The email they supplied me with was for this Nicola Smith, who is their solicitor and works for someone called Liberty Global. The Virgin email I sent it to (webteam@virginmedia.co.uk) is the address that has replied to all my previous SAR requests and queries. Perhaps they think this Nicola Smith's email will be sufficient. On the bundle-it will be very hard for Virgin to claim non-receipt as it was sent to the court,Virgin and Nicola Smith together. The court has autoresponded to confirm receipt-furthermore as Nicola Smith and Virgin were included as CC's,the court will not only be able to produce the original email, but proof that the other addresses it was sent to were correct. The chances of only 1 out of 3 correctly addressed emails reaching their destination must be remarkably small!

@BankFodder I informed the court by email and copied in their solicitor Nicola Smith and to the Virgin Media contact email from which I received a reply stating they do not accept emails at that inbox and giving contact details for how to get in touch with them. This morning I had an email from Nicola Smith, stating that 'Upon considering our file of papers we note that no draft bundle was provided by you for consideration, rather than an email submitted to the Court by you on 27 July enclosing documents in readiness for the hearing listed for 20 August. Notwithstanding the above however we confirm that the contents of the bundle should be in accordance with paragraph 12 of the order of District Judge _____ on 29 June 2021. We would be grateful if you could provide a copy for perusal if it has been prepared.' So they are saying :they never received a draft bundle, :then they did receive it but despite it being in exactly the same format as theirs, they did not term it a draft bundle :then despite having acknowledged receipt of it, they need another copy to be sent to them. I'm not doing their work for them-they have a copy which they have acknowledged,they can peruse that. Next deadline is 13 August for the claimant to file and serve a 'paginated indexed digital trial bundle' whatever one of those might be when it's at home...

We have moved on somewhat-court bundles were exchanged- mine focused specifically on the SAR requests I made, their replies when they confirmed receipt of them and their compliance or otherwise and the lack of a signed agreement included,the failure to put in a defence for any of the previous claims,=the acknowledgment by their team that they did not have the original invoice and the acknowledgement from the Executive Team that they had failed and the offer that was submitted. Theirs consisted of a statement by Beverly from the Executive Team and a 'Sharon' from the call centre mainly blaming the pandemic for their failure to comply with the time limits-interestingly in their defence they specified only three SAR requests had been made,but here several requests have been mentioned. They have also not included any SAR requests or answers including any dates,but generic identical replies.. Since then, I have attempted to liaise with them to agree the contents of the trial bundle as per the court's instructions-this should have been completed by 4pm today.I have had no contact from them at all and this has been brought to the court's attention that they have failed to comply.

DONE-sent and confirmation received*By 20 July,each party must send to the court an email address to which invite to the video hearing will be sent. *WORKING ON NOW-By 23 July(4pm) claimant must pay £80 or file a properly completed application for help with fees or the claim will be struck out and claimant will be liable for defendant's costs. *By 27 July(4pm) claimant and defendant must exchange and send to court copies of all documents to be relied upon and written statements of all persons due to give evidence,including the parties themselves. *By 3 Aug(4pm) parties will liaise and agree contents of trial bundle *By 13 Aug(4pm) claimant must file and serve a paginated indexed digital trial bundle

Court has been sent the email address that will be used for the case and autoacknowledgement received. Am now filling out form for assistance with court fees and preparing our argument focusing only on the failure to respond to the SAR. If they dispute that it is really worth £600, I shall use the email sent by their Executive Team in December offering £500 It will be difficult for them to persuade the judge that my distress was worth £500 at Christmas 2020, but not worth £600 eight months later.

On my list of things to do this weekend-got all my paperwork in order. Just one thing I'm not certain about-if I'm including the calls with the Executive Team as part of my evidence how do I submit them as part of my bundle-do they need to be transcripts or copies of the audio files?

A further Virgin reply in the mail(undated) with an update to my complaint.I've quoted verbatim-fans of literacy should brace themselves now! Our findings: 'We've understand that you requested for a call recording and spoke to one of the executive about it and was adviced that not all of the of the call is recorded and all of the data that we are obliged to send has been sent already.We offered compensation to provide resolution of £50.00 GBP.I see you have declined the offer as you already spoke to the executive team and was provided a much higher compensation. But we do not see any compensations which was offered from 50.00GBP. If you has any query or for any more information please call us on the below number to discuss in detail or follow the link for any help... Resolution:feedback given' It also noted that 'if we don't hear back from you after 28 days,we'll assume you agree with the result and close your complaint'.

