I don't recall if made the point significantly enough at the application hearing, given the result I think I didn't make enough of it. In my view things got very muddled. I was expecting a short application hearing on the basis there was a dispute of the facts and the claim isn't fanciful. Instead the Judge gifted their barrister 2 hours of deliberation largely on the facts of the case. I didn't really enter into the dispute much as I expected the Judge would know what he's doing and that these issues were all to be dealt with at trial. It certainly forms part of my WS which I have already submitted. To clarify the bank statements were sent to my email address the same one from which they received my SAR. I also haven't informed you that around 3 months after receiving my SAR I did have some dealings with them over the phone where my indentity was confirmed. So even if Monzo disagree with the fact they could identify me from 31 August 2022 they certainly could after that phone call. I considered sending it without prejudice as I am making an offer to settle. While it may not prejudice my position I assumed it was best to protect my interest in my claim regardless of the contents of the letter, perhaps you think otherwise?

@unclebulgaria67 With respect I wholly disagree with your position, I appreciate you don't have the complete picture however the same organisation was satisfied as to my identity to send me the entirety of my bank statements no less than 7 days before they received my SAR. A week later and in receipt of a SAR they suddenly have no idea who I am. An organisation should only request further information if they have reasonable doubts as to the requesters identity. As a customer of the bank for several years the idea that they don't know who I am flies out the window. @BankFodder I understand you suggest filing a notice of discontinuance immediately. However I still feel I have a valid claim given they did not provide a disclosure by 21 May 2023. Normally I would have expected some sort of Tomlin Order to sort this out which usually releases any further claims. I'll be honest I don't care about the money and am minded to make the point to the Judge that they knew who I was at the time they received the SAR, everything beyond that point is obstructive and certainly beyond receiving a copy of my drivers license. It appears the way forward you are suggesting would be to discontinue, I would then be free to file a separate claim regarding Monzo's failure to disclose my data as of 21 May 2023 instead of continuing the current claim and risking costs. I appreicate the points you have made above in your second post, it would take some time to upload all the correspondence but needless to say in the period they were refusing to respond in full to my SAR they were at the same time disclosing important, sensitive personal banking information to the same e-mail address from which they received the SAR. With regards to your points regarding a payment and an apology. I agree ultimately to settle they would likely refuse this however there is still a survivable claim for a breach of the DPA which is why I consider asking for a payment. Are we underestimating how much Monzo will wish to avoid a judgement against them? Maybe things have moved on but previously some organisations paid decent sums to avoid these kind of judgments. Lloyds Bank threw thousands at my claim last year and still walked away with a finding that they had acted in breach of the DPA. I will prepare a revised draft.

Monzo Bank currently do not have a subforum within the Bank and Finance Subforums, I have therefore posted the topic here. On 28 August 2022 I submitted a SAR to Monzo Bank. On 31 August 2022 Monzo Bank requested further information relating to my identity. On 31 August 2022 I emailed Monzo Bank a copy of my drivers license. On 31 August 2022 Monzo Bank refused to disclose copies of my data without receiving a photo of me holding my drivers license. On 1 September 2022 I made a follow up request for my data however Monzo Bank refused the request. On 30 September 2022 I submitted a County Court claim against Monzo Bank for the distress caused as a result of their failure to disclose my data. On 22 March 2023 Monzo Bank made an application to dimiss my claim and request summary judgment. The application hearing and trial were listed for the same day. On 21 April 2023 I consider what occured to be a complete stitch up by the Court, following Monzo Bank having submitted no documents in accordance with the directions of the Court for trial. The judge proceeded to conduct a mini trial over 2 hours despite the White Book giving clear guidance that applications to strike out a claim should not be a mini trial. Ultimately the judge decided that the claim should proceed but that the particulars of claim should be amended and Monzo Bank awarded their costs (to be assessed) in amending their Defence. Given enough time I was confident that the ridiculousness of the situation would result in Monzo Bank standing in Court explaining to a judge that they have no idea who I am, while I am stood next to them, therefore... On 5 September 2023 Monzo Bank sent me the following letter. Monzo - Defendant - Letter 05.09.23 - Redacted.pdf My position is that Monzo's refusal to respond to my request on the basis they have doubts as to my identity is both complete nonsense and a breach of their statutory duty pursuant to the DPA 2018 and the UK GDPR. I have no intention of submitting a photo of myself holding a picture of my drivers license for various reasons. Below is a draft response to their letter, a without prejudice offer.

