforts, significant harassment & anxiety and personal distress to myself, and s13 of the DPA 1998 provides for financial compensation for this so pursuant to s13 of the DPA 1998 I’m asking for compensation of £xxx from your company.
I rely different legal cases and 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.

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. A similar ruling was made by a District Judge at Liverpool County Court on 7 December 2016, in case no. C9DP2D6C, VCS v Mr. P, while not binding, is persuasive that a DPA breach occurs when a parking charge is not legitimately pursued.


Actions Required by Defendant

I now require you to remit the sum of £xxxx payable to me at the below 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,


Name:
Date:
Address:

[R0b]

Not sure how I see that you can hold the management company liable for breach of data protection. Just because they have engaged PCM UK as a contractor doesn't mean that the management company is the data controller. I would probably say that PCM UK are the controller in respect of the information obtained by the DVLA. You may be able to sue the DVLA for failing to put in place adequate measures to ensure that there is sufficient grounds for obtaining the information but I think the connection to the management company is probably too remote.

If there's any claim against the management company then that is probably going to be vicarious liability. You would have to first show that the relationship between them and PCM UK is capable of giving rise to vicarious liability and once established, that there was a sufficient connection to hold the management company responsible for the actions of PCM UK.

If anything, your best bet would be to claim vicarious liability, but I make no comment as to whether that has any reasonable prospects of success.

[Sassii]

Thanks v much for your reply and comment while I would like to explain few things as below

Not sure how I see that you can hold the management company liable for breach of data protection. Just because they have engaged PCM UK as a contractor doesn't mean that the management company is the data controller.

Management Company authorised pcm to take legal action on their behalf and I think that is why management Company responsible for data protection breach for not auditing their contractor. one more reason the management company has no right under lease contract and are not authorised by the landowner to manage the roads.

I would probably say that PCM UK are the controller in respect of the information obtained by the DVLA.

pcm didn't get my personal details from DVLA I contacted them as it was company car. but pcm breach the data protection by unlawfully processing my data and used it inaccurate and not up to date when launched legal case as they served the Claim Form to my old address although they knew my current address from emails, letters and previous court cases.

[R0b]

So this doesnt sound like the typical process I understand it to be in usual parking ticket cases.

I get that PCM will have contracted with the MCo to provide parking services bit it's the rest of the scenario you need to help us with. Please tell me if what I said below is correct or incorrect.

1. MCo contract with PCM to provide parking management. That contract authorises PCM to pursue parking charges on MCo's behalf and legal proceedings is the name of the MCo?

2. You receive a ticket (windscreen?) And you respond directly to PCM providing your address and contact information.

3. PCM ignore the contact information given to them by you and instead obtain your old address information (from MCo?) And issue proceedings in the name of MCo or PCM?

Unless the claim was issued in the name if MCo, I am still unconvinced that MCo are the data controller of the information you gave to PCM. By analogy, barristers who receive a file of information from their instructing solicitor are actually data controllers and not processors; they determine what material and information is used in legal proceedings and you could argue it is the same here with PCM (assuming they issued a claim in their name)

However if you could clarify the above that will clear up any assumptions I have.

[Sassii]

1. MCo contract with PCM to provide parking management. That contract authorises PCM to pursue parking charges on MCo's behalf and legal proceedings is the name of the MCo?

- The legal proceeding is the name of pcm.
- The agreement saying that '' we give pcm authority to proceed with legal action to recover unpaid charges......in accordance with BPA''. that is why I said pcm do that in MCo behalf.
- I have emails from MCo show that MCo used pcm to get keeper details so from my point of view they used them as data controller.

2. You receive a ticket (windscreen?) And you respond directly to PCM providing your address and contact information.

yes as it was company car and didn't want the company to be involved.

3. PCM ignore the contact information given to them by you and instead obtain your old address information (from MCo?) And issue proceedings in the name of MCo or PCM?

pcm obtained my old address from my 1st appeal to them then I moved home in the same development 4 months after issuing that PCN, pcm been informed but they chose to use my old address to serve the claim form. Bear in mind that the Claim form issued to my old address after another set aside case and after pcm beaten in another case and got my costs for their unreasonable behave.

Unless the claim was issued in the name if MCo, I am still unconvinced that MCo are the data controller of the information you gave to PCM.

I want to say that MCo been linked with pcm for data breach at the point of serving the claim form to wrong address after 3 years of the parking incidents as pcm can't do that without the authority from MCo. So they used my data in accurate.

[charitynjw]

So why not name both companies on the claim form?
If it turns out that the MCo isn't liable, PCM will still be left in the frame.

[Sassii]

So why not name both companies on the claim form?
If it turns out that the MCo isn't liable, PCM will still be left in the frame.

LBC lettes been sent to both of them and both declined after 3 days from LBC letters. So can I proceed with legal action without waiting for 14 days gave to them to respond to LBC.

Regards

[jaguarsuk]

LBC lettes been sent to both of them and both declined after 3 days from LBC letters. So can I proceed with legal action without waiting for 14 days gave to them to respond to LBC.

