URGENT: Data Protection Act 1998 Breach...

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

The reason that one booted me out was because of invented claims from another member, on more than one occasion, and the other because I ride a motorcycle and have Aspergers, which I have in writing from the then chairman from 3rd October 2014. Funny how that is never mentioned. I wish you would look at the file as i am sure you would see what I am talking about.

Regardless, they both breached DPA 1998 as confirmed by the ICO. I don't know what incidents that they both invented has besides a side note for the courts to do with DPA. I have a strong case for DPA, and that is why they are both being like this.

[2222]

The reasons why they booted you out appear perfectly legal. If you thought otherwise you could have challenged them at the time. As an example of why others may think the ban was entirely fair: if an astronomical club is in a quiet area, and you insist on turning up late at night on a noisy motorbike, that may well upset the neighbours.

As it is, you have been completely eaten up by resentment over what you perceive as a grave injustice. I fear that you have lost years of your life over this, and it looks as though you are going to spend months/years trying to bring this DPA case. You would do far better emotionally to forgive them and move on. Losing the DPA case, as seems likely based on present progress, would make you even more resentful over yet more perceived injustice. Winning it, will be unfulfilling, as it's not really the DPA issues which are eating you up.

What is more, if you do succeed in issuing proceedings that look like they might succeed, the defendants just have to pay £500 (or whatever you finally claim) and that's an end to the matter. No apology, no day in court, nothing but a small cheque.

Incidentally, I suspect that the real reason you are having so much trouble drafting the proceedings is that you cannot separate in your own mind the trivial technical breaches of the DPA (which you can sue about) from your underlying feelings about the rejection (which you cannot). Fundamentally, the DPA breaches are of no importance, but you've nothing else to sue them about. If you do win, the judge may only award you a tiny amount, which will just make you feel worse.

Most likely is that you never manage to get the claim issued, or it will get struck out before a trial.

Do yourself a favour. Move on. The whole claim is a mistake. Drop it, and get on with making the most of your life.

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

Thanks for shooting my case down 2222. Charming.

What has annoyed me is that they did what they did purposely to cause upset by spreading misleading and false information between them. I would not be surprised if they spread it further since that is what I believe they are prepared to do to prevent me from being able to use my own equipment in a dark place as the city has to much light pollution! At least 2 members have not gone back that I know of since this DPA matter came up, but I guess I could expose them in a Google+ review right? Saying how corrupt they are, how they call people like me a "f***ing retard", and breaching the DPA with false and misleading claims. That may not be good for them as a society!

Then the whole world will know what a bunch of idiots they really are and indeed how corrupt they are!

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

After researching some more societies, it would appear that Lowestoft and Yarmouth also know about this matter because the chairman was contacted by NAS, its the same guy, I am sure, same name and everything.

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

A brief update foor you all 2222, Amethyst...

I have an appointment with a solicitor for an initial consultation but have to pay £300 for it, reasonable given that some wanted the better part of £1,200 just to look at my papers!!! This also helps me decide on what my next steps are since I want to avoid filing my case then they invent some story and have it kicked out of court and I end up owing them thousands, so £300 for a consultation is very reasonable given the circumstances of my case, which I should be able to claim back from them as solicitors costs should I win in court.

Will update this thread in due course once I have seen my solicitor.

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank everyone for thier help so far...

[2222]

I seem to recall that you were going to claim around £500 from each society, ie £1000 in total. With such a small claim, Spending £300 on a solicitor, just to discuss the matter, makes no sense to me.

[pt2537]

I seem to recall that you were going to claim around £500 from each society, ie £1000 in total. With such a small claim, Spending £300 on a solicitor, just to discuss the matter, makes no sense to me.

Yep agree there, cant see CPR 27.14(2)(g) coming to aid the OP here.

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

I did it as I was struggling to put together a proper case, and the help I was getting here dried up.

besides, I plan to claim £1,500 from each so costs can potentially be recovered at as it stands now £150 each.

I have done everything I can think of to resolve the matter without involving a solicitor or the courts, however, it appears to me that they actually want me to take them to court, so now they can pay for that as well when and if I win, which I probably will given that I have the ICO ruling on my side against both societies as you all know.

Solicitor stated more or less what has been said here, that I have a legal basis for a claim. She is looking in to case law to see if there have been any similar claims and indeed what the potential value of my claim is. Personally, considering the nature of the breach and the amount of fabricated nonsense they both included in said breaches, I feel that £1,500 + any solicitors costs is more than reasonable. I brought up defamation as well, but I am well out of time for it, so they should count themselves lucky in that regard, however, it does explain the constant delays and stalling for time.

It may also be worth mentioning that thier last letter to me after sending them an Article 17 GDPR 2018 request was a threat of reporting me for harassment, not that I see how trying to resolve a matter that they have caused by illegally sharing my data without my permission in breach of the DPA 1998. I feel that that letter is an intimidation attempt designed to stop me from trying to pursue them, but I am smarter than this and have involved a solicitor now, so I cannot be accused of anything. I plan to have that request as part of my case when and if this matter ends up before the courts, which I suspect it probably will, let's see what my solicitor has to say when she reports back to me.

Feel free to comment in the meantime.

I shall update again once I hear back from my solicitor in due course.

Thanks again.

[2222]

I hope they told you that they were exempt from the article 17 request, as the data was still required to defend your impending legal action?

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

For now maybe, but not once the case is concluded. Also, as far as i am concerned, considering the ICO ruling, they have no defence for that they did.