I have sent the above with the following included.

On 31 July 2023 SERL provided a partial disclosure of data which upon review is incomplete. On 11 August 2023 I sent the following to SERL: On 15 August 2023 SERL reponded: I am not interested in playing their game of cat and mouse where they withhold my data but do not explain the basis of why they have withheld it. I propose the following response:

Thank you for the suggestion. In my view these questions are simply designed as a holding pattern. Companies use it as a way to do nothing on the guise they are awaiting a response. In my view it is obstructive and does not prevent in any way their ability to respond to a SAR at least within the capicity outlined within the request. How about:

On 18 July 2023 I sent Shell Energy Retail Limited (SERL) a SAR. On 27 July 2023 I received the following email from SERL. I have prepared a response, @BankFodder if you are interested in helping form a response they I look forward to any comments you have, otherwise I will send the following shortly.

1. Date of the infringement 03/06/23 2. Date on the PCN 07/06/23 3. Date received 08/06/23 4. Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? N/A 5. Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes, including CCTV footage. 6. Have you appealed? No 7. Who is the authority? City of London 8. Where exactly Petty Wales - Opposite Tower of London EC3N 4EE On 3 June 2023 during the train strikes I drove into london and parked at Tower Hill Car and Coach Park When driving towards the car park the road markings were somewhat confusing but I understood I was driving down a one way road to reach the car park. On exiting the car park I turned left (still with the mindset I was in a one way zone). I saw a row of parked taxis all facing the same way which re-inforced this mindset and concluded I had to drive all the way around the car park to exit onto the highway. Unironically as I was concentrating on the number of pedestrians and even stopped to allow some to cross at the entrance to Petty Wales (seen in the CCTC footage), I missed the single road sign placed on the road the opposite side to the driver. The road appears to have been resurfaced and some previous markings of double yellow lines that used to appear across the entrance to Petty Wales have not been replaced. These markings would have made it clearer to motorists the road is not to be driven down except for loading during certain periods of the day. I entered Petty Wales and drove to the end until I saw bollards clearing blocking vehicles from continuing and therefore turned around using Gloucester Ct at the end of Petty Wales. I then drove West along Lower Thames St and despite being faced with a one way road marking concluded the only way to exit the area the car park was located was to proceed to the left. A few days later the PCN arrives. I appreciate Penalty Charge Notice's are a different kettle of fish to PPC but this imo is classic case of poor signage and road markings. I am unsure whether to pay the reduced charge and appeal hoping to later receive a refund or to simply appeal. PCN - 07.06.23 - Redacted.pdf

On point 1 the judge considered on the balance of probabilities the claim form was received. On point 2 the judge considered there was an issue to be decided at trial. The judge did not have a copy of my witness statement before them, as to why I don't know. The claim will be transferred to my local court and potentially consolidated with the other on-going claims. The judge made an interesting comment as to whether the claims may amount to an abuse of process or whether they are made in response to Shell Energy's intransigent position (on the issues between us). Defence due latest 14 June 2023. Costs reserved.

