URGENT: Data Protection Act 1998 Breach...

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

This is why the law is so frustrating! It feels to me as though it was written in such a way to purposely make it difficult for people like me to file claims against people like these two societies.

[R0b]

Your Particulars of Claim fails to provide any reasonable cause of action.

POC are meant to be a concise statement of facts to enable the defendant to know what he or she is up against. From what I've read, all you've put in the POC are allegations and zero facts.

Keep it simple and don't over-complicate matters. For example:

1. The Claimant was a former member the First Defendant's society.
2. On or about X date the Claimant and the First Defendant had a dispute resulting in the Claimant leaving the society.
3. The Claimant made an application to join the Second Defendant's society but was refused. The Claimant became aware that First Defendant disclosed certain information containing personal data, which was done without any lawful justification and contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998 and/or The Data Protection Act 2018. Due to the disclosure, the Claimant was denied membersip to the Second Defendant's society.
4. In the circumstances, the unlawful actions of the First Defendant has caused the Claimant to suffer distress, anxiety, inconvenience and frustration.
5. There Claimant therefore claims <<insert amount>> as compensation pursuant to <<insert legal references>>.

I don't know if the above exmaple is representative of your claim because quite frankly I've lost track given that this has spanned a number of pages. However, I am sure you get my point.

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

What they and NAS disclosed to the NEN, was not only inaccurate, but also as 2222 stated, potentially defamation. Some of the rubbish they AND NAS invented is astonishing to say the least. That does not matter now as any defamation claim would be statute barred now anyway.

[2222]

What was said to the newspaper may, possibly, be defamation. However, enormously wisely, you are steering clear of a defamation case. Instead, you are trying to shoe-horn it into this data protection case. I am no expert on DP, but I'm really surprised that it's covered. Are you quite sure?

[2222]

Okay, let's go through your "brief details", which are hardly brief, line by line.

1. The Claimant alleges that the defendants breached the Data Protection Act 1998, pursuant to schedules 1 and 2 between 5th March 2018 and 1st May 2018.

You mean:

1. The Defendant breached the Data Protection Act 1998 between 5th March and 1st May 2018.


2. The claimant further alleges that the Defendant maliciously disclosed inaccurate information to a known third party organisation, namely, Norwich Astronomical Society, without his written consent.

Omit here and include in POC. Have they admitted malicious intent? Or is this your interpretation of their actions? You should have really strong evidence before bandying around such accusations.


3. That the Defendant failed to respond to a Letter Before Action dated 29th May 2019 and another previously dated 5th April 2019.

Why is this worth mentioning here? Maybe if it comes to costs. Omit



4. That the Defendant disclosed inaccurate data to the Norwich Evening News when the claimant contacted them for a "story".

Omit here and include in POC, but you will need to state what was said that was inaccurate and how that is covered by the DPA.



5. The Claimant further alleges that the Defendant described him as a "hazard" without any evidence.

What has this to do with the DPA? Omit



6. The Claimant seeks a declaration from the court that his Data Protection rights were breached.

Why do you need this? I thought you were asking for damages.



7. The Claimant seeks an order from the court, upon conclusion of the case, for the defendants to delete all data that relates to him in accordance with GDPR 2018 and the Data Protection Act 2018.

If the court has power to make such an order, you just need to say here:

I seek an order from the court for the Defendant to delete all data that relate to me

I have no idea why you care.



8. The Claimant seeks relief from the Defendant under section 18 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

What's all this about? Is section 18 still in effect?





9. The Claimant also seeks a formal written apology from the Defendant in relation to the data breach.

Surely, the court has no power to make such an order?


So, my suggestion for brief particulars of claim comes down to:

The Defendant breached my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 between 5th March and 1st May 2018, and I claim damages.

Hope this helps.

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

Everything I have said is "factual information"...

[MIKE770]

Factual information!

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

Everything else OK?

What do you mean by "substance" 2222??

[2222]

My response to the draft particulars is that they are short on substance. Why not stick to the facts. I have no idea how you can prove malicious intent. Try to shorten it. What is the point of each sentence in terms of damages. If none takes it out.

The court will not order the defendant to apologise.

[2222]

I did warn you that you were embarking on a difficult course. I don't have the experience to help you, but my feeling is that you may have to accept that you're not going to achieve the perfection you want.