We have some action although it's a bit fluid in parts! Here's the main points from the notice of allocation. *The case has been allocated to small claims track for 2pm on 20 Aug at Exeter County Court for no longer than 1 hour *The case has been listed as a second fixture and will only be heard if earlier cases have been removed *The claimant must contact the Civil Listing Officer on the last working day before to determine whether it will take place on that date or an alternative date. *The case will take place via Microsoft Teams-court office is to make arrangements for this. *By 20 July,each party must send to the court an email address to which invite to the video hearing will be sent. *By 23 July(4pm) claimant must pay £80 or file a properly completed application for help with fees or the claim will be struck out and claimant will be liable for defendant's costs. *By 27 July(4pm) claimant and defendant must exchange and send to court copies of all documents to be relied upon and written statements of all persons due to give evidence,including the parties themselves. *By 3 Aug(4pm) parties will liaise and agree contents of trial bundle *By 13 Aug(4pm) claimant must file and serve a paginated indexed digital trial bundle

Ah of course that should be complaints. Stoopid autocorrect. Out of my many and varied complaints, uncooked fish does not come into any of them...yet....

Well no news to report. I contacted the courts-it has now been transferred to Exeter and when they decided to answer the phone on about the sixth attempt all we know now is that it is with the judge awaiting directions. I shall use the waiting time to do an SAR on other companies l have had cold halibuts with and see what that yields....

Another statement of arrears has landed on the doorstep-still stating the money has been owed since Nov 2019 despite the bank account showing payments in Dec/Jan 2020. Another contact from the Executive Team to confirm I had received everything I had requested in the SAR and it could be marked as resolved to the ICO. No,it couldn't be marked as resolved as there are still outstanding emails and letters that I have received that had not been included in the SRA. In reply to their question-how do you know they haven't been included, I confirmed I had kept all the originals and checked off what was missing,so she was despatched to convey this to the Data Protection team. And surprise surprise instead I have had an email from the ICO stating that Virgin have informed them that the issues have all been resolved,they have complied and the customer is happy that they have done so-the ICO have been sent an email disabusing them of this notion.

Just a little email from our friends at the ICO: 'Thank you for your email of 26 May 2021. Your complaint had been closed as we had no reason to believe Virgin Media had not responded to you within 30 days.I have contacted Virgin Media today (3/6) to seek clarification of what action they have taken-as soon as I receive a response,I will contact you and advise you further'.

Copy of strike-out letter sent to Nicola Smith on Monday. Request for remote hearing sent to Exeter County Court and copy to Nicola Smith today as agreed (and an auto-response from the Court confirming it has arrived) Cheque for £302 from second claim and warrant issued has arrived today! (that's now £604 on two undefended claims,judgments and warrants...) I'm now imagining them at Virgin Towers frantically running around realizing they have to justify how their defence was submitted over a week before the claim was made-should be very interesting to see what their explanation is!

Redacted response to the strikeout application that has been sent to the County Court included. Fortunately our County Court seems to be on the ball, as I have now received an auto response which clearly states 'this reply is confirmation that your email has been received' in case anyone has any accusations later on that it might go walkabouts and not turn up where it should have done. StrikeOut3.docx

OK-the only reason I didn't post them up here now is they now contain all my identifying information. I can post them up redacted but it'd be pretty much exactly what was already posted before.

@BankFodderI've emailed you the drafts of the finalized letters for both the remote hearing application and the strikeout application to be got out to them tonight Showing that they have breached the data regulations with proof is actually being made much harder by their haphazard paperwork which is allowing them to conceal things and make them look compliant when they aren't. For example,an SAR was submitted on March 11, a reply was sent at the end of March,so at first glance it appears they are in compliance-but on closer investigation,that reply is actually in response to February's SAR request! Also-in response to the SAR of February 11,I have received three emails thanking me for my SAR all of which claim to have received it on a different date.The cynical would say this is so they have a choice of dates so when they do reply they simply select the date that keeps them within the regulations...

Yes l will be able to get it all done tonight. Emailed ICO and got standard acknowledgment back. Am at work rest of day so cant do anything until 5pm or so but have set aside evening for it and have all the documentation for the three claims.

It came by email only. output.pdf

In January I contacted ICO about the Data Breach-on Feb 11, they replied stating that they had ordered Virgin to 'either tell me how they will put things right or explain how they have met their data protection obligations'- so far they have failed to comply. Meanwhile I have been emailed from Virgin's legal team a copy of a letter that they have sent to the presiding judge. They are attempting to have the claim struck out as an abuse of process: Their grounds are that the warrant for the transferred claim from Sunderland was issued and on May 5 they issued a cheque for the amount. According to them, this was the first notification of claim that their legal department received(!) and when they checked the details of the particulars of claim realized that this new claim was dealing with exactly the same matters (failure to satisfy the SAR demand) and accordingly 'respectfully request the claim be struck out as the Defendant submits that the Claimant has issued a claim for the same matter on two occasions'.

