• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum. Please register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
  • LegalBeagles® is a free forum, founded in May 2007, providing legal guidance and support to consumers and SME's across a range of legal areas.

    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

URGENT: Data Protection Act 1998 Breach...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • «THÖMÅS®©™»
    started a topic URGENT: Data Protection Act 1998 Breach...

    URGENT: Data Protection Act 1998 Breach...

    ...by two organisations (confirmed by ICO), suggestions on what if anything I can do next?

    Hello again LegalBegagles!

    I am looking for some advice on what I am able to do about the matter that I am going to try and explain in as much detail as possible.

    I have a keen interest in astronomy, doing a lot of research in my time in the many years I have had internet access. I joined an astronomy society, one of two that I know of in Norfolk, namely Norwich Astronomical Society ("NAS") located on Toad Lane, Thwaite St. Mary, near Norwich in around November 2011, and was a member until around October 2012 when I was asked not to renew my membership. The reasons given were somewhat confusing but seem to boil down to one of the members not liking me for whatever reason and as a result, from my perspective, seems to have been on a malicious campaign to have me booted out, even fabricating some nonsense alledging that I had told another member to "f**k off" when I have documentary evidence from the chairman at the time that the individual concerned stated that I never said anything like it. Anyway, to cut a long story short, that was one of many false allegations perpetrated by one member of that society that I cannot name here, but I do know her name.

    In February 2014, I contacted another society, Breckland Astronomical Society ("BAS"), located near Ellingham, in Norfolk to enquire about joining them. To begin with they were friendly, and I thought I was going to be accepted as a member after a few visits, making some jokes, laughing, and trying to be a normal member of the public as it were. On 3rd October 2014, I recieved an email from the then chairman saying "due to your unfortunate condition, unfortunately, membership of the society would not be suitible for you. The committee have carefully considered your application and decided that in the best inetersts of yourself and the society, it should be rejected." I am no expert, but it seems that this society has just blatantly admitted to discrimination? From the email I recieved, and from the emails I later recieved of an exchange between NAS and BAS, they admit that they banned me and the email from 3/10/14 actually proves that this is because of my "condition".

    On 31st January, I visited the Norwich Astronomical Society hoping that they had put the past behind them as it had been some time since I had been there. I visited to see a "super blue blood moon" ("SBBM") that was actually forecast to happen early the next morning at around 2:20am. I was excited as I had never seen one before. And because I live in Norwich, I cannot really see much due to light pollution. When I arrived, I noticed that ITV Anglia were filming there and decided to wait outside. After around 5 minutes of waiting, I spotted a member emerging from one side of the clubhouse (namely the toilets) and proceeding to enter the main clubhouse door. I stopped him and asked to speak to the chairman. A tall male with a dark coloured hooded long coat appeared claiming to be the chairman (I now know that he is not the chairman but in fact the secretary) and asked what the problem was. I stated as above that I was wondering if I could hang around for the SBBM, and if he was OK with that. He recognised me somehow, and asked me if I was "Thomas XXXXXXX" which I obviously confirmed I was. I am guessing he recognised me from my motorcycle which was parked behind me around 15 feet away. After I confirmed who I was, he launched in to what I would describe as a verbal assault saying that I was banned, prohibited, forbidden and that if I did not leave, he would call the police and have me arrested for tresspass. I was briefly in a state of shock at this point, but I still kept my cool with him and asked why I was banned as I was unaware of any ban at that time (I am still not aware of any ban to this day as it has not been confirmed, but seems to be in place never the less, even though they have not stated it). He then accused me of "swearing" at another member which is absolutely false and I have documentary evidence to prove that this is an utter fabrication of the highest order. To avoid being arrested for some made up nonsense like "trespassing", I hopped on my bike and started to reverse out but did not start it. As I did so, I clearly heard the secretary call me a "f**king retard". I responded by calling him an "a**hole". He answered me by saying "I heard that" and I responded by saying "good, that's what you get for calling me a f**king retard". Secretary walked away in to the clubhouse saying nothing further. I backed out parking on the other side of a PUBLIC ROAD calling a friend to try and calm my absolute rage at him at this stage, although I did not show it to him directly. I spend about an hour on the phone to 2 different friends and afterwards I took off home. On 2nd February 2018, I filed a complaint by email directly to the chairman who, in his response seems to be saying that he cannot prove that the events I have stated and is esstentially calling me a liar, and supporting the secretary (which emails between them seem to suggest) where in one of them the line "he got short order from our chairman". This is because he was able to fabricate a tweet from my Twitter account where he changed the code to replace "idiots" with "retards" and then used it to make out that I said it. It was a tweet that I sent to Parking Eye Ltd ("PE") after they were demanding £75 to provide the police with data relating to a hit and run incident where my motorcycle was hit causing damage while it was parked up and unattended in an ASDA car park and the police asked PE for the data of vehicle registration numbers for a set time period. As a result of this, the police did not pursue it any further.