Regards

If they have written back to you denying you claims yes you can proceed.

[Sassii]

If they have written back to you denying you claims yes you can proceed.

Thanks v much for your reply

Could please review the below Particulars of Claim and let me know your opinion. I'm planning to use Money Claim On Line

''Claim for financial loss & damages arising from Defendants breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. On XXXX and XXXX, 1^st Defendant unlawfully issued 2 PCNs to Claimant and unlawfully processed and shared Claimant's personal data inaccurate to get a Default Judgement against Claimant although Claimant’s right address been known. All the above done under 2^nd Defendant interests, authorisation & approval. The 1^st Defendant’s claim against the Claimant, no. XXXX was set aside res judicata at XXXX County Court heard on XXXX and the case been discontinued. The Claimant has made complaints to the 2^nd Defendant for a year regarding the 1^st Defendant behave, with no resolution. Consequent upon the breach, the Claimant has suffered loss and damage, for which the Defendants is held to be vicariously liable. And the Claimant claims a) £XXXX in loss & damages; b) Costs''

[R0b]

Given that there are two defendants you are claimant against, it might be wise to tick the box that says you will provide detailed Particulars of Claim within 14 days of the claim form being served.

You can then set out the details of your case without a character limit as it looks like you are squeezing a lot of information into a small box, some of which might be crucial to establish the cause of action.

[Sassii]

Given that there are two defendants you are claimant against, it might be wise to tick the box that says you will provide detailed Particulars of Claim within 14 days of the claim form being served.
.

Thanks for advise. 1st I would like to use the same particular claim technic the parking company used and the court never complained about that although I mentioned that to court several times so if they complaint will reply as they replied. Also would like to get there statement of defence before next court hearing in July.

so could please help and review the above particular of Claim and advise which important part is needed to add.

regards

[R0b]

What are you trying to achieve with the second defendant? are you alleging breach of DPA and vicarious liability? Because you say the 'defendants' are vicariously liable but that doesn't work.

As a side note, the general rule is that no liability exists where an independent contractor is involved. On the face of it, the Parking Co. would be considered an independent contractor.

[R0b]

Here's a starting point below, though it's not completed because I can't understand the purpose of claiming against the second defendant. Feel free to post up a fresh draft fully completed and happy to look over it.

The Principles in square brackets is an assumption you need to double check the right principles are breached.

1. The Claimant seeks damages and costs against the First Defendant pursuant to Section 13 Data Protection Act 1998 ("Act") in connection with a parking charge notice.
2. The First Defendant was a controller within the meaning of the Act. It processed the Claimant's personal data, namely the issuing of legal proceedings to an address in which the Claimant no longer lived and obtained default judgment against the Claimant. At all material times the First Defendant knew the Claimant did not reside at that address. The First Defendant processed the personal data contrary to [Principles one and four] and in breach of the Act.
3. As to the Second Defendant ...

Character count: 660/1048

[Sassii]

What are you trying to achieve with the second defendant? are you alleging breach of DPA and vicarious liability?.

yes I'm trying to alleging Management Company for breach of DPA and vicarious liability. Management company think they are immune from parking company behave. They used tactic that if residents don't accept that bullying and extortion they will waste our time and costing us more than the pcn it self by taking residents to court and any costs rewarded are disproportional with the efforts done. so would like to play the same game with management company and that not only me some residents will follow.

Because you say the 'defendants' are vicariously liable but that doesn't work.

yes you are right that is only for 2nd defendant

As a side note, the general rule is that no liability exists where an independent contractor is involved. On the face of it, the Parking Co. would be considered an independent contractor.

I'm going to use the management Company agreement words '' We give Parking Control Management UK Ltd. authority to proceed with legal action to recover unpaid charges.....'', so pcm is not working independent from Management Company but they need that authorisation to proceed legal cases which I think that be good link between them.

Also I have some emails from Management company that if they want to know the car keeper they used pcm so would like to argue that pcm are their data controller for that matter.

also when residents complain about pcm, management company made it clear that pcm working for their interests

[Sassii]

Here's a starting point below, though it's not completed because I can't understand the purpose of claiming against the second defendant. Feel free to post up a fresh draft fully completed and happy to look over it.

Thanks again v much, here is the second draft

1. The Claimant seeks damages and costs against the Defendants pursuant to Section 13 of Data Protection Act 1998 ("Act").
2. The First Defendant was a controller within the meaning of the Act. It unlawfully issued parking charge notices dated xxxx and xxxx, unlawfully processed the Claimant's personal data, issued legal proceedings case no. xxx on xxxx to an address in which at all material times the First Defendant knew that Claimant no longer lived at that address and obtained default judgment against the Claimant on xxxx which has been set aside on xxxx and the original Claim has been discontinued on xxxx.
3. The First Defendant processed the personal data contrary to Principles one and four and in breach of the Act.
4. The First Defendant actions mentioned above been in the Second Defendant interests and under his authorisation for which he is held to be vicariously liable.
5. Consequence upon the breach the Claimant has suffered loss and damages so he Claims a)£xxxx in damages; b) Costs

Character count: 1048/1048