Below is my proposed reply to their letter dated 6th June. I have attached what I consider to be a far more palatable consent agreement and would be grateful for any comments/review from the site team. A few notable changes in reference to the schedule. Paragraph 2 is reworded as I do no accept they have paid part of the claim, nor was it ever accepted. Paragraph 4 is removed. It couldn't be more indicative of an unfair contract term in an attempt to release Lloyds Bank of any and all future claims/complaints/liability etc and is complete nonsense. Paragraph 5 - 8 removed as they all refer to confidentiality. Paragraph 9 reworded. I think I prefer that I retain my right to any claim on indebtedness. Paragraph 11 removed. Lloyds refused to pay for any advice. Paragraph 13 is removed. Reference to no liability. Lloyds - Claimant - Draft Tomlin Order - CAG.pdf

Thank you BazzaS for your reply. The claim has already been allocated to the small claims track and Lloyds solicitors previously brayed about the disproportionate costs which was probably more for the eyes of the Court than myself. I responded as above in post #78. I understand that admission of liability can be a contentious point and am beginning to understand that it is not necessarily unreasonable to reject a settlement offer and to continue a claim should a defendant refuse to admit liability. I care little about the money and even less about keeping the outcome confidential. Of course everyone has their price but I doubt they can afford it. I'm not sure that the amount of money offered to pay for the privilege of pretending they did nothing wrong or to keep it confidential should enter into the consideration of unreasonableness. I imagine if it were Elon Musk that brought the claim that finding a monetary amount that he would care enough about to give up his principles would be nigh on impossible as the money would matter so little, so to assess whether a rejection of a certain term is unreasonable based on the amount offered should be an unfair test. I also think I may be missing the point of the Tomlin order. If the terms are breached what are the consequences? That Lloyds can reclaim their payment or bring their own claim against me, if so for what? If all of the above then the contract is essentially unfair as I stand to gain nothing I wouldn't otherwise achieve by continuing the claim.

1. On 18th May Lloyds Bank indicated they wanted to settle the claim brought against them but without providing any detail as to their proposed Tomlin order (attached below). 2. I replied on 27th May (attached below) indicating that I may require legal advice to consider their consent agreement and they should pay for the advice. 3. On 6th June Lloyds declined to pay for any legal consultation and provided a copy of their proposed Tomlin order (attached below). There are a number of outstanding issues. 1. Lloyds Bank continue to withhold missing data from their data disclosure. 2. It appears that they care far more about keeping things confidential (which I have never agreed to) than they do about the data protection rights of their customers. 3. Lloyds bank sent me payment in response to a complaint I made about their service. 4. Lloyds later attempted to intertwine the two very separate issues and attempt to insist that the payment they have made is towards the claim and not in relation the complaint I made. Lloyds Bank's original position was that they had not breached the Data Protection Act 2018. Lloyds Bank have moved on from that position and in keeping with both my opinion and that of the ICO that they did not comply with their data protection obligations, and now only appear to dispute that their unlawful action caused any distress. A defence that will have no chance to succeed at hearing. As Lloyds Bank have declined to cover the costs of seeking legal advice I was hoping one of the site team could review their proposed Tomlin order and help me decide as to whether it is something I should agree to and how to respond. Lloyds CAG 06.06.22.pdf

Letter from CST Law attached below. UKPC - CST Law - Letter 24.05.22 - Redacted.pdf

Attached below is a settlement offer received from Shell Energy regarding the claim for harassment. A few points of interest. The settlement offer is made in full and final settlement and without admission of liability. The claim was issued at the time when Shell Energy had sent three harassing messages to my phone. Shell Energy eventually sent in total 20 harassing text messages. I am unsure whether accepting their offer will forgo my right of action to the remaining messages and currently I do not wish to give this up. To summarise the options are: 1. Accept the offer, then issue a claim for the remaining 17 messages or in order to keep the claim small a further 3 messages. This risks Shell Energy claiming the matter was settled in full and where they have stated they do not admit liability I can see how they would attempt to construe an acceptance of their offer as agreeing they are not liable, even if I explicitly state that I reserve my rights. 2. Reject the offer, continue the claim and should it be successful this makes the likelihood of success in respect of the remaining messages much higher. Considering Shell Energy have already used the opportunity of an offer to dodge one hearing I do not intend to provide them with an opportunity to do the same again. Shell Energy have accused me of being vexatious, as a result of their accusation it is now significantly more important that I secure a successful judgement and present this to the Court in response to their defence in other matters. Despite Amy Franks writing the letter for Shell Energy she does not appear to be an employee of Shell Energy and instead appears to be a senior associate solicitor for Eversheds Sutherland. This is probably an indication that Shell Energy are taking advice on the matter rather than using their in house compliance manager who submitted and signed their defence. Shell Energy state that settlement has been offered for economic reasons, maybe that is true or maybe they have been advised that they will lose or that no one will take their case for the sums involved on a claim allocated to the small claims track. As with the Ombudsman I now expect that Shell Energy will duck out of any future hearing and instead eventually notify me much closer to the time that they have appointed a representative. I propose the following reply. CAG - SE - Harassment - Settlement Offer 10.05.22 - Redacted.PDF

