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 understanding 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

Thanks Andy, Nothing is showing on MCOL (attached). From my experience MCOL can be slower to update than the actual court records. For example I submitted the DQ on 11/05 and MCOL didn't update until 20 days later. By my calculation order issued 27/06, deemed served 29/06, so infact I was at liberty to enter judgment from 07/07. I've have made the request for judgment as I do not wish to wait indefinitely for MCOL to be updated. CAG - SE - MCOL.pdf

On 27th June 2022 the CCBC issued a general form of order to the Defendant (page 1 of attachment). I have not been served a copy of the documents ordered by the court to be filed . I don't necessarily view it as my responsibility to establish whether they have complied with the order and am minded to simply request judgment. Are there any significant risks to me if I request judgment and it later turns out they have complied with the order (which I highly doubt they have done so)? I would expect that the Court upon review will, or should have put a bar in place if they have complied. I can see no option to request judgment using MCOL so assume I have to use an N225 form (page 2 of attachment). I would be grateful if this could be reviewed for any errors particularly in relation to costs. The whole point of the litigation is to have my reputation corrected which Shell Energy have not done so. If I am awarded judgment I expect they will pay to set aside the claim and defend it. In the unlikely event however they do not, I am minded to bring a further claim but am unsure as to what the amount should be. SE - N24 N225 - Redacted.pdf

Thank you FTMDave, I have borrowed from your recent post as I think directly referencing a judge's comments highlighting the abuse of process should substantiate the complaint but will keep the scope of the complaint insomuch as it applies to myself. Below is an updated proposal.

I am in the process of bringing a complaint to the SRA regarding CST Law. Below is the proposed details of the complaint. If anyone can see an improvement to the wording or the contents then any improvement is gratefully received.

Ombudsman Services paid the claim. A donation has been made to CAG in respect of the first claim awarded against Shell Energy as well as the claim paid by Ombudsman Services.