Attached below is the letter of claim received from DCB Legal. My proposed response: Sent to: DCB Legal Limited, UK Parking Control Limited Dear Yasmin and Jamie, Letter Before Claim 1. I write in reference to your letter dated 20 February 2023. 2. You know, that I know, that you know that UK Parking Control Limited (‘UKPC’) has knowingly inflated the sum they wish to claim as alluded to in your letter which provides no breakdown of the sum claimed. 3. If you insist on pursuing such a claim on behalf of UKPC I will make a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority concerning the fact a registered solicitor is knowingly aiding an inflated and vexatious claim in defiance of a binding decision made by the Court of Appeal. 4. Should UKPC proceed with their claim I will seek an order that my costs are paid by UKPC on an indemnity basis pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g). Background 5. UKPC have already had their access to the Keeper of Date of Event (‘KADOE’) database, which stores information relating to the keeper of vehicles, suspended twice and on one occasion for falsifying photographic evidence. 6. UKPC’s history of falsifying evidence brings in to doubt the reliability of any evidence they may later choose to present to a court and undermines their credibility as a witness. The Claim 7. UKPC had no reasonable cause to request my personal data from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (‘DVLA’) on XX XX 2022. 8. UKPC are in breach of their data protection obligations pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018 and their breach has caused me distress. 9. I will forward any judgment to both the Information Commissioner’s Office and the DVLA following which UKPC may risk having its access to the KADOE database permanently withdrawn. Next Steps 10. I look forward to your deafening silence in reference to UKPC's claim and further look forward to receiving satisfactory compensation for the distress UKPC has caused to me within 14 days. Yours sincerely, UKPC - DCBL - Letter 20.02.23 - Redacted.pdf

I have an update on the on-going claim against Shell Energy Retail Limited for harrasment and would be interested to know any of the site teams thoughts on how best to proceed. On 10th May 2022 Shell Energy offered to settle the claim of £90 plus the issue fee of £35 totalling £125. On 16 May 2022 I rejected their offer of settlement so as not to prejudice my future position. On 23rd May 2022 a preliminary hearing was due to take place, however due to events outside of my control I was unable to attend. Following a request to adjourn the court re-listed the hearing, this time as a pre-trial review rather than a preliminary hearing. I am unsure whether this is deliberate, an error or just semantics. On 23 November 2022 a judge declared I had not complied with paragraph 16 of the CPR and ordered a particulars of claim be filed by 16 December 2022. On 29 November 2022 I submitted and served the particulars of claim. On 29 November 2022 I also made a without prejudice offer to settle with Shell Energy for £600. On 12 December 2022 Shell Energy rejected the offer to settle and re-affirmed their previous offer to settle the claim plus the issue fee. Attached below is: 1. The particulars of claim 2. My offer to settle 3. Shell Energy's rejection and counter offer (or rather re-offer). The claim issued is for relief for three harassing text messages sent to my mobile phone calculated at £30 per message. The full course of events is that Shell Energy sent 20 harassing text messages, 17 of which occurred after my claim was issued and of which two were received on the same day. My first question is can I accept their offer to settle without prejudice to a claim on the other 17 messages? I consider my options are: 1 ignore their offer 2 accept their counter offer and then send a letter of claim for relief in reference to the messages sent after my claim was issued. My second question is, in the event of option 2 would it be best to issue a claim for relief for the next 3 messages similar to before, up to 10 messages so as to limit the costs of the claim or for all the remaining 17 messages? Thirdly, in the event of option 2 would it be best to send a further letter of claim alongside an acceptance of their offer, or wait until payment has cleared in full? What I certainly do not want to do is risk forfeiting any future right to claim relief in the event their negligent running of my account results in the same harassing behaviour in future. combinepdf.pdf

