WON. I'd like to share how but am worried re over disclosing. Advice pls.

[SWBOB]

Hi All

First time posting on here. Just registered so apologies if there's a correct format that I'm not following. I'm feeling pretty pleased with myself, but also very grateful.

With a lot help from this thread:

https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...-parking-fines

I have just successfully defended a claim against me by a private parking firm. I'm posting here for 3 reasons:

1. To say thank you to all the experts on here that help and support complete strangers to achieve some justice and protect their rights. Your reach and impact is significant. Keep doing what you're doing.

2. To get advice on sharing my success so that i can give a little back and hopefully encourage others to have more confidence in standing their ground against these bullies.

3. To get advice on how i now go about making a claim against the parking company for breaching my data.

Thanks again Legal Beagles!!

[ostell]

Unfortunately it would be difficult to claim against them for breaching your data. They held an honest belief that you were the guilty party and therefore applied to the DVLA, as they are allowed to do.

Would be nice to know what they were claiming and what your defence was. A precis of the judge's comments would be good.

[charitynjw]

Well done......& what ostell has said above!

[SWBOB]

BW Legal were claiming breach of contract for not displaying a permit in a permit holder's only care park. I was initially expecting them not to turn up but they had about 7 case lined up so it was cost effective to send an agent. The agent was a self employed paralegal supposedly and satisfied the judge as to her rights of audience.

My arguments were

1. No authority based on the address of the site being incorrect.

2. No contract formed based on signs not being large and legible. They put in a bunch of photographs post date of PCN and Google Street View showed they werent there making them non-compliant with BPA codes of practice which they aserted in their statement they were. I subsequently accused them of purgery bringing into question the entire statement. Unfortunately Google Street View also showed a sign they hadnt included which the judge ruled as being large and prominent.

3. Forbidding sign. The only sign of the date in question was of a blured photo whereby the only readable section was of the large writing that said permit holders only. Referencing Beavis, Bull and Masterton the judge ruled that they were forbidding and that it was a case of trespass before rewarding costs for half a day of work lost and petrol.


My logic re data breach was that as the court have found there to be no legal basis against which a claim could be brought, this was the judges finding, that they had no right to request my data from the DVLA. Is that not correct?

[SWBOB]

I got the view re data protection from this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...ladstoned.html

"The driver could potentially claim not only for the parking charge paid but also £750 for a data protection breach for using personal details to pursue a charge which did not and could not have existed.

A similar situation may exists for other car parks where the signage is forbidding."

[charitynjw]

My logic re data breach was that as the court have found there to be no legal basis against which a claim could be brought, this was the judges finding, that they had no right to request my data from the DVLA. Is that not correct?

Bit tricky.

They only have to say they had an honest belief/reasonable cauuse to access & process the data.

[SWBOB]

But is the data breach not their accessing of the information, but their misuse of the information to pursue the claim they should and would have known had no prospect of success and in law did not exist. Thereby in fact using my data within a court application to intimidate me into settling a claim they had no chance of winning due to the signage being forbidding.

Thats the angle i'm looking at it from.

[ostell]

No, they firmly believed that they had a case and there signs were sufficient. They don't believe that the signage ws forbidding but a judge showed them that they were wrong.

[charitynjw]

Yep, imho that's what many (Small Claims) court cases are all about.

One party thinks one thing, the other party thinks another.

Judge decides

[chazel]

Hi there!

So glad to hear of success!

I'm in a similar scenario with a similar sign (For several tickets issued back in 2015!!) and wondered if you could share the case number so I can use it as a case in support of mine?

With many thanks,

C

[charitynjw]

Hi there!

So glad to hear of success!

I'm in a similar scenario with a similar sign (For several tickets issued back in 2015!!) and wondered if you could share the case number so I can use it as a case in support of mine?

With many thanks,

C

Hi
Unless there is a transcript of the case, the case number will be of little or no value.