Thank you for the info regarding the company and the normal progression of SI threads. I won't be answering, if someone is serious about making contact they would leave their name, reason for the call and their contact details. Failing that I would expect a written letter.

Is there a way to find out which telephone numbers a company uses to contact you? As Redwood Collections is a private company a FOI request is not an option. I am receiving multiple calls from different mobile numbers that do not leave an answer message which I suspect is related to this company. I'd expect that a registered keeper's address details are available from the DVLA but where they can locate a contact number is perplexing as well as distressing and is starting to feel like a campaign of harassment instead of a genuine attempt to establish contact and resolve a dispute.

The claim raised against Shell Energy for their incomplete disclosure has been transferred to my local court which I expect is good news, even if this results in a remote hearing which is probably best for both parties and the court. I have now received a second disclosure which is as incomplete as the first. I will again follow the steps as before to raise a complaint with the ICO and consider raising a claim.

WS vs OS v2.3 EO - Claimant - Witness Statement - Redacted - v2.3.pdf

Defendant's DQ received from their solicitors claiming they never received a DQ. The court's records indicate otherwise and is likely the result of some sort of missed communication. No request was made as to the hearing venue so I expect that as per other cases it will be allocated to my nearest court as requested but will in fact be a remote hearing.

I consider that paying it straight away indicates to the Defendant that I am serious about proceeding to the hearing (which of course I am). On the other hand why pay a fee any earlier than it's required (while as you say, allowing time for the unexpected).

Hearing date set vs Ombudsman Services for 9th May via remote hearing, is it best to pay the hearing fee right away or wait?

The Court appears to have accepted the fact Fitness Superstore were served the full particulars of claim. This is indicated under "recent transactions" where the date of service is recorded as 21/12/2021 in keeping with the certificate of service that was re-filed to the court with the correct address.

Things are becoming more involved, Redwood Collections have been attempting to contact me for the past 4 days without leaving a message and using a different number each time. In addition I have also had an application for credit declined as a result of "information provided by credit reporting agencies". The plan of action is to pay what I think is owed at the end of the contract period on 31st Jan, check the credit file and send a SAR to the company which denied the credit application to see if more can be understood. I now may not be the only person directly affected by Shell Energy's inaccurate data processing. However as suggested above I wish to formally receive judgement regarding Shell Energy's incomplete disclosure. I think this will be important evidence indicating their data processing is in disarray. There are two considerations: 1. If it really is best to wait until the incomplete disclosure case is heard this could significantly delay bringing further action. 2. On the other hand as a result of intervention by the ICO Shell Energy did finally disclose the evidence which shows their inaccurate data processing so it may be prudent to simply proceed once the steps above are complete in order not to significantly delay the action.

With reference to the claim for harassment against Shell Energy the cause for action could be substantiated by their multiple breaches of CONC. Shell Energy are a registered member of the FCA. I have attached a single true copy indicating the format of each message received. @BankFodder Do you think these messages fall foul of CONC 7.9? CONC 7.9 - A firm must ensure that a person contacting a customer on its behalf explains to the customer the following matters: (1) who the person contacting the customer works for; (2) the person's role in or relationship with the firm; and (3) the purpose of the contact. I expect the rabbit hole to take the following path: SE claim it wasn't a person that contacted me claiming they don't have to allocate an actual person provided they act as a reasonable person. I would respond that given the explicit instruction not to contact me via text message that the reasonable person would have written to me with their name, role and contact details, as well as to have complied with CONC 7.5.3 and CONC 7.14.5 below. There appears to also be a breach of CONC 7.5.3 A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid. CONC 7.14.5 - A firm must provide a customer with information on the outcome of its investigations into a debt which the customer disputed on valid grounds. As per the data they have elected to disclosure so far no investigation has been carried out. SE - Msg example.pdf

Ombudsman services responded to my complaint that their disclosure is incomplete by requesting that I detail what data is missing from their disclosure. I think this silly game of withholding data and then simply asking for comfimation as to what they didn't disclose is a bit tiresome and disingenuous, I shall simply present it to the court within my claim regarding their first incomplete disclosure.