Claim awarded against Shell Energy for £100 for breach of the DPA, plus £70 costs. Shell Energy requested the hearing take place in their absence. Request for indemnity costs based on the fact Shell Energy failed to serve any documents except their witness statement was declined. Shell Energy's favourite tactic so far is to twice fail to serve notice pursuant to the CPR that they will not be attending the hearing, clearly Shell Energy understand the limits of the discretion of the Court but this pattern of conduct will likely be something to bring up in future. The hearing was previously adjourned and today unfortunately I used the incorrect CPR reference in a request for costs for loss of leave, however I did recover the costs of the hearing fee. I did not wish to waste the courts time looking through the CPRs so perhaps a bit hastily relinquished that part of the application for costs. For anyone left wondering the correct reference is CPR 27 14 (e) and practice direction 27A 7.3 (1). More importantly the judgment makes it clear Shell Energy are still withholding personal data in relation to the SAR they received and also has implications for an SAR sent later. I now have the option to bring a claim for their still ongoing breach of statutory duty as well as the fact a later disclosure is knowingly incomplete. In addition Shell Energy have accused me of being vexatious, so having two successful claims against them so far is a pretty strong footing moving forward. The three issues that seemingly arise in claims for a breach of the DPA 2018 are liability, causation and quantum. What is an important hurdle in relation to quantum is proving distress proportional to the relief sought. It appears to me that proving distress will almost always be conveyed exclusively through witness testimony except perhaps in the most egreigous of circumstances. Having recently had a claim for only £150 more dismissed on the issue of quantum this point shouldn't be underestimated.

Claim dismissed. The judge held that the terms of the contract were to agree terms for delivery post sale. The nail in the coffin was the correspondence on 8th December in posts #58 and #59. Following the options presented by Fitness Superstore, none of which were acceptable, the judge held following that exchange the contract was deemed to be at an end as a result of repudiatory breach, therefore no breach of contract occured.

Response received from the SRA in reply to my complaint. I remain concerned that the SRA is content for a third party to instruct solicitors over a speculative invoice over which they have no right of action. Presumably if I attempted to instruct solicitors to enforce a speculative invoice sent by my friend Clive to Peter who lives down the road, any reputable solicitor would laugh me out of their office, however the authority trusted with regulating these bunch of cowboys are content to sit idle on the side lines while this all takes place. My understanding is that for a DCA to be able to instruct solicitors and thus issue a claim, there has to be a signed contract between the original creditor and debtor pursuant to the CCA 1974 which amongst everything else details the rights of the creditor to reassign the alleged debt. This of course has no applicability to any dispute over alleged parking arrangements. UKPC - CST Law - SRA Response 25.10.22 - Redacted.pdf

Following the Court's judgment, Lloyds Bank have been entirely disabused of their unfounded position as to what constitutes personal data and continue to withhold my data. Now that the claim is concluded do I write to their solicitors or revert back to Lloyds directly in order to receive my missing data?

Hi Kyosanto They have been with their employer for over 8 years. The size of the work force is in excess of 10,000 employees. The nature of the business is air transportation.

Claim dismissed. On the issue of liability the Court found in my favour, that Lloyds Bank did breach the Data Protection Act. On the issue of quantum the Court found the sum of £125 (which had already been paid) was sufficient compensation. The claim was for £250.

Hi I am making this post on behalf of a friend. Recently my friend made a flexible working request to their employer. They work full time on a variable days and made a request to fix the days they work in order to facilitate child care going forward. The request was declined on the reason of costs and the employer proposed that fixed working days could only be offered on a part time basis. I would be grateful to understand if the proposal is lawful or whether it may fall foul of discrimination law.

Following witness statements, Lloyds Bank has provided some of my missing my data along with the following letter. I am unsure whether to even respond to their letter, the hearing is upcoming. Their understanding of personal data is of course incorrect and I refute all of their other points.

Section 87 covers the need for default The sum is in reference to a sum received by a foreign merchant which was disputed, immediately returned but then later paid to the merchant by Monzo after the account was closed. It appears as if Monzo are acting as if they are providing credit, however no credit agreement was sought or agreed to, there was never an overdraft on the account. This feels very parking company-esque where they are doing everything to make it appear as if they are issuing a default notice without actually doing so.

Thank you DX. Just to be clear the disputed sum has been taken from a closed current account, does this still fall under the scope of consumer credit? 1.Section 88 of the act makes it clear a default notice must be in the prescribed form but I cannot find any detail as to the prescribed form. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 make reference to information that must be contained within a default notice under Schedule 2 of the same Act, however Schedule 2 is now blank. From my dealings with Monzo I expect they will be under the seemingly incorrect impression that this constitutes service of a default notice, which will be a point of contention going forward. 2. Presumably there is no way of knowing their intentions before hand and it will only be known upon obtaining a credit report after the date in their email?

