This appears to be a case of inaccurate data processing. The fact the return was accepted and the contract nullified indicates the entries made on your credit file are inaccurate. I find the world of credit reporting to be fairly murky and @dx100uk is the resident expert. My understanding is that you are required to receive a properly constituted Default Notice prior to a default being entered on your credit file. I understand you have a mortgage and therefore your place of residency is likely permanent, but perhaps you could clarify if you have moved in the last year or if there is any reason that their correspondence would not have reached you since you ended the contract. If you do not receive the response you want I think you should start detailing how this issue has affected you since you became aware of it and in particular whether it has caused you any distress. In reference to compensation I would also be keeping a record of the financing you would have expected to receive had your credit score remained as it was. Be mindful that technically creditors claim not to use a score to make decisions regarding lending but we all know this is just semantics and that regardless the entries will be what may have affected any lending decisions. Have you kept a record of what you think you would be paying/offered if the entries were not made, on what basis you have calculated this amount and importantly is there any evidence that the credit entries have resulted in you being offered more costly lending.

It might be a sticky wicket to argue that windshear procedures form part of the normal exercise of an airline. The number of windshear go-arounds compared to the number of uneventful approaches to land will be miniscule and therefore arguably not part of the normal exercise of the airline. The fact Dublin Airport remained open has no bearing on whether all reasonable measures were taken. If there was not sufficient fuel onboard to make a second approach and divert safely then to divert is the only real safe decision following a windshear go-around and even if there was sufficient fuel onboard the Commander can take any action they deem necessary to ensure the safe outcome of the flight. To clarify airlines cannot dictate with totality the fuel and operational decisions of the Commander, their autonomy is protected by the Air Navigation Order. That is at least how I would argue against some of your points if I was representing the airline.

Thank you for your coming back to report the outcome, I'm sorry to hear it wasn't what you wanted. I understand it may be difficult to read after the fact but I think the real issue was the diagnosis report. I recall when I first read it thinking that it reads as a stitch up of the owner and made very little of the fact that if coolant did leak it must have done so due to a problem inherent with the engine, particularly as the coolant system was assessed as intact. I recall you saying the judge suggested that the independent report should be carried out by the AA or the RAC. It later turns out the report was carried out by a company called Automotive Consulting Engineers Ltd which, unless I have misunderstood, are not associated with either the AA or the RAC and may have been appointed by the Defendant. A check of their reviews on trust pilot shows a string of negative experiences all of which have been made by car owners and not by garages. If they were appointed by the Defendant then regrettably I think this was an error and for anyone reading in the future it is important that an expert witness is not left to the other side to organise. I'm not suggesting this is what happened, but it is easy to imagine that a garage has lots of useful contacts they can call upon when they require a diagnosis report and who it might favour as a result.

I think it is unlikely that a claim will be stuck out immediately if a DQ is not filed on time. If you read the wording on the court directions issued by the CCBC it usually says "may be struck out". I think it is probably standard practice that the court will issue an "unless order" giving the party in default of the directions one last chance to comply. MCOL records are not gospel. The processing time of the court means that documents received, perhaps on time, may not be recorded as filed until a later date. While this may appear confusing I suppose in a way it is technically correct, a document may have been received on time and probably marked in some way to show when it was received, but is actually filed on a different date commensurate to the workload of the court.

Hmm, I think it is very troubling there are no transcripts and while it may be acceptable to presume a legal officer does not intend to mislead the court at the very least they should provide the source of their arguments. Your reference to "saying if there was no contract then the landowner would take action against any parking company" is troubling. I don't think one should be making presumptions that a valid contract exists on the basis that a landowner hasn't sued a parking operator for occupying their land. It is easy to understand why a landowner may allow a parking operator to remain while no valid contract exists as they may still benefit from the deterrent factor they provide. The problem with all this is that even if a judgment is known to contain some weaknesses it is clear that a LiP faces a dilemma when it comes to the decision to appeal due to the costs involved. So while it may not be a deliberate decision it must be in the back of someone's mind that if they don't get things exactly right it is very likely to be the end of the matter regardless, and of the two parties who is more likely to appeal, the LiP or the well resourced parking company with potentially millions on the line.

Thank you for posting this up, it's not easy to write a summary after not getting the result you wanted. The more detail you are able to remember and post up the more others will hopefully benefit. If its your first time in court it is also difficult to know when to make notes and how best to take them, well done for getting down as much as you could. I'm a little confused about C19 (did you mean paragraph 19 of your WS?) it appears the judge didn't like the title as opposed to the substance of the argument? It appears the cases the judge may have referred to are: Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1021; and One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw [2021] - Heard on appeal on behalf of OPS following a County Court judgment for which I cannot find a transcript online. Perhaps they provided you with a copy as they should have?