Draft 1.3 attached below. My previous posts had to be removed. In answer to your question again Andy. Application made 21/04/23 which contained a WS accompanied by exhibits. Hearing 02/06/23 I'm not sure if I will be able to question opposing counsel but I think the questions I have prepared are relevant and will hopefully hammer home my points to the judge. DRAFT 1.3 - SE - Claimant - Note for Hearing - Redacted-min.pdf

Draft 1.2 attached below. @BankFodder any comments to make? I'm aware there is some repetition but I'd rather that than miss any important points. It is still not clear to me whether it is ok to introduce evidence this late. I suppose bundles are normaly lodged 2 days before a hearing and should be agreed. I could object to their submissions but the likelihood is the court will allow any relevant documents which in this case aren't all that significant. There is likely to be an argument over costs. I will say in any case the claim is clearly suitable for allocation to the small claims track where costs are limited and the application was made as result of D's failure to process its own mail and properly respond to the claim. DRAFT 1.2 - SE - Claimant - Note for Hearing - Redacted-min.pdf

I don't agree I count at least 4 spaces between my vehicle and the wall on the right, possibly even 5. But either way I don't think it is of any significance. I can also see a lot of flooding in the background of at least two of the pictures. It is very difficult to ascertain markings in a flooded car park. @lookinforinfo Thank you for the points about the NTD I will include this in the next draft.

Thanks @dx100uk, I wouldn't say that is the exact spot of parking but I am interested to know how you came to that conclusion based on the evidence. Not with the intention to get into a scrap, which is most likely immaterial, but so I can better understand what may be said if it the claim goes to a hearing. In reference to the kitchen sink I must have misunderstood FTMDave's comments here. Is anyone actually aware of UKPC setting foot inside a court room since their access to the KADOE database was suspended for a second time? I am aware that UKPC in cohorts with DCBL have discontinued over 140 claims in the past 10 months. I wonder whether they will deviate from their current pattern given that there is a survivable counterclaim if they elect to discontinue. SIGNAGE: I have done some more research and been back to the car park in question as well as taken a few photos. The first is that I have queried the land registry and put simply the address as referred to on the (lets call it the) PCN doesn't exist. A search for the post code RH10 1ER returns at least 10 properties numbered between 1 and 21 the Martletts. There is a poorly placed sign facing the wrong way at the entrance, it wasn't there in 2018 according to google maps but was there by 2020. A previous equally poorly placed sign attached to a wall has been removed. What is significant is that the newer sign is next to parking spaces which appear to belong to the NCP Car Park. The Crawley Borough Council does not return any results for planning permission for the erection of any signs after 2014. @FTMDave Thank you for pointing out the reviews I will look into a way to include these.

@BankFodder I filed and served my statement with exhibits 8 days before the hearing, I did this on the understanding that evidence to be relied upon at a hearing should be filed at least 7 days before the hearing. I now realise this may have been a mistake as the provision under CPR 24.5 is in reference to Summary Judgment only, perhaps @Andyorch knows otherwise and whether I can legitimately request their latest statement is dismissed. Anyway their counsel have filed a last minute ambush prior to the hearing attached below. I have attached only their statement, exhibits can be shown if necessary. SE - Defendant - Note for Hearing 30.05.23 - Redacted.pdf

My account previously reached its upload limit and one of the staff kindly removed some of the older files to make space. Attached below is the upload containing the information you refer to. A minor observation is that their letter begins RE: Notice to Keeper, as if they are responding to something or have previously sent something. While their template is marked as NTO/England/POFA/07-2016 understood to mean Notice to Owner which is not a term I've seen referenced anywhere in legislation or litigation. Let me know if you'd like to see anything else. UKPC - CAG Combined PDF - Redacted.pdf

I believe I have covered this under G. and more specifically at [34] but perhaps I haven't made it clear. They are under the impression the vehicle was parked on land associated with the stores which open onto The Martletts, presumably somewhere behind the yellow NCP sign to the right of the person you reference. I have reviewed their evidence and I don't think it shows exactly where the car is located.