It's time to add Monzo Bank Limited to the Bank and Finance Subforums. I received the e-mail (attached below) from Monzo Bank Limited which included the FCA attachment I have compiled underneath their e-mail. 1. Does their e-mail constitute a "default notice" pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974? 2. Are they required to issue a default notice prior to reporting the account as defaulted to credit reference agencies? 3. It is my undestanding that once an account is closed it should no longer be reported on, the account was closed with a balance of £0.00. Monzo - Email 04.10.22 - Redacted.pdf

Witnes Statements have been filed (attached below) I am now in the process of preparing counter points for the hearing. I hope to receive any points or advice that may support my claim and counter their defence. Lloyds - Witness Statements - Redacted.pdf

Another letter received from DCBL. UKPC - DCBL - Letter 03.10.22 - Redacted.pdf

Another letter received from DCBL. UKPC - DCBL - Letter 06.09.22 - Redacted.pdf

I intend to respond to the SRA's inadequate response. Below is a draft of what I have written. If there are any further issues I should raise or better ways of making my points then suggestions are gratefully received. I am under no illusion that an investigation officer is unlikley to have the integrity to stand up for what is right but certainly their bias should not go unanswered.

Attached below and provided by the Solicitors Regulation Authority is the response to the report they received concerning CST Law. My intial reaction is that their response is inadequate. It appears in their reponse they have only considered the Parking Code of Practice 2022 and given no weight or consideration to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. UKPC - CST Law - SRA Response 01.09.22 - Redacted.pdf

Another letter received from DCBL attached below. UKPC - DCBL - Letter 09.08.22 - Redacted.pdf

Two further letters from Lloyds Bank. They state the terms offered in the Tomlin order are "standard", I think they left out the part where they meant standard for their client. My understanding is that the terms of a Tomlin order should be acceptable to both parties. While I could get bogged down in the fact the wording of their proposed terms in their Tomlin order were very wide, and while perhaps not relevant they appear to fit very closely the definition of unfair terms laid out in the Consumer Rights Act, this is probably a waste of time and better saved for the judge should the matter of costs arise. I'm not sure there is really any requirement to reply if one is 100% certain the claim will be awarded, however there is an opportunity to save Lloyds Bank from further wasting the court's time. A proposed reply below. Lloyds - Defendant - Letters 09.08.22 - Redacted.pdf

Thanks Ethel. I agree with paragraph 10 save for the fact that it does not prejudice their position, it supports my position that they could and should have fulfilled the request inline with their statutory obligations. I disagree that they had any reasonable doubt as to my identity as they were quite happy to correspond with me extensively prior to the request and discuss personal data pertaining to my account. The time to request any further verification as to my identity was before entering into those discussion if they had any doubt as to my identity. It is my view they later manufactured that doubt to bring about exactly the events that took place, in order not to immediately respond to the request despite having the means to do so. These manufactured doubts evaporate when they receive a letter before claim and/or a complaint from the ICO. They either had a genuine but incorrect belief that they were not required to fulfil the request, or in my view more likely used their bogus process to unduly influence me into believing I had no further right to access my data without jumping through their unnecessary hoops. They were disabused of this by my letter of claim as well as the complaint they received from the ICO.

Experian Limited filed a defence (attached below) in respect of the claim issued against them for failing to comply with their data protection obligations. At paragraph 10 of their defence they state the following: "Entirely without prejudice to the Defendant's position according to paragraphs 6 to 8 above, on 14 June 2022 the Defendant took the practical view that, with further investigation, it could satisfy itself as to the Claimant's identity." My understanding is that the without prejudice rule is reserved for parties to enter into genuine settlement negotiations without later prejudicing their position in court. Am I missing something here? I cannot see how the use of "without prejudice" in a defence filed directly to court can expect to benefit from the privileges outlined above. A defence does not form part of genuine settlement negotiations, and one would expect if what was written was not intended to be considered by a judge then they would not submit it to them as evidence. It appears to me as if they have inserted an admission directly into their defence. EX - Defence - Redacted.pdf

Draft witness statement for review. FS - WS 1.1 - Redacted.pdf

For clarity I never wrote to CST Law. The SRA are currently working on the report they received. The ICO responded to my complaint stating that because DRP are a processor and not a controller they are not subject to the articles I referred to within the GDPR. I'm not really sure what DCBL are, they do not appear to be solicitors but simply another version of DRP, only named as such in the hope that some people will incorrectly believe they are subject to enforcement action.

Letter received from DCBL attached below. UKPC - DCBL - Letter 18.07.22 - Redacted.pdf