I'm not certain that it makes much difference if you miss a minor point or express yourself poorly, anyway.

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

I guess with all the silence, I am all alone! God, this is so incredibly frustrating!

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

Anyone?

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

R0b, Thank you for your reply. Your suggestion above has been most helpful.

I will however post here in quote boxes what I have here so that it may be looked at for any pointers on what can be improved... I pklan to serve this document on them later this week or early next week, if all goes to plan.

Do you think that it might be a good idea to include copies of documents that I intend to rely on in support of my legal case against them? Please do clarify this small matter, I may have to start scanning and printing... if so, time to break out Mr. Scanner!

Note, this is for BAS:

Brief details of claim:

1. This is a claim against the Defendants in respect of a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the Act), namely, that the defendants shared inaccurate personal data via email, about the Claimant with another similar oganisation (Norwich Astronomical Society) without the Claimants oral or written permission.

2. The said breach has caused the Claimant to suffer distress, loss and damage and seeks damages pursuant to Section 13 of the Act.

Particulars of Claim:

1. The Claimant alleges that the defendants breached the Data Protection Act 1998, pursuant to
schedules 1 and 2 between 5th March 2018 and 1st May 2018.
2. The claimant further alleges that the Defendant maliciously disclosed inaccurate information to a known third party organisation, namely, Norwich Astronomical Society, without his verbal or written consent.
3. That the Defendant failed to respond to a Letter Before Action dated 29th May 2019 and another previously dated 5th April 2019. Said letters are deemed delivered to the registered address on the Charity Comissions website under section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978.
4. That the Defendants invented alleged incidents and maliciously shared them with said third party organisation.
5. The Claimant further alleges that the Defendant described him as a "hazard" without any evidence.
6. The Claimant seeks a declaration from the court that his rights that are afforded him under the Data Protection Act 1998 were breached.
7. The Claimant seeks an order from the court, upon conclusion of this case, for the defendants to delete all data that relates to him pursuant to Article 17 of the GDPR 2018.
8. The Claimant seeks relief from the Defendant pursuant to section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998.
9. The Claimant also seeks a formal written apology from the Defendant in relation to the data breach.

Please do let me know how this looks so far...

2222, pt2537, Amethyst

[R0b]

There's no point giving us half of what you've done, either give the whole particulars or wait until you've finished it and then upload.

Your letter before action shold essentially be your template for the Particulars of Claim so it shouldn't really take much effort to fill in the blanks.

As for the N1, the brief particulars should be just that, brief. No more than a headline should suffice if you intend on writing more detailed particulars. For example:

1. This is a claim against the First and Second Defendants in respect of a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the Act), namely [cite the breach].

2. The said breach has caused the Defendant to suffer distress, loss and damage and seeks damages pursuant to Section 13 of the Act.

Although only two lines, the above should be sufficient for any reader looking at this claim form, to know what this claim is going to be about about. You then use the Particulars of Claim box to go into the specific details of the claim or attach separate particulars to the claim form.

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

pt2537, this is why I tag people, like I just have with you here.

I am preparing a "Particulars of Claim" to attach to this thread later, of course it will have personal data censored to prevent me from being done by them for the same thing I am taking action against them for.

What I was asking was if my N1 was OK, or if there is anything that is potentially missing, I mean, I do have more to add to the N1, but the space for entering data is limited and I cannot add anymore data.

I want to get this right before filing in the courts, to prevent the defendants from inventing an excuse to have it struck out without even getting of the ground. I am well aware that they will try this, since they have lied about everything else so far after all anyway.

I need help, I am not an expert in law, unlike some people here, including yourself. I just don't want to end up leaving court with them laughing at me.

I do however get the feeling that once I file my claim against BAS, they will not respond to it, which would result in me getting a default judgement against them. This should then mean that I can attend thier premisis with the permission of the court to recover whatever the court awards in my favor, and if not, enforcement action can be sought, I believe it is called a "Warrant of Distress" or something similar. I would welcome any corrections on this. What I have stated is what I have heard, nothing more.

How did my N1 look?

Question, are charities exempt from action under the Data Protection Act 1998, or the GDPR?? I am curious, so I can be prepared if they try and invent that as a defence...