Thanks I am aware of these changes but you have certainly saved me the time in searching for them again. The item was not signed for by XP1 nor was it signed for by anyone at the address. It most almost certainly signed for by the post-person. I have recollection that this could only be done with your agreement and it is not something I have agreed to. I will address the matter at some point but for now other priorties exist. I have to say, having thought more about the adjournment that something doesn't sit right about the fact a Defendant can avoid judgement when failing to attend Court simply by way of having made an offer. Otherwise every Defendant in the land would make offers at the last moment and then exercise their liberty to not attend a hearing on the basis of sorry guv' I thought we'd settled the matter. I decided not to raise the issue of the Defendant's accusation of vexatious litigant so as not to plant the idea in the mind the Court, however that is certainly one of the strongest motivators in order to refuse any settlement without admission of liability. I don't think the Court will take such accusations that seriously and given the Court awarded in my favour against the Ombudsman it's pretty clear at least to one member of the Court that the previous claim I have brought had merit. Perhaps I didn't advocate strongly enough for the hearing to proceed, perhaps I was under the incorrect impression that the judge could not be persuaded in any case to hear the claim or I lacked the credible arguments in order to do so, either way the day in Court will eventually happen.

The interaction with the Court was an interesting experience. In brief the hearing has been adjourned. The offer made by Shell Energy and referred to above was enough for the judge to decide not to hear the claim and it will be adjourned to the first available date in accordance with available dates to be provided by myself. I advocated for the fact the hearing should take place in any case as the offer will not be accepted but the Court could not be persuaded. This now means I have time to respond to their offer and reject it in full on the basis that they have not resolved the outstanding issues within the claim and that they still are withholding missing data. I also reject the offer on the basis that it was made clearly after further costs had been incurred such as paying the hearing fee. Below is a proposed rejection of their offer.

Settlement offer received from Shell Energy regarding the claim for their breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 ("DPA") attached below. A few points of interest. 1. The letter was sent by post - signed for. Delivery was signed for without my permission by Royal Mail while I was out of the country. I expect the Shell Energy will attempt to present this offer in reference to my claim for costs should I be successful, however I will show that the signature is not mine and have proof that I was out of the country. 2. The settlement offer does not satisfy the total amount of the claim as it does not include an amount for the hearing fee. I would expect that any serious offer days before a hearing would also include the cost of the hearing fee as it will be known to have been paid. 3. The settlement offer explicitly states without admission of liability. Shell Energy's breach of the DPA is ongoing and so I do not think justice is served by giving away my rights to data access indefinitely for the sum claimed. If Shell Energy do not provide the data requested and evidenced to have been withheld then I expect that a further claim will be brought. In addition Shell Energy have made further effort to withhold data following a subsequent access request. A successful judgement will cement that Shell Energy has yet again breached the DPA in response to the later Subject Access Request they received. 4. As the offer was received via post there is no time to respond and I will simply present my case to the judge which I am hoping will be even more straight forward than the hearing vs The Ombudsman Service Limited last week which resulted in judgement in my favour. 5. Shell Energy have now accused me of being vexatious, as a result of their accusation it is now significantly more important that I secure judgement successfully and present this to the Court in response to their Defence in other matters. CAG - SE - Incomplete Disclosure - Settlement Offer 10.05.22 - Redacted.pdf

I've made a complaint to the ICO regarding DRP's failures under GDPR Article 14, it will take several weeks even months to receive a reply but when they do I will post up what they come back with.

