URGENT: Data Protection Act 1998 Breach...

[R0b]

But did you effectively copy the LBA? Just looking back on the posts, at post #24 I gave you a template of setting out the LBA and then at post #27 you seem to have provided a revised LBA (now edited so no longer there) and the posts beyond that expand on that revised letter.

What you've provided in the POC doesn't suggest that it was a copy from the LBA.

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

It was practically identical, I mean, I added a few lines, for example that they failed to respond to my LBA...

[R0b]

Well in that case it was a very poor LBA and I'm not going to argue but I'd refer you back to post #160 I gave you a basic example so I would suggest you follow similar lines.

[2222]

Thomas, in your effort to get this right, I think you are losing sight of the main aim. The idea is to pick the main one or two points of contention. You have to be selective, as otherwise it becomes far too complicated. If you can bear to do it, just stick to one point. One that you can prove and that shows some real harm to you.

The particulars of claim are to define exactly what you are claiming about, so that the trial can take place with a number of defined issues to cover. As I said roughly two pages ago in this thread your original draft POC completely lacked any substance.

This is a small claim, so I would not bother too much about setting out the precise legal basis for your claim. Rob's example in post 160 seems an excellent framework to follow. You just need to adapt it to fit the facts of your case.

If you really can't bear to keep this simple, then I suggest you stop now.

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

Simple facts...

They breached the DPA 1998 on multiple occasions and dates;
They told each other false information about me;
The ICO have ruled in my favor that they BOTH breached the DPA 1998 pursuant to shedules 1 and 2;
They BOTH invented stories between them to justify what they did; and;
The BAS chairman tried to claim that my requests were "malicious" and "vexatious" when I asked for the emails that showed all of the above.

What can I do with that?

[R0b]

They are not facts, merely your allegations aside from what the ICO ruled.

How did they breach the DPA.
What false information was given.
why did the ICO find in your favour and what reasons.

It might be wise to do what 2222 suggested and simply stop now, or instruct a lawyer to draft the claim for you.

I give up now, ran out of ways to try and tell you how to set it out. All I can say is good luck with this.

[2222]

Simple facts...

They breached the DPA 1998 on multiple occasions and dates;
They told each other false information about me;
The ICO have ruled in my favor that they BOTH breached the DPA 1998 pursuant to shedules 1 and 2;
They BOTH invented stories between them to justify what they did; and;
The BAS chairman tried to claim that my requests were "malicious" and "vexatious" when I asked for the emails that showed all of the above.

What can I do with that?

Actually, what you do with that is very simple.

You choose a single breach of the DPA. Just one breach, that satisfies two criteria: a) you can prove it with the information you have, and b) that leads directly to SIGNIFICANT harm you suffered.

You set out clearly in your POC the facts about that breach, including the proof and how it has caused you harm. (In your witness statement, you can go on a bit about your feelings etc.)

Maybe, if you must, you can include a second breach that satisfies the two criteria.


As an example of where you are going wrong:

"The BAS chairman tried to claim that my requests were "malicious" and "vexatious" when I asked for the emails that showed all of the above."

I assume that he did make that claim; he didn't just try. That's possibly a bit rude of him, but I cannot see any cause of action.

The only thing the court could possibly be interested in is a) were you entitled to the information you asked for, b) did you get it, and c) do you need the court to order that you get it. As you said that you already know what's in the information you asked for, as you have already had a redacted version, it's a total waste of everybody's time asking for it again, and the court won't look kindly on you. You could even have a costs order made against you regarding it.

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

This is why I wish I could share the data with you. The chairman DID claim it, as it is clearly evident in the data disclosed to me by the ICO themselves.

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

Should I include both of the defendant societies in one claim? If I did, are they permitted to communicate with each other to invent a defence between them?

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

R0b, 2222, I also want to add that I suspect that they both knew what they were doing because they tried to invent multiple excuses for what they did. That is why they did not want to disclose the data I asked for and why I had to ask the ICO for help, which ended in a ruling in my favour, which in turn strengthens my case against them significantly.

[2222]

This is why I wish I could share the data with you. The chairman DID claim it, as it is clearly evident in the data disclosed to me by the ICO themselves.

One does wonder whether you are deliberately missing the point. Is this whole thread some sort of elaborate unfortunate hoax?

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

2222, I am not "deliberately missing the point". This is not a "hoax" either. I am very serious about this!

[2222]

I will make, once again, the two fundamental points you should consider.

1. There are over 170 posts on this thread. There is a load of information on how to draft your claim, and yet you seem unable to get anywhere close to a workable draft. So, now is the time to give up. Or save up a great deal of money, and pay a professional.

2. This entire claim is misguided. Private clubs are allowed to discriminate. Nevertheless, you are trying to punish them for discriminating against you on account of your Asperger's, and you have latched onto some fairly trivial breaches of the DPA. Were you capable of drafting the claim, you might succeed in court and obtain a small damages award. However, the upshot of that would be utterly disastrous for you. Word would get out, and I doubt that there would be a club of any sort within 50 miles of Norwich that would let you join.

Really, you should think about whether you can get more help with your Asperger's, and I suggest you see your GP and ask to be referred to a Speech and Language Therapist.

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

2222, what they did and what they said was outrageous, and inaccurate! I am sure I have a claim for defamation, but I am out of time for claim that, statute barred in short. They should consider themselves lucky.

NAS spread misleading, and false information to another society, they have probably told every other society in the country as well. Regardless, they have made it clear that they will do everything they possibly can to make my life as difficult as possible regardless of the effect it has.

[2222]

I have no idea whether what they said was inaccurate, but you have not convinced me that it was outrageous. You mentioned some sort of near-disaster with a laser. If there was a risk of blinding someone, however small, then that in itself would warrant immediate exclusion.

They would have a moral obligation to inform the other society of the risk, if they also had the same sort of equipment. I have no idea how that fits into DPA requirements, but I have no doubt about what's right and moral in the circumstances.

You mentioned that the laser incident was unintentional. I certainly hope so! If it had been intentional, it would have been a very, very serious criminal offence. Accidentally blinding someone would not have been alright, either.

I really wonder whether you lack the insight to see the fundamental point in all this: Societies like this normally welcome new members, yet two of them rejected you. It doesn't appear to have been done lightly, either. You need to consider why they did that, and whether you can alter anything about yourself so as to be more successful in future.

And bear in mind that these were astronomical societies. I expect that a fair proportion of members have Asperger's.