Many thanks-I've had a look through and it seems pretty comprehensive and focused. The time and effort put in by you is muchly appreciated. A couple of clarifications so I know exactly what I'm talking about- *Is quantum the amount of money being claimed? *What is a recoverable head of damage? And two points- Where it refers to the 'claimant has brought the claim because the defendant has failed to respond to a statutory request' would it be worth modifying it to emphasize that they have actually failed to respond to X number of statutory requests on multiple dates or just confine it to the one claim that is being defended? And would it be worth including with 'It is believed that in neither of the above two cases has the defendant complied with their duty to inform the Information Commissioner about their statutory breaches' that the Information Commissioner has actually ordered Virgin to either tell me how they will put things right or explain how they have met their data protection obligations and they have failed to comply with this instruction? In other news, I have received confirmation that the case has been allocated to Exeter Crown Court(good news as Virgin wanted it at Leeds), and the cheque received at court on May 11 and just waiting to be cleared has still not put in an appearance, so I shall get in touch with them tomorrow and see where it has wandered off to...

We have a development and I'm afraid I don't have the specialist knowledge to know quite what it means,so some help untangling the legalese to work out what it's saying and what the next move is would be muchly appreciated: I have received a General Form of Judgment or Order from Exeter County Court stating: 'The court noting: *The Guidance of the Lord Chief Justice dated 23rd March 2020 paragraph 6 that hearings requiring the physical presence of parties(the claimant/defendant etc.) and their representatives and others should only take place if a remote hearing is not possible and if suitable arrangements can be made to ensure safety *The Protocol regarding remote hearings dated 20th March 2020 paragraph 1 that the Covid-19 current pandemic necessitates the use of remote hearings wherever possible and that this protocol applies to hearings of all kinds including trials,applications and those in which litigants in person are involved in the County Court And the court informing *The parties that the relevant rules of court are contained in Civil Procedure Rules("CPR")Part 3.3 which are available at https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part03 and CPR part 27 and in particular 27.4,27.9,27.20 and 27.11 which are available at https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27 It is ordered without a hearing that: 1.The claim is allocated to the small claims track 2.Pursuant to the power to do so in CPR Part 27.4(1)(e),the court gives notice to the parties that it considers the claim suitable for determination on the papers without a hearing as permitted under CPR Part 27.10 if all parties agree to this 3.The parties must notify the court by email to enquiries.exeter.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and every other party by 4pm on 4 June 2021 3a.If they agree to a paper determination,in which case the court may determine the claim without a hearing pursuant to CPR Part 27.10,but before agreeing,be aware that if a party agrees to this,then pursuant to CPR Part 27.11(5),no application can be made to set aside the judgment of the court and the outcome can only be challenged by appeal under CPR Part 52,which requires the permission of the court. 3b.If they do not agree with a paper determination,then they must state their reasons,after which a judge will decide without a hearing whether the claim is suitable for some form of determination at a hearing where the parties are present remotely(eg by telephone,Skype for business or some other similar platform)or whether the claim should be deferred until after the Covid-19 restrictions have altered sufficiently to permit a hearing at which the parties attend in court. 4.Because this order has been made without a hearing,any party may apply pursuant to CPR Part 3.3(5) to have this order set aside,varied or stayed.A party wishing to make an application must send up or deliver the application to the court,together with any appropriate fee to arrive within seven days of service of this order.

You're going to love this-letter from Oxford County Court confirming a cheque for £302 has been received from Virgin Media in response to the first warrant. That's a payment made on a case they claim in their defence has no merit and they want thrown out, not to mention that they've now paid £600(so far!) for a £200 handset claim So far we have Claim 1 for failed SAR requests: Not defended, judgment issued, warrant executed, £302 paid. Claim 2 for failed SAR requests: Not defended, judgment issued, warrant executed, £302 received by court. Claim 3 for failed SAR requests: Defended.

Small update-confirmation letter from Reading Court that the first warrant(that we initially tried to execute in Sunderland) has been transferred and was issued on 4 May.Hopefully a cheque for the amount of £300 will again be winging its way to me soon...

Virgin have submitted their DQ answers and interestingly have said they are not willing for the case to go to mediation. They have also said that they will be calling only one witness. If that's not the person who received the SAR requests and processed them they can't comment on that surely? And if it's not the person who actually signed me up and set up the contract then they can't comment on that either? And l was aware that they use a separate room for post-what l was querying was that if bailiffs turn up they can claim the mail room as a separate address so only goods from in that room can be taken.

I've sent over the details requested but I'm having another issue that I can't seem to get my brain around. Having deciding to reissue the original warrant that was unable to be served in Sunderland as 'the address did not exist' I checked with the county court as to why they couldn't seize any goods when there was clearly a building at the site. Apparently,this problem is well known to them.It transpires: * The physical building on the site belongs to Virgin and contains their goods and property-this is an SR4 address. *The registered address for service of documents and letters,including court papers is an SR43 address. This is just a mailroom within the building. *Since the warrant was issued for the SR43 address, they were only allowed to take goods from that specific address(the mailroom)-which contains nothing except a very large mail cabinet. How is it possible to have this address-within-an-address? Surely I couldn't give my address as being 1a and then when bailiffs turn up, tell them 1a only refers to the mailbox in the porch and the rest of the house is actually No.1?