Do I have a legal basis to take my housing and PCC to court for Breach of the GPDR?

[Scrumpy11]

I wish to take my landlord and Parking operator to court in a joint claim.. do I have a legal basis as CMS have been operating fraudulently for 19 months and my housing have admitted they are joint controllers buy deny liability.


Facts of the case

1. I, for some 23 years, have been the occupier of the property situated at Flat 8, Winifride Court, 6 Albert Road, Harborne, Birmingham, B17 0AN, under the terms of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement.

2. In or about 2012, Clarion Housing Group (“Clarion”) appointed Comprehensive Management Services Limited (“CMS”) as its agent to patrol the communal parking areas, and issue private parking charge notices to vehicles not displaying a permit. Unable to give the exact date as Clarion nor CMS seem to know.
.
3. On 25 January 2019, I had parked my vehicle, which was a replacement for his previous vehicle that had been written off in an accident, in the communal parking area, Later that day, I noticed a piece of paper entitled ‘Advance Warning of Parking Charge Notice’ underneath his windscreen wiper. This was the second such incident, the first having occurred on 14 September 2018.

4. On 30 January 2019, I received a Notice To Keeper from CMS, demanding payment of £100. This stated an incorrect location of where the vehicle was parked. This was issues from an invalid address. CMS did not have permission to use the address to which their company is registered to of which the PCN (Invoice) was issued from.

5. I subsequently made an appeal on 8 March 2019 to the Independent Appeals Service (“IAS”), operated by the trade body (“the IPC”) to which CMS belongs. The appeal was dismissed, despite CMS giving false evidence to the IAS regarding which signs were at our scheme, due to actual signs did not conform to current regulations. Therefore, were unenforceable by law. CMS continued to pursue me for the charge and passed my details to an unlicensed debt collector (“ZZPS”) who also sent letters demanding payment.

6. After numerous complaints made to the IPC, they eventually agreed on 10 May 2019 that CMS had not operated in accordance with their Code of Practice, and the charge was cancelled. I believe this was because I had requested for Disclosure to the DLVA, Local Councillor, Trading Standards.

7. I continued to seek reimbursement of my costs from CMS, and on 22 June drove to the registered office of the company in Lytham St Annes, only to find that CMS no longer operated from there, or had any means of receiving post, and the new occupiers had a drawer full of letters addressed to CMS, including some from Companies House.

8. I pay a service charge which includes maintenance of grounds, (carparks) ect. Therefore, I do have rights without to park without conditions being set.

9. CMS are the second company introduced to our scheme, the first was Midlands Parking Contracts (2006-2007), the directors where sent to prison for fraud. CMS are operating in the same way as MPC once did.

Contract/ Signage

11. I had not entered any contract with CMS as their signs did not conform to current regulations (Article 6.1(a) of the General Data Protection regulations 2018 - Performing a contract with the Data Subject). There were no terms and conditions set, so I had not breached any.
12. CMS’s sign was their old companies sign with a piece of paper stuck on top, showing a po-box address; a premium phone number and purported that CMS were a member of the British Parking Association of which they were not.
13 The signs were not made from the right material, not was the text the right size.
14. Subsequently, the signs did not conform to current regulations and the IPC’s Code Of Practice. Further breaching the DVLA;s KADOE contract.
11. Consumer Contract Regulations 2013 - The signage at this location fails to create any contractual liability due to the failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The purported contract created by the signage is a ‘distance contract’ as defined in section 5 of the Regulations and is therefore subject to the mandatory requirements set out in section 13, relating to the statutory information which must be provided by the trader. - CMS's sign did not conform to regulations. Therefore, there was no contract
12. CMS denied me a fair right of appeal, fabricating evidence against me regarding what signs were at our scheme on the date of alleged contravention. This was supplied to and accepted by the Independent Appeals Association.
13. CMS’s new signs which appeared on the 20 March 2019 do not conform to current regulations. CMS are displaying the address and phone number of ZZPS LTS, an unlicensed debt company which CMS use for Administration and Debt collection purposes.
14. ZZPS have stated, “ZZPS Limited and Comprehensive Management Service Limited (CMS) are separate legal entities and do not operate from the same business address.”
15. Clarion are held to be jointly and severally liable, in that they failed to ensure that their agent acted in accordance with Statutory legislation, and/or in compliance with the IPC Code of Practice. Further breaching the DVLA’s Keeper at Date of Entry (“KADOE”) contract.