    Fast forward...

    I made a subject access request on May 5th 2018 to both societies with a set list of documents that I was after. I recieved an acknowledgment from both societies after several days and I waited for them to come through, sending consistent reminders so that they did not forget the obligations that they were under under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA") . I did not get a response from NAS until 7th June 2018 which came in the post from thier solicitor via special/recorded delivery. I found several documents that I asked for missing and wrote back by email to ask for them again. I did not recieve a reply. I tried again, no reply. I recieved an email from BAS on or about 9th June 2018 attaching some very interesting information including, confirming that the two societies had been exchanging emails between them about me. I requested copies of those emails and was told that they were exempt from disclosure. I did not believe this, so I requested them again, and got an almost identical answer.

    As a result of this, I contacted the Information Commisioners Office ("ICO") and filed a formal complaint against both societies for breaching my rights under the DPA and believed that the two concerned societies had been discussing my details without my express permission. BAS tried to claim "legitimate interest" as a rather poor excuse for what they did, and the ICO has written to me stating that both societies had not complied with the DPA under shedule 2. After seeing the emails myself, it also appears that they tried to withhold them as it contains defamation against my name and did not want to face a court claim for defamation of character.

    After recieving the ICO's decision, I wrote to the two societies again asking for them to propose a resolution. I recieved a reply from BAS within 10 minutes attaching the email chain between the two aformentioned societies and saying that they had implemented the changed reccomended by the ICO. I have yet to recieve any response from NAS.

    Given what is a reasonably short version of what has happened, are there any legal experts here that can suggest on what my next steps are please?
    Last edited by «THÖMÅS®©™»; 17th November 2018, 04:31:AM.

  • 2222
    replied
    Originally posted by «THÖMÅS®©™» View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • «THÖMÅS®©™»
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • «THÖMÅS®©™»
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • «THÖMÅS®©™»
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 2222
    replied
    Originally posted by «THÖMÅS®©™» View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • R0b
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • «THÖMÅS®©™»
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • 2222
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • R0b
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • «THÖMÅS®©™»
    replied
    It was practically identical, I mean, I added a few lines, for example that they failed to respond to my LBA...

    Leave a comment:


  • R0b
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • «THÖMÅS®©™»
    replied
    R0b, using your previous advice above in your last post, I effectively copied the LBA to the claim form, but I am getting the suggestion it's not right. What am I missing?

    Leave a comment:


  • R0b
    replied
    Like I said before it need not be perfect.

    I've given you an example to start with but it shouldnt take you too long to knock out. Again as I've mentioned previously, the letter before action is your guide.

    Leave a comment:


  • «THÖMÅS®©™»
    replied
    11 pages. And it is because I want to get this claim right so it is not struck out by the court for not complying with CPR 33.4.

    Leave a comment:

View our Terms and Conditions

LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Court Claim ?

Guides and Letters



Search and Compare fixed fee legal services and find a solicitor near you.

Find a Law Firm


Loading...
Working...
X