Thank you for your input. As to the WS: (6) There is no question the vehicle entered the NCP car park, there is no other access and their signage is clearly on display at the entrace. Inputting the location code into NCP brings up the following address: Parkside, R/O The Martlets, Parkside, Crawley, RH10 1EH. (6.2)(6.4) This is a witness statement to be written in first person. A statement along the lines of the driver or more properly I observed the driver implies I witnessed the driver do something and therefore know who the driver is. Note I did not say I drove into or out of the car park. (12) I will add the CPR reference to the skeleton. As to the skeleton: Skeleton arguments are either exchanged by agreement or lodged not less than two business days before trial. I have been ambushed before by a very reputable chambers hours before a hearing and the judge thought nothing of it. To answer your question directly, because that is what is expected by the court. Witness statements in higher courts have been struck out for introducing argument and while I agree litigants are given an amount of discretion which in some cases can be taken advantage of, I can see no advantage in submitting ones arguments earlier than is required. Presumably neither can the court as its directions are primarily designed to ensure neither party gains an advantage during the course of litigation. (24) I have updated to include the reference to the CPR. As far as I'm aware B1 and B2 is the standard format for a skeleton, to introduce the judge to the relevant legislation and then to relevant precedent in case law. You may notice the example WSs you refer to often have the elements of B1 and B2 incorporated under each subheading. I have put it at the start. I don't think this minor change in style should be all that offensive. Also I note the examples WSs are usualy between 8 and 10 pages in length. My skeleton is 10 pages in length and in part due to the inclusion of the relevant legislation, so I'm not really sure why the length of the skeleton wood be considered an issue. I think the real skill in writing a skeleton is in keeping it relevant and concise, I'm no professional and it is clearly a skill that takes time to develop. If there is a way to shorten it without missing anything important I am very happy to address this. (10.5) is a one line introduction to your unicorn food tax argument which has been expanded on at (J). It was used in 2019 to dismiss an application by a parking company which saught relief from sanctions after their claim for £160 was found to constitute a penalty sum and struck out as an abuse of process. To be more specific the issue that reached the supreme court in Beavis is whether the parking charge itself was an unenforceable penalty. It was held not to be. However the additional sum in this claim of a futher £60 is what tips the balance outside of the supreme court's ruling and results in the claim being tainted. (K) does not dispute the fact UKPC has brought its claim within the allowable timeframe, rather it brings to the attention of the court that it is an abuse to delay submitting a claim in the knowledge you will later seek to collect interest. In my view the point of the limitations act is to allow claimants to bring a claim if they become aware of their right to do so late in the game, the limitations act is not designed to allow people to sit on their claims in order to later claim more money. I'm sorry to read you didn't go into much detail beyond E as you have a lot of experience concerning these claims and a keen eye for detail.

Would you mind explaining which ones you consider out of date? As I understand it I have covered the points you suggested under the following headings.

Which ombudsman? The Financial or the Energy. That doesn't sound like the sort of action the Energy Ombudsman would take which acts more as an industry prop. I would be very interested in this case if you have further information, is it on CAG?

Attached below is a revised draft witness statement and a draft skeleton argument in defence of UKPC's claim only. I believe I have incorporated all of the points above as well as a few of my own. I'm aware there's a bit of tidying to do and references to add in later but I'm grateful if anyone points out that something is missing or not clear. I realise as I type I have not yet made reference to illegal signage, I'm not aware a parking claim has ever been dismissed on this point but I can include it in a later draft. I will post up drafts in support of the counterclaim when they are complete. To clarify, my understanding is that each member state of the EU (at the time) was required to bring into force the legislation widely referred to as the GDPR. The Data Protection Act 1998 was the UK's original implementation of the EU directive. The Data Protection Act 2018 brings an update to that legislation and the UK GDPR is now brought into effect under the DPA 2018. So although it's semantics I have done as you suggested above. I had considered allocating two witnesses on the DQ and having my partner submit a WS, but following your opinion I decided against it. The reason I mention just one person is it that UKPC will have to show on the balance of probability who was driving. While I could advance the argument that anyone could have been driving, based on the evidence it will be very clear that at the very least one of two people could have been driving. In my view what is significant about the owner and a named driver is that the balance of probability doesn't favour either party, whereas the owner and anyone else legally qualified could still lean towards the owner being the driver on the balance of probability. DRAFT 1.1 UKPC - Defendant - Witness Statement - Redacted-min.pdf DRAFT 1.1 UKPC - Defendant - Skeleton Argument - Redacted-min.pdf