Parking Operator’s registered address of which PCN’s were issued from

1. CMS were in Breach of the Companies (Trading) Regulations 2008, The companies Act 2006 from 23 January 2018 – 24 July 2019, for: Not having a registered address which their company was registered to; Running their company from their former address of which they did not have permission to.
2. CMS have knowingly been operating fraudulently by stating to clients and various agencies, that they still collect mail from their old address, in a vain effort to try and legitimise their right to run their company from their former address.
3. Any PCN issued from 24 January 2018 – 24 July 2019 has been issued fraudulently as the company were aware of their trading obligations.
4. CMS have been Issuing, taking payments for, or threatening legal action for Parking Changes which were incorrectly issued against a motorist. A PCN is an Invoice, which was issued from their former address, thus invalid and issued fraudulently.
5. Ropert Pinkus Property management state that CMS do not have any permission to use their former address for any purpose.
6. Clarion are held to be jointly and severally liable, in that they failed to ensure that their agent acted in accordance with Statutory legislation, and/or in compliance with the IPC Code of Practice. Further breaching the DVLA’s KADOE contract.

Clarion Housing

1. Clarion Housing have stated that I have no complaint against them, my complaint should be addressed to CMS directly
2. I believe, as Clarion Housing are the Landowners whom contracted this parking company to our scheme, should be held jointly and severally liable as their client has not conformed to statutory legislation, fabricated evidence against a long-time resident (myself).
3. Clarion have let CMS continue at our scheme, despite the company operating fraudulently. Also, fabricating evidence against me of which they would have committed perjury in a Court of law to secure payments.
4. We as residents were never consulted, not agreed to such companies operating at our scheme. Although Clarion Hosing state we did and their legal team state that we did not need to be.
5. These companies offer no Security to our scheme, we have had vehicle thefts, theft from vehicles, criminal damage, fly tipping, people rummaging through our bins looking for personal information to commit identity fraud. Drug dealers and users using the carpark where used needles were left behind
6. Clarion have stated that these companies are needed to stop non residents parking on our carpark, this is false. They were introduced to stop vehicles parking in the entrance to our scheme, restricting access to bin lorries and emergency vehicles. This failed and bollards were introduced.
7. The first company which was introduced was Midlands Parking Contracts (2005-2006) whom were showed on the BBC’s Inside Out programme and ousted as Cowboys. Even after watching the programme My landlord tried to defend their agent.
8. My friend was towed demanding £385 for her vehicle back, not bad for a first date.
9. The Directors and operatives of MPC made threats towards me and even contacted me at my place of work.
10. MPC’s directors faced justice in 2012, by being sent to prison for fraud, (operating without a valid registered address and fabricating evidence), much in the same way CMS have operated.

Breach of the General Data Protection Regulations (“GDPR”) 2018

1. Consequently, CMS had no reasonable cause to obtain and process my personal data, and to share that data with third parties. Clarion, in appointing CMS as its agent, act as joint controllers and were culpably negligent in failing to ensure that data was processed lawfully.
2. Article 4(7) of the GDPR and sections 3(6) and 6(1) of the DPA 2018 defines the controller as a “natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of processing personal data”.
3. CMS as a Data Controller, is responsible for obtaining any information from the DVLA and must ensure that any personal data they receive must be processed lawfully in accordance with Article 6 of the GDPA
4. Article 6 of the GDPR sets out the grounds for which a controller may process personal data.CMS have not fulfilled their obligations under Article 6.1(a) Performing a contract with the Data Subject. Due to their signs did not conform to regulations and no contract was formed.
5. By obtaining and processing the data unlawfully, contrary to the provisions of article 6 of the GDPR 2018, CMS/ Clarion Housing are liable for compensation for the damage and distress consequent upon each breach. Clarion are held to be jointly and severally liable as joint controllers. Clarion failed to ensure that their agent acted in accordance with statutory legislation, and/or in compliance with the IPC Code of Practice.
6. Pursuant, I am entitled to seek damages for the breach. I rely upon the binding authority in support of his Claim, of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333. In Halliday, the Court of Appeal held that a compensatory sum of up to £750 was deemed ‘appropriate and sufficient’.