Read post #98 again. I don't say this to point fingers but to draw your attention to the fact that sometimes important details which can help you are easily missed. The better you become at picking up on important details in your cases the more your chances of success will increase going forwards. The simple act of posting up the redacted claim form would have clarified this straight away. However, well done for realising the difference in the two systems and understanding why you are having to do things a different way. It's not easy for someone who has never embarked on this path before to navigate everything first time around and your self help appears to be paying off.

That's strange when I checked I found the email for Alison Rose CEO of NatWest, not forgetting that RBS became a subsidiary of NatWest Holdings in 2019. If they were managing their correspondence then I expect it would have just been passed down to the position you find yourself in now anyway.

Personally I wouldn't bother submitting another WS ahead of the hearing, it will appear in some way to condone their actions and you keep the high ground by not stooping to their level. Of course you don't want to be blindsided in case what they have submitted is later accepted. I would prepare my responses and then IF the SWS is admitted, simply present them to the Court on the day on the grounds that one shouldn't be prejudiced by a late submission of evidence. To be honest it somewhat works in your favour that they have submitted a SWS as most of what they have written has given you advance notice of what they wish to say. A counsel better at strategising might have saved their arguments for the day of the hearing or close to. Certainly you should object to any late submission of documents which appear to be referred to as Exhibit 2.

I wouldn't normally suggest this as I know we don't link to other sites, however I think it may help you to have a look on another well known site that claims to be an expert at helping you save money. Without too much searching you will find a first hand written experience by someone who deconstructed OPS in the County Court at Brighton where I expect your claim is also listed for hearing. The reason I suggest this, and in particular if you happen to stand before the same judge, is because it will give you an excellent idea of what to expect given that the court and the claimant are the same albeit that the specific circumstances are different.

You could try searching RBS on ceoemail.com for a relevant email address. The results have varying success depending on how well each company is prepared to manage its correspondence, but it may speed up the process.

The suffix hmcts.gsi.gov.uk is out of date. All email contacts for the court system now end in justice.gov.uk If you haven't managed to respond to the claim against you by logging in to MCOL using the claim reference and password provided it may be a good idea to also send a copy of your defence by post.

That message to me appears to indicate the claim was perhaps issued out of the County Court Money Claims Centre, which while still based online is slightly different and more up to date than MCOL which issues claims out of the County Court Business Centre. Perhaps you could clarify exactly how you issued your claim for the failure to disclose data. I don't think we've seen a claim form or any other correspondence. In any case processing times can be found here. According to the processing times, entering judgment online should be automatic. Using MCOL you should be able to move to enforcement immediately once a judgment in default has been entered.

This MSE chargeback guide is pretty easy to follow. It lists one of the conditions for a chargeback as breach of contract and then more specifically for non-delivery. You wrote above that you didn't receive a ticket but were charged. In my experience banks and their card issuers are generally pretty obstructive. They sign up to all sorts of agreements between each other on how to handle payment disputes, all in the interest of quantifying their liability and with very little interest in returning your money. I think you will find that one of the conditions is that you approach the company with whom the error arose before initiating the chargeback process. The underlying reason being the card issuer will likely charge a fee for the chargeback process. Notifying the company involved gives them an opportunity to rectify the dispute before the card issuer charges them a fee for doing so. Mastercard have a very large document referred to as their "Chargeback Guide". I don't know which company issued your card but no doubt Visa and American Express have similar documents. If you have the time to read such a document and want to know more, all the devilish terms etc will be contained within.

It is very kind of FTMDave to put together a substantial response in such a short period of time. I think it best not to emphasise the time between the breach occurring and when the claim for distress was issued. It would be useful if @kfdh1962 could post up the exact particulars they used for the claim which is loosely referred to in this thread as a breach of the GDPR. My understanding is different to yours, it appears to me you received 1 defence to 1 claim which was for a breach of the GDPR. You then received one application hoping to deal with both of your claims, however importantly at the top of the draft defence is a redacted claim number. That claim number will indicate exactly which claim the defence is aimed at and it would be helpful if you could make that clear to us as well. FTMDave is excellent at keeping on top of things but if it were straight forward to do, it may help to create a separate thread for each claim.