Latest draft attached below, edits are in green. To keep the PDF small I have uploaded only the witness statement. I have amended the list of documents so that it relates to documents sent by post only, partly so not to confuse the issue and given the substantial correspondence that has taken place via email. ACCOUNT PASSED TO COLLECTIONS On a side note I withheld the sum owed to me by Shell Energy when paying my bill this month. Shell Energy have responded by "passing" my account to Zinc Credit Management. Shell Energy have been trashing my credit file for a period over almost two years on the basis that I have not kept up with payments on what in my understanding is supposed to be an agreed payment plan. Of course there was no agreed payment plan. Shell Energy never responded to my email detailing how I proposed to pay my account until they sorted out their inacurate billing. Shell Energy's inaccurate data processing is currently the subject of separate litigation. Zinc Credit Management have offered to set up an affordable payment plan. I have no intention of corresponding with Zinc but I will keep their email as evidence that no payment plan has been agreed between myself and Shell Energy. HARASSMENT Prior to passing my account to Zinc, Shell Energy again began sending automated unblockable text messages to my mobile phone. I have submitted two claims against Shell Energy claiming compensation for harassment. The first was settled out of court, the second is currently meandering its way through the new online beta system. Of note is that this time instead of continuing their barrage of messages unabaited Shell Energy stopped sending their messages after two instances. This could be a coincidence or it could be a sign the message is starting to get through that their conduct is unreasonable and will likely lead to an additional court claim. I wrote to Shell Energy regarding the account balance and of course I did not receive a response. DRAFT 1.3 - SE - Claimant - Witness Statement XX.05.23 - Redacted.pdf

Payment accepted and claim discontinued. On balance I think it was best to unburden the court and not pursue my claim purely on the basis of costs for a claim allocated to the small claims track.

Thank you. Unfortunately Shell Energy's Witness Statement and Draft Defence deals with a lot of irrelevant material which I think has largely been a distraction for myself and will be to the Court, however in my experience it is best not to leave things unresponded to. In any case I have restructured the response to comprise a full witness statement complete with exhibits that better address the points you have highlighted. I have moved the Reply to Draft Defence to the end of the document under a separate exhibit so as hopefully not to distract the Court from the two core issues in dispute, namely whether the claim form was received and their prospect of success in defending the claim. If the PDF is too much I can simply post up the Witness Statement and Reply to Draft Defence for review under two separate quotes. Edit: I did note their paragraph concerning repetative requests. The problem is their application in my view is poory structured. A lot of waffle in the Witness Statement is really points that belong in their Draft Defence, this has made responding to both their WS and Draft Defence somewhat messy. I will either incorporate it as you suggest in a later draft or I could simply address it on the day. I cant imagine the Court will entertain for a moment that two SARs over a period of 2 years is in any way excessive. CAG - Binder1 - Redacted-min.pdf

I have put together a draft response to their application attached below. I am unsure whether to expand this to a witness statement with exhibits but am also mindful that the application should not be a mini trial. DRAFT 1.0 - SE - Claimant - Response to Application - Redacted.pdf

05/08/21 - Letter before claim - No response 24/08/21 - Claim form - Not received 01/11/21 - Letter before claim - No response 13/12/21 - Notice of proposed allocation & DQ - No response 09/03/22 - Letter before claim - No response 27/04/22 - Notice of proposed allocation & DQ - No response 18/11/22 - Court Judgment - Not received 20/02/23 - Claim form - Not received Hearing 2 June 2023, I'm unsure as to exactly when a response is due. The court has issued directions for providing contact details for the telephone hearing by 4 pm 26 May 2023. So I think it is safe to assume any written response is also due within that time frame.