1. There were two breaches, at £750 each, totals £1500.

1. the first relates to a PCN dated 18^th September 2018, PCN no: 266125000689.
2. The second relates to a PCN dated 30^th January 2019. PCN no: 266125001427

Action to be taken:

1. CMS to be removed from our scheme with immediate effect due to their conduct and the manor in which they have been operating.
2. Clarion Housing to Contact all residents to see has fell victim to CMS’s fraudulent Activities.

Fore me to be compensated for the two breaches of the General Data Protection Regulations (“GDPR”) 2018

1. For me to receive compensation to be decided by the courts for the way I have been treated by my landlord. Making me out to be a liar and not believing my evidence which I supplied them. Clarion took the word of their agent over my hard evidence.
2. If the Courts are able to impose sanctions on CMS, then for this to be made so.
3. CMS to be held accountable for their actions.

[Scrumpy11]

There has been no response from the parking Company to my Letter before County Court... However, Clarion replied:

[R0b]

At first glance, it would seem your merits of success are likely to be low unless you can prove that an easement or prescriptive rights have accrued. Their letter suggests that they have informed you more than once that the communal car park is subject to having a parking permit displayed - do you deny that?

The only thing that might be arguable is the tenancy agreement states that you will be consulted on with regards to housing management decisions and if they failed to do that, then it might be possible to argue a breach of sorts.

There seems to be more to this story than what has been given but based on the information I would say unless you have compelling evidence, don't bother.

[Scrumpy11]

At first glance, it would seem your merits of success are likely to be low unless you can prove that an easement or prescriptive rights have accrued. Their letter suggests that they have informed you more than once that the communal car park is subject to having a parking permit displayed - do you deny that?

The only thing that might be arguable is the tenancy agreement states that you will be consulted on with regards to housing management decisions and if they failed to do that, then it might be possible to argue a breach of sorts.

There seems to be more to this story than what has been given but based on the information I would say unless you have compelling evidence, don't bother.

Hi Rob,

Thank you for your response


My housing tried to introduce this type of parking management previously in 2006-2007. We as residents were not happy with this and they were eventually removed after the BBC's Inside Out programme ousted them as a 'Cowboy' company. CMS came in force post 2012, although my hosing cannot give me an exact date, cannot find their contract.

The larger sign was there when I moved here in 1995, which states 'Private Road carparking is for residents and visitors only" I am a resident and parked with the parameters of this sign. In order for any sign that has been introduces post 1995 to become enforceable then this sign should have been removed. The signs do not work in conjunction with each other - Just another thought of attack

I have as will other residents been parking on the main road for the last 4 years (when able) due to our carpark offers us no security, vehicles are been broken into stolen and drug users/ dealers are using the carpark. Unfortunately, the local council have now introduced parking management on the road, so we as residents have been forced back on to the car park.

I was aware of this CMS's managing our carpark but have never given permission for such a practice after the way I was treated by the old company.
On the night in question I was in a new car after mine was wrote off a month before, and after a night shift had forgotten to take the permit out of the glove box. I then received the NTK.

The signage did not conform to regulations and has not since the company have been instructed. Therefore I had not entered unto any contract with CMS. My argument is, they accessed my personal data without reasonable cause.

The PCN was issued from their former address to which they do not have permission to use for any purpose

My main aim is to get rid of this company, but my landlord does not seem to want them to go, despite them acting frauduently.

The residents I have spoken to are not happy with this type of management to our scheme we would prefer gates, to offer more security, this would also stop fly tippers and people rummaging through our bins looking
for personal information for fraudulent purposes.


