Have you sent a CCA Section 77 request?

If you have a parking ticket you could get compensation due to DVLA law breach, expert says

WWW.BRIDPORTNEWS.CO.UK

---

The DVLA passed on motorists’ personal details to private parking firms

Threatening letters from a DCA chasing up a charge emanating from a data breach does cause distress.?

Changing the lawful basis for processing data is not a good option as per the ICO guidance.

Yes ill post a link - I expect there'll be a lot of interest in the story.

There are two versions, one for print and a longer online version, both versions were being looked over by lawyers last night. 

The journalist is hopeful that the story will be out tomorrow.  

Im informed that the DVLA/ICO story will appear in the press over the weekend. Should be an interesting read.

The DVLA may have got themselves in to a spot of bother.

So the ICO have determined that the DVLA has used the wrong lawful basis for processing under the GDPR. In my own case the DVLA stated they’d provided DR plus with my data because they were either the agent of the landowner or had rights to do so on behalf of the agents of the landowner, but never provided me with proof. Interestingly, the ICO stated that the DVLA do not hold this information, so cannot provide proof and the only way I can find out is if I make a FOI request to the parties involved, although there are exemptions they can use to avoid complying. 
 

The DVLA must comply with accountability under the GDPR and have systems in place to make sure they share data to parties that have legal authority to receive it. The above suggests they are making an assumption not relying on fact.

Im speaking with a journalist on this now, so any comments on the above is appreciated.

Paul 

You need all the statements, write back and make it clear that if they refuse you’ll submit a complaint to the ICO. 

Hi Peter

After reading the opinion I'm not confident in pursuing this.

You really need all the data that the bank holds on you.

First time I've heard of their collection centre arranging a loan to refinance.

The legal opinion gives the green light to claim damages under breaches of the DPA 1998 and/or negligence as per Durkin.

Should receive it in the next few days.

Looking forward to your comments on the opinion.

Regards

Someone that specialises on the subject might be a better way to put it. 

Opinion should be with me by Thursday.

The expert has been involved in COA cases concerning matters I've raised.

Peter,

I agree that Grace is not really required as the data is probably incorrect in any event, contrary to data laws. Nevertheless,  I’ve instructed the expert to consider it, so it will be interesting to see if it assists.

But the COA said that a CRA file should show that the account

is  unenforceable.

Barclays response.

Barclays reply.pdf

When status 6 would apply.
 

Status 4-6 or 4-6 & BB - Possible Triggers
• If, when status 3 has been set, the customer is showing no realistic attempt to repay the overdraft then, a Status 8 should normally be set.
• Status 4-6 will normally only be needed if the customer has made a repayment proposal and is making a realistic effort to repay the overdraft, but the overdraft is more than 3 months beyond its repayment date.
 

Peter,

Is 6 a legitimate entry for a overdraft?

Hi take your point about confusing the issue, but think

it could apply if they argue that there is no requirement to file a default. 
 

Barclays have offered £150 for distress and inconvenience. I’ll post the letter when it arrives. 

In my opinion. If the status of 6 missed payments is excepted, then the credit file should have made reference to the fact that the account was unenforceable. If the credit file wasn't able to show this, then the status of 6 should not have continued to be recorded.  

Peter

I think the more we can throw at Barclays the better. 

The legal opinion on merits of the case will be interesting.

Paul

Para 38 Grace.
 

38. As for the second submission, I have not been persuaded that the shortcomings in the CRAs’ registration systems can excuse a registration which is in substance inaccurate because of an omission (namely that the ‘default’ related to an unenforceable agreement).  If an accurate registration cannot be accommodated, then the answer is for the industry to change its registration systems, and in the meantime for inaccurate registrations not to be made.

Quote

 

Peter,

The creditor isn't legally obligated to register a default once a default/termination notice has expired, its totally at their discretion. What they did in my case was to keep the account status as active.

The account became statute barred/unenforceable from 2014 and as per Grace the credit file should have been updated to reflect this. Fourth principle Data Protection Act  requires ones personal data to be accurate and up to date.

Ive asked the expert to consider Grace, Doyle and Durkin. 

But a statute barred debt does not require a court to declare the debt unenforceable?

It is fact that the account was unenforceable 6 years after the termination notice was served as per Doyle.  

I