Could you please post a very brief chronology of events between you and EPS including: When they accessed your data. When they sent you a begging letter (PCN). If/when they issued a claim. If/when/how that claim was concluded. When you issued each of your claims/what for and what response you received to each. My understanding is the defence posted in #131 is in response to the claim for unlawful processing of your data, and that they did not file a defence in response to their failure to disclose data? This is somewhat confusing as EPS appear to have issued a single application to deal with two separate claims I'm unsure if this proper, you have the unredacted version so maybe it is clear to you which claim their draft defence in post #142 is in support of? At the very least it appears they are somewhat overwhelmed in dealing with such issues.

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.

Just to be sure, the directions normally provide a number to call in order to make payment. Are you definitely calling that number and not one which is listed elsewhere on the internet which may be for enquiries rather than payments? Alternatively you could pay by cheque and send it in the post.

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.

I think to help prevent facing issues later, it would be better to further particularise the distress you have suffered and indicate more clearly on which legislation your cause of action relies. It hasn't been referred to in the second set of particulars. For the second claim to succeed at trial it is likely you will later have to make a well constructed argument, the more you come across as a competent and able litigant or maybe one that is receiving assistance the more any mistakes may cost you. My understanding is that DCB Legal are not considered the best of the bunch, but in any case better not to leave things to chance. Where you have specified an amount in a letter of claim you ought to stick to that amount on the claim form or at the very least not increase it.

The advantage to you of issuing two separate claims is that it would keep the issues entirely separate in the mind of the court and as FTMDave wrote if one claim fails the other survives. However equally it would bring two opportunities to fail and two opportunities for potential costs. That being said you should probably expect that the claims would be allocated to the small claims track given their value and therefore costs would be limited, perhaps no more than £50. You may run a small risk that it is later considered the claims should have been issued together, however courts do have case management powers and given you are a litigant in person who should be afforded some discretion one would hope that any consequences aren't too unpalatable. You may find that a claim solely for compensation (provided it is a small sum) following their failure to disclose your data, isn't contested. Therefore reducing the number of claims to one, namely the unlawful processing of your data. The advantage of a single claim is that if you win on any point in terms of liability then that should be the end to the issue of costs. The downside (if you see it that way) is that they may choose to defend the entirety of your claim as a matter of course and due to the increased value. In addition it may be that in the interest of being fair to both sides the court reduces the value of any award perhaps by considering each cause of action to encompass one breach. If you issue a claim using MCOL the space is fairly limited but you can probably keep both causes of action clear in the mind of the court and still fit the entirety of the particulars on the claim form. If you issue a claim using the beta version of the County Court Money Claims Centre then more space is afforded to write without having to issue a separate particulars of claim. The system will ask you for more information as you progress, however it appears there is a risk that claims issued to the CCMCC may soon be eligible for automatic referral for a decision to be made on the papers only. I fear if that were to become standard practice it could be risky for a litigant in person for a number of reasons. The merits of either approach are somewhat variable and unknown, at least to me and it may be that you would be able to better help others by reporting back on your experience depending on what you choose to do. I'm not really up to date on your exact history with VCS. It would be helpful if you could clarify exactly how many claims VCS have issued against you, what the outcome was of each claim and when it occurred.

Once you have received confirmation of the judgment entered in default the option to apply for a warrant is accessible on MCOL. Ideally the warrant should be requested as soon as possible.

The SAR that was submitted was dated 28 February 2023. The statutory timeline to respond expired on 28 March 2023. It appears OP did not receive a response or their data until 15 April 2023 (assuming the disclosure is complete). Whether this was a mistake that was quickly remedied or whether OP's data was deliberately withheld until further pressure was applied is hard to determine. As more of these threads occur it may be possible to determine a course of conduct. By the letter of the law there is a cause for action under the Data Protection Act 2018. Whether this would meet the threshold for remedy by the court may be difficult to assess.

Thank you, while the directions make no reference to a bundle, perhaps due to the allocation of the claim to the Small Claims Track they do make clear reference to the witness statement. The witness statement is made in order to set out the evidence (of what happened). Evidence is not legal argument and legal statute is not evidence. I suggest you do a little further reading on both witness statements and skeleton arguments and with the time available prepare a witness statement which sets out what happened with the supporting documents. You should then keep the skeleton you've prepared ready to submit to the court closer to the hearing, if it even gets that far (unlikely). Here is an example of a simple witness statement which went on to succeed. It is clear from other threads, given that almost all of the claims are settled prior to hearing that using the skeleton you have prepared appears to get the job done as it were. You seem to have a good grasp of the issues and what is to come so whatever you decide to do it looks as if your chances to succeed are high.

That changes very little of what I have written above and is good because there should be no question as to the applicability of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. It would still be helpful if you were able to scan, redact and upload the directions issued by the court.