Ombudsman Services lost the hearing, the judge awarded the sum claimed of £100 for distress, plus the fixed costs related to bringing the claim. The hearing was held via Cloud Video Platform. The pin to enter the video call was invalid until a few minutes prior to the hearing. 4 hours prior to the hearing The Ombudsman served notice that they had appointed a representative to defend them as it turns out by way of attacking my claim rather than making any significant points of defence, quite simply because there were none. To my surprise the Defendant did not submit any further documents to the Court beyond their defence, when I asked the Defendant's solicitor about this prior to the hearing they rather obstinately responded "what do you think a witness statement is?". Perhaps those more experienced at hearings would comment on how common it is for a Defendant not to provide a WS beyond their initial defence. I was just making sure I was not about to be blindsided. Despite only being provided with a paper copy, the Defendant's representative had obtained an electronic copy of the bundle. The judge also had a copy of the e-bundle despite the court's admin team indicating they would not and did not process the e-bundle provided due to it being in excess of 50 pages. The first point of contention was the right of action. The Defendant's representative disputed the right of action under section 168 on the basis my claim was in breach of the Act itself and not GDPR thus I should have referred to section 169. I pointed out that as the DPA 2018 is the UKs implementation of GDPR that where the breach occurs under the act it must also have occurred under GDPR. The judge did not dwell on the point and accepted that section 168 applied and I expect in future I could make the claim under both sections in order to avoid the point in future. The Defendant's representative attempted to misrepresent my evidence, that the data that was missing from the disclosure did not fall within the remit of the disclosure, however perhaps due to me interrupting at this important point the judge very quickly and perhaps deliberately and kindly made it clear that what the Defendant's representative was not correct on this point. To avoid this being an issue in the future, issuing a request without limitation would probably be the best course of action at the low risk of a request being overly arduous as to warrant a fee. The judge did hone in quite deliberately on definitions of the DPA 2018 in particular "data" and "processing" which then directly defer to the definitions in GDPR Article 4. The Defendant's representative tried to argue the definitions did not apply to the missing data, however these definitions are incredibly wide and it would be very difficult for data not to be captured by these definitions. I was denied a request for costs on an indemnity basis under 27.14 (g) stating the Defendant did not respond to my letter of claim. Points for the future would be to include more statutory material in the bundle to perhaps avoid wasting time with questions from the Defendant's, representative who obviously had read my witness statement but in view or their role asked every question as if they hadn't. Please do not close or mark this thread just yet as there is still the claim to heard with reference to Shell Energy.

Can I object to the appointment of a representative without due notice.

I'm not talking about myself and I'm talking 4 hours notice.

How late can a Defendant appoint a legal representative prior to a court hearing? Is this likely to affect a hearing date?

Another letter from DRP, attached below. UKPC - DRP - Letter 24.04.22 - Redacted.pdf

Shell Energy printed their entire disclosure as part of their bundle which is still missing the data I explained in my proposed WS. Their proposed statement is attached below. SE - Defendant 22.04.22.pdf

Shell Energy have filed their defence attached below. SE - Defence - Redacted.pdf

From post #106 here there was some discussion as to the expected allocated track for a civil claim for harassment. All speculation can be put to rest as the claim I have brought against Shell Energy for harassment has been allocated to the small claims track. Currently a preliminary hearing has been scheduled. I have attached a redacted copy of both N24s issued by the court. While there is a reference to bundles in the Notice of Preliminary Hearing I cannot see that any specific directions have been issued by the Court and I am unsure what exactly to prepare. I expect a brief summary of why the claim has been issued will suffice following which there will be some deliberate questioning by the judge to perhaps narrow the issues. I also wonder what CAG's thoughts are in response to the line on page 3 "You must not make any personal or private recording or publish any part of this hearing including court e-mails or papers." I see court orders and judgements posted regularly on this site. CAG - N24 x2 - Redacted.pdf

Version 2.2 A reference to the letter before claim, a summary of Shell Energy's conduct, minor amendments. SE - Claimant - Witness Statement - v2.2 - Redacted.pdf

WS vs Shell Energy attached below. Directions for submission to the Court are as follows "No later than fourteen days before the hearing". I'm not entirely sure of the wording but understand it to mean documents should be received with 14 clear days prior to the hearing date. E.g. If a hearing date was on the 20th then documents should be received no later than 4pm on the 5th. SE - Claimant - Witness Statement - v2.0 - Redacted.pdf

It appears Experian had no intention of making good on their written commitment outlined above. The following e-mail was received after they agreed to apply the notice of correction.

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.