Another letter from DRP, attached below. UKPC - DRP - Letter 01.04.22 - Redacted.pdf

My reply below seemed to have the desired effect. Reply from Experian.

Experian refused to add the notice of correction as written claiming it is defamatory.

I wrote to Experian to apply a notice of correction. It appears they ignored the notice of correction and simply sent this reply from customer services.

Article 14 of GDPR - Information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject 1. Where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject, the controller shall provide the data subject with the following information: a) the identity and the contact details of the controller and, where applicable, of the controller’s representative; b) the contact details of the data protection officer, where applicable; c) the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the processing; d) the categories of personal data concerned; e) the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data, if any; If you read the letter sent by DRP it only provides the information of the DVLA as the data controller, so either they applied for the data from the DVLA or they have failed to indicate that the true provider of the data to them is UKPC.

In order to request information regarding the keeper of a vehicle from the KADOE system the enquirer must provide a copy of agreement between the landowner and the car parking company. DRP indicate they applied for my data however no such agreement can exist between them and the landowner and therefore their application is unlawful. If the DVLA confirms DRP did apply for keeper data then DRP have breached the Data Protection Act in requesting the data and the DVLA have acted unlawfully by providing it. If the data was passed to them by UKPC then DRP have unlawfully indicated that the DVLA was the controller that provided the data when it was in fact UKPC.

Letter received 17/03/2022 from DRP below. UKPC - DRP - Letter 17.03.22 - Redacted.pdf Reply received from UKPC in response to the letter as per comment #21 here. UKPC - UKPC reply to letter 03.03.22 - Redacted.pdf

Claim issued. Submitted particulars of claim are below.

Not only does MCOL have a character limit, it also has a line limit of which the lines are very short. I have amended the particulars above in order to not have to serve the particulars separately. It runs the risk of being challenged for not being fully particularised but the answer to that is that most solicitors will try this anyway and I consider it the intention of HM courts that particulars are kept consise or they would have relaxed the line and character limit. I considered whether to reduce the claim to be under £3000 in order to reduce the court fee but ultimately decided against it.

I am seeking advice on the following particulars of claim:

My proposed reply.

Lloyds Solicitor's response to the letter above. Lloyds - CAG - Letter 07.03.22.pdf

Under GDPR Article 14. DRP have the following obligations (and the list continues): 1. Where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject, the controller shall provide the data subject with the following information: (a) the identity and the contact details of the controller and, where applicable, of the controller’s representative; (b) the contact details of the data protection officer, where applicable; (c) the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the processing; I am not entirely clear who exactly 1 (a) refers to, whether it be the details of the controller where the data originated, from whom it was received or the controller of DRP themselves. DRP have only provided the details of the DVLA indicating they have applied for and obtained my data from the DVLA, hence why I have sent a SAR to the DVLA to confirm whether this is actually the case. I don't think merely providing the details of the DVLA satisfies 1 (a) particularly, if as you state and as I also expect, they received the data from UKPC, but I am happy to be corrected on this point.

I have already posted the letter above, I agree that it may have the desired effect you state and am grateful for the suggestion. I also think it will be useful to present to a judge as evidence for any eventual claim or counterclaim for a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 ("DPA"). In my oppinion their breach of the DPA is not based solely on the siting of the car, it will depend on whether they are sucessful in any eventual claim. For example if the car was sited where they claim but their signage was inadequate then they still had no lawful basis for their claim and thus their application of data. "You may think that the mere act of sending the first PCN was a breach of your GDPR which may be questionable if you were not present with the driver on the day your car was ticketed." Would you mind expanding on that, I am not clear on how the presence of someone with the driver could affect an individuals rights under the DPA? "if you send the letter there is no question that any further correspondence would definitely be a breach of your GDPR. " I am still not clear on this point. What effect does sending the letter have on an individuals rights under the DPA? A breach is an unlawful act and I do not see how an actor receiving a letter has any effect on this. Either they are entitled to use my data or they are not, the fact they have already used it is indisputable and sending them a letter does not affect this but is a way of putting them on notice. A claimant sends a letter of claim because they believe there is already a basis for their claim, the act of sending the letter or the reading of it by the recepient does not affect the validity of the cause for the claim, it simply acts as notice to the recipient that the sender intends to enforce their claim. With that in mind I think we are in agreement that the letter sent is a useful way of putting them on notice that I intend to enforce my rights under the DPA. I'm not trying to simply dispute your point of view, I am trying to fully understand it to ensure I get things correct going forward. DRP: I also have reason to believe DRP are in breach of the DPA as they have failed entirely to meet the requirements laid down in GDPR Article 14. It appears according to their letter that they applied for my personal data from the DVLA, however I am not sure under what lawful basis this was done. I can understand UKPC think they have a lawful basis to apply for personal data but I am totally unclear as to whether this right can be transferred to a third party. A SAR is on its way to the DVLA to find out more.

Proposed letter before claim.

If there is no liability as the driver because they can't prove who the driver is, and there is no liability as the keeper because the NTK isn't compliant as well as a myriad of other defences then none of this is affected by giving them information they are not entitled to and remains for them to prove. I disagree with the premise that a breach of the Data Protection Act occurs after further correspondence is received following the keeper writing to them and denying they were the driver. Their breach of the Data Protection Act is brought about by the fact that they have no lawful basis to apply to the DVLA to access the personal data of the registered keeper. Either their breach has already occurred or it has not occurred at all. In my oppinion the breach occurred when UKPC applied to access personal data with no lawful basis for doing so. In my oppinion their breach of the Data Protection Act is proven when they lose their claim in court not before, their breach of the act does not hinge upon me writing to them and giving them any detail relating to the status of the driver. In fact confirming any status as to the driver may inadvertently substantiate their position that they were entitled to apply for the details of the keeper on this basis.