I am grateful for any assistance you guys can offer

[Scrumpy11]

Sorry, we as residents have never been consulted, nor agreed, regarding the introduction of parking management being introduced.

in my initial complaints my housing officer and her manager were adamant we had been consulted, their legal team said there was no need to consult as it is their land as you can see in their responce

[R0b]

This doesn't sound like it's going to be easy and will most likely rest on the surrounding facts. It would be helpful to see a copy of the letter you sent to Clarion so we can see the full picture - you should redact any personal information as I can see there is personal information on the Clation response, so you may wish to remove and re-upload that one.

I'm only throwing out some things here but it could be that you can establish that although the contract terms did not give an explicit right to use the communal car park, the sign erected in 1995 by the wording of it, could be seen to give an implied right of use i.e. the common intention of the parties - I understand there might be recent case law suggesting that the right to use a car park is capable of being an easement (check out this link but you may need to sign up.

Prescription is another argument which seems to be something you have raised already in your letter before action and no doubt Clarion have denied this though don't appear to have given any explanantion other than the fact they can impose conditions as they see fit. If a prescriptive right is found, that might cause problems for Clarion so I understand why they might want to dismiss that.
Another potential argument is an equitable easement through proprietary estoppel. This occurs when an assurance that the person affected wil lhave rights or is led to believe they will have rights in something - it can be expresslly written or implied but usually has to be unambiguous. That person then has to demonstrate it relied on that assurance and that person acts to their detriment in reliance on that assurance i.e. you spent money by installing a bollard or something.

Doesn't sound like proprietary estoppel is applicable to you in this case but worth a look anyway. What I would say is that you don't want to throw the kitchen sink at this and you may be wise gathering all of your evidence now before considering legal proceedings. For example, if there are residents who have been at the property for as long as you have then you might want to consult with them and get a witness statement drafted and signed by them to corroborate your claim. The burden will then be on Clarion to disprove these assertions and from the sounds of it they don't have the relevant paperwork other than your tenancy contract so they could be on to a loser.

Long and short is that it won't be easy and they've already said they will defend your claim which they believe to be without merit. If you can establish an easement or prescriptive rights without conditions, all other arguments by Clarion should fall away and you could then argue that there has been a breach of data protection if they passed your information on to the parking company then they had no legitimate reason since the easement was granted without conditions.

My advice to you is to not embark on anything until you are confident you have the necessary information and/or evidence to back up your claim and argue it succinctly in court.

Tagging Des and Amethyst for any further comment.

[Scrumpy11]

Sorry for late reply, I had to take my car for some new tyres.

I will now review what has has been advises, thank you.

please find attached my letter which I sent Clarion/ CMS (Letter before County Court Claim)

[Scrumpy11]

This is the evidence that CMS supplied the IAS of which they accepted without consideration for my evidence.

Time line:

25 Jan 19 - date of alleged contravention

30 Jan 19 received PCN (sent from their former address which they moved out of on the 23 January 2018). I have a letter from letting agent which stated they did not have permission to use former address from when they moved for any purposes.

08 March 19 CMS submitted their Prima Facia Case to the IAS with their evidence, (an image of a sign and a sign in a van). This was accepted over my evidence

12 March 19 - My last photographic evidence of signage (time/ date stamped by my mobile)

20 March 19 - CMS changed their signs to match the evidence they supplied the IAA on the 08th. New signs do not conform to regulations as purports CMS to be operating from ZZPS's address with ZZPSs phone number.

[Scrumpy11]

I am not sure on how the courts perceive 'ease' of parking.

The earliest recorded evidence of CMS being introduced to our scheme, which I have found, is June 2014. This would mean,

I had acquired a nonpossessory interest in land through the long, continuous use of the Carpark, not requiring a permit to park, for approximately 18 years or more of my 24 year residency. This has taken into account of MPCs time at our residency, which was less than 1 year, although I have allocated 1 year.

Would the courts look at the total or just until MPC were introduced?