I haven't read through every significant detail. In reference to a claim relating to the incomplete disclosure, do you have a clear understanding of what is missing from the disclosure and can you evidence this in some way? Have you begun a complaint to the ICO, if so have they provided their view? This is something that can be done concurrently to a claim. There is a risk the ICO don't provide the view that you agree with but this doesn't prevent you from seeking remedy through the court system. With reference to the breach of GDPR it may be better to particularise how it affected you rather than what affected you, particulars can usually be expanded on in a witness statement. Also bear in mind that if you say that preparing litigation was distressing you will then be issuing two of your own claims, albeit that perhaps claiming rather than defending brings about different stress. I'm not saying this to point fingers in anyway but instead to anticipate some of the questions you may face later on. I don't think there are any threads which have been down this path before and upon which an outcome has been realised, at least in court. It's important to realise this is somewhat treading new ground and that by continuing you understand unlike other common disputes on this site that there isn't much history to fall back upon to know the outcome with certainty.

You should begin your complaint with the ICO immediately. If you were to be in receipt of a view given by the ICO that supports your claim by the time you submit a witness statement then your chances of success will increase dramatically. It's much easier for a court to rely on the opinion of a government body such as the ICO in support of your claim than by your evidence alone. VCS probably started litigation in the hope that you'd give up and pay. I'm not sure the exact timings of when you submitted the SAR however if it was after they issued their second claim it may have been your request that woke them up the reality their claim was going to fail if they had lost all of the evidence. Your risks go beyond simply losing the hearing fee. Often costs are limited on the small claims track, however well resourced organisations like to throw in applications because they can result in a costs order outside of the normal course of a claim. If you are time poor it will force your to turn up to any additional hearings which may be difficult to do if you work. Understand they do this partly to disrupt and intimidate litigants who might not have the funds to continue. Unfortunately I also have to say it is not totally out of the question that a court may be more prepared to issue some sort of costs order against a litigant to bring them towards settlement. Of course no court would openly state this is their outright intention but the reality is a costs order is a powerful tool to draw a litigant to the negotiation table who issued a claim on principle rather than economics. You will have to do the reading but there have been some threads on this site that cover disputes regarding the time period for which data should be kept, again an opinion from the ICO may be useful. The problem with the ICO is you are totally at the mercy of the case officer who reviews your complaint and to be frank their level of interest and commitment in giving your complaint the attention it deserves is as variable as playing the lottery. A good case officer will see through the issues, provide a supporting view and I don't think they realise that by doing so they can help unload the courts as only the most belligerent of defendants continue in the face of a dissenting view from the ICO. The firms will not stop their shenanigans, simply because you and the members that find this site represent a tiny proportion of the 8.6 million begging letters send out in 2022 alone. However if "pushing back" and perhaps being awarded a sum of money for doing so brings you satisfaction then more power to you, but it is not without risk.

Update - following a phone conversation with Evri earlier this week (at my request), they have paid in full - all bar a couple of quid. I'd like to extend my thanks to the site team here for the help and advice in getting this resolved.

Although your husband has been doing the right thing - ignoring the fleecers and trying to get evidence against them - it would be better for him to start a new thread and show us the PCN. Then we can work out if the charlatans have bothered to follow the law or not.

when it get to disclosures stage you will both exchange witness statements with exhibits by 14 days before the hearing. they MUST include anything they intend to rely upon in that WS.

My God! They ARE thick!

Brent council have zero interest in putting you into poverty and allowing you to lose your home, I hope you realise that, despite the fact that the council contact centre, finance department and Bailiffs will tell you otherwise. That is the reason why you need to speak to / communicate with the right people, who in your situation is your local elected councillor. Fortunately their details are on Google, email and mobile number. Give them an email and a call, explain your situation and what you can afford to pay per month, and all of this could be resolved by tea time.

do keep up at the back.. dx

It seems to me that if we can find a disabled person who had difficulty with this then we could help them to bring an action under the equality Act . That would set the cat amongst the pigeons

Thanks Kyosanto. Complaint submitted. Let's wait and see.

Would be an idea to have words with as many parents doing school runs as possible and let them know the situation. Also, you said in your firstr post... "The car park is free, in fact there's an agreement with the landowner with the 3 local schools to use the car park, as well as for the 3 businesses there. " Is this something that's available in writing, or just something yoiu've heard about? Could be EXTREMELY useful!

Your conclusions about the fleecers' signs is spot on. This is typical of these charlatans. Take over a car park, put a small number of signs where no-one will see them, and so catch regular users out. The government Code of Practice states that extra signs should be put up to show a change of management of the car park. Of course they'll have done none of this. In what sense entitled? The spivs certainly won't give money back. Anyone in that position could sue the fleecers, but a judge would want to know why they paid if they didn't think they owed the money. The solution with these vile companies is always the same - don't pay them.

As expected EVRi came a day before the deadline for the hearing fee payment was due with their offer to settle for the full amount, didn’t update here as I was waiting for the payment to come through which has now happened. Thank you everyone for the input and help, @BankFodder and the team as well as I wouldn’t have even tried without you, that being said I have donated to the forums the little I received from them.

That could bite them if they have been told no email you have the proof you sent a cease & desist using email, and they still send them, those you save and use later.

HAHA! They want to "discuss" it... Ah well, at least you now have confirmation that they received your instruction. Keep it safe.

its not sinking in is it................. lets pretend we've wasted the last 11hrs and 29 posts and treat you like a newbie. to exercise your legal right under existing Consumer laws...namely the consumer right act of 2015.. you must comply with it's following requirement: you must within 30 days of receiving the vehicle in your possession , WRITE using royal mail to the retailer rejecting the car under your consumer rights, as not fit for purpose. at this point, if you want to give reasons why, that's down to you. but under the act, you don't have too. It is mere getting the FACT that you ARE rejecting the vehicle registered as not fit for purpose done that is your only goal at this stage. once you have done this, you have met the requirements of your consumer laws and rights and met the 30 days deadline.. the matter of this 30 days is now closed. you've done it. you've performed your legal obligation. if the retailer fails to suitably reply i'e by not replying say within 14 days or by replying but not agreeing to your demand of a refund in full there and then and arranging to collect the vehicle, but wants additional info upon why it's faulty/you have a warranty/go away off, you move straight to sending a letter of claim, stating clearly that you will, without further notice, from the date of this LOC, issue a county court claim against them for £xxxxxx . this is because you sold me a vehicle on xxx date, that had the following issues, xxxxx, that rendered the vehicle not fit for purpose under the consumer rights act 2015. i do not have to accept a repair, i do not have to go via any warranty company, i am exercising my consumer right to reject your vehicle. on day 15 you launch your court claim.