Draft letter.

Thank you for the suggestion. I don't think they are entitled to receive any information as to my status in reference to the driver, it is quite simply for them to prove. Where do you think it best to send the letter? They indicate on their NTK to write to: UK Parking Control Ltd PO Box 1608 High Wycombe HP12 9FN Are we to believe they read any correspondence sent to their PO box? The registered office on companies house of UK Parking Control is actually: UK Parking Control Limited Union House 111 New Union Street Coventry England CV1 2NT They have 2 people listed: Amanda Joy Williams (Secretary) and presumably wife of Rupert John Williams (Director) who holds majority voting rights. I think I am minded to write to Rupert at Union House, presumably the director and majority shareholder has an efficient way of handling their mail at their registered office.

Letter received from Debt Recovery Plus. It does not appear to be a letter before claim. I have prepared a response for if/when I receive one. UKPC - DRP - Letter 22.02.22 - Redacted.pdf

I have now checked my credit score in full with Experian. I have a number of accounts all of which are in good standing except the one assigned to Shell Energy. As a result of checking my file I can confirm unequivocally that no CCJ has been recorded as expected. Shell Energy have been recording missing payments on the account for a number of months. (See attached PDF). I have evidence that I have made payments to the account every month with the exception of the month following where they received two payments as a result of their payment processing issues (admitted by them in writing and refunded). The data Shell Energy has supplied to Experian and possibly other companies that generate credit reports is wildly inaccurate and it appears despite them being informed on an almost monthly basis that the amount is in dispute they have failed to provide this information to Experian. (I am not sure if they have an obligation to mark accounts as disputed or whether it is the responsibility of the account holder to sign up and pay to access their credit file to then raise a dispute). It is clearly written that "This account's payment history has some payment issues that may affect your score" I believe that Shell Energy should not have marked the file in this way and certainly not without my agreement. I have not once received a default notice from them and BF's comments ring true that I have been sent messages saying that my account is in default when it appears this was not strictly the case. Now that I am aware of the damage to my credit file I intend to bring an action promptly as it has been inferred in judgements handed down that time is of the essence when considering compensation for non-material damages such as distress and loss of reputation. The amount is something I am trying to consider accurately, quite simply there is no leading precedent set by a court to help with this. Having simply read over a few websites offering legal services I estimate that £3000 would be appropriate due to the on-going distress they have caused as well as loss of creditor reputation. @BankFodder would you prefer that I first draft a letter before claim or do you prefer to post one up? Experian - Credit Report - Shell Energy - Redacted.pdf

Final version If there are no further comments by @BankFodder then this will be posted Monday.

Version 2

@BankFodder Lloyds Bank have sent me a letter (attached below) regarding their incomplete disclosure indicating they have made a payment of £125 to my account I do not accept this payment as settlement for the on-going claim against them and need to respond accordingly. I propose the following. Lloyds - SAR Letter 15.02.22 - Redacted.pdf

I have reviewed the data from their latest disclosure. It is missing significant amounts of data and is incomplete. A brief summary of the situation is that despite there being no record of the default of the account and indeed their data disclosure infact shows the opposite it appears Shell Energy have been treating the account as if it were defaulted without telling me and without keeping accurate records as to the status of the account. Within the disclosure it is evidenced that after the initial dispute in March April 2021 it is likely Shell Energy sent the account to a DCA "(systems) DCA 2021-03-24 ZNEXDCAIMP Case exported to agency ZINCWLAccount Balance £XXX.XX" 3 weeks later the case is closed and it appears the balance is marked as disputed. "(systems) DCA 2021-04-13 ZNEXDCAEXP Case Closed by (systems) for Agency ZINCWL Balance £75.48 - Closure: CL03 - Dispute" Despite the fact the balance has been disputed, it is an important point that had Shell Energy not been attempting to bill me in excess of £5000 per annum for energy, the account would likely never have been defaulted in the first place. Unbeknownst to myself the account appears to have been left in a defaulted state as every month the following line appears next to my payments. "(systems) Internal 2021-05-XX NODCA Payment Received. Cash To Us. Amount = XXX.XX" "(systems) Internal 2021-06-XX NODCA Payment Received. Cash To Us. Amount = XXX.XX" etc I was not aware the account was on a payment plan nor was any plan agreed between myself and Shell Energy. There is no evidence within the disclosure that indicates to me that I was notified that the account was on a payment plan or likely to be defaulted or infact was defaulted until the first text message was received. It is odd that despite the text message indicating the account was on a payment plan that has defaulted, this does not match Shell Energy's records. The service summary within their data disclosure indicates that any default of the account ended on 19/03/21. Indeed within their service summary the account is recorded as active on their discount tariff from 25/02/21 (Screenshot attached). The inconsistent record keeping indicated by their service summary is certainly evidence that their data processing is in disarray. Shell Energy has disclosed some of the text messages they sent me but have failed to disclosure all of the messages. This leaves a slight dilemma as clearly there is another claim to answer regarding their incomplete disclosure. However their inaccurate data processing is the significant issue, a claim for which includes a significant element of distress and I do not think a claim should be delayed for months as a result of their incomplete disclosure. SE - Service Summary - Redacted.pdf

Already done, the land line numbers had lots of reports but the mobiles as of yet nothing.