It appears Shell Energy filed their DQ over three weeks late and just one day prior to the order given by the Court that should they fail their defence will be struck out. I have written to the court explaining that Shell Energy should not be able to use information provided in good faith within the Claimant's DQ and filed prior to the courts deadline to make their own hearing venue request. I also took the opportunity to provide further information as Shell Energy were afforded to assist in deciding the allocation of the hearing venue.

I wonder if it is possible to request the Court to award damages in excess of the claim if they believe it is justified. I have never seen any reference to it but something along the lines of: "The Claimant seeks damages for distress of £100 however the Claimant invites the court to adjust the sum of quantum as they see fit in reference to Halliday vs Creation Consumer Finance".

I have begun drafting the WS vs Ombudsman Services. I consider that paragraphs 13 - 18 do not fall within the remit of the claim however it is further indication that the way the Ombudsman Services handles data appears to be inexplicable or that simply their disclosures are totally lacking of data. I may decide to remove paragraphs 13 - 18 in order to keep the claim concise, more to the point and within the remit of the claim. EO - Claimant - Witness Statement - Redacted - v2.0.pdf

aI have made a further complaint to the ICO regarding the second incomplete data disclosure received from Ombudsman Services. Within their disclosure is a key document missing a date. The date on the document I am in receipt of does not match the data of the document the Ombudsman disclosed and appears as if their document could have been deliberately falsely dated by a member of staff that works(ed?) in the "Legal & Compliance Team". I believe I am now in receipt of evidence that the OS is attempting to mislead both myself and the court. Are the CAG aware that it is highly likely that a signifcant number of staff that work at Ombudsman Services also work on behalf of POPLA? This should certainly steer the understanding of what sort of treatment appellants can receive when using such a "service".

Shell Energy have acknowledged receipt of the SAR. The one month timeline is running. I will be interested to see if they decide to properly disclosure meter reading data in this disclosure. If they do this may undermine their original claim that copies of customer bills constitutes an acceptable form of disclosure, a claim regarded by myself and also I believe by the ICO to be entirely bogus.

The ICO have contacted Lloyds instructing them to disclose the missing data. Lloyds will have to make a decision as to whether they want to double down on their position that providing a credit card statement was a sufficient disclosure. If Lloyds refuse I imagine the ICO can escalate the matter shoud they choose to do so. If Lloyds cough up they have done all but admit the data was ommited or more likely witheld.

Shell Energy have served their copies of the DQ relating to both claims. We both agree to mediation regarding the claim for harassment. With regards to the claim for their incomplete disclosure the following was written under DQ D1. "Coventry. Claimant has rejected mediation. Size of the claim and Claimant's limited availability makes it impossible to defend from the Claimant's own choice of court unless a virtual hearing could be arranged." As a reminder the amount of the claim is £100. While I understand there is an element of game playing involved the reasons above are totally disingenous and come about simply as a result of the fact I acted in good faith and served a copy of the DQ to the Defendant in a timely manner. If I had employed their own tactics they would have no information to include in their requested hearing venue. Perhaps it would be worth writing to the court and pointing this out. Unless I am missunderstanding something to my knowledge the DQ is sent out to the Claimant and Defendant at the same time, and thus this is a silly game of who blinks first with regards to serving a DQ.

Missed call from "Redwood Collections". I imagine it is relating to this although I am not sure how they would have obtained my number. I understand your point, obviously they will attempt to claim in court that they were justifiable in transferring liability to the keeper and I will point out, amoungst everything else, the non-compliance of their NTK.

Hi @lookinforinfo thank you for your response. I have searched around for the possible reason the NTK is not compliant but could not come up with anything beyond that indicated above by FTMDave which is the NTK fails to specifiy a period of parking and merely states a time that the vehicle was allegedly present at the location stipulated. Perhaps you could kindly give me a clue if there is another reason.

Yes I agree. No doubt if UKPC bring an action they will attempt to claim a portion of the parking to the rear of the buildings belongs to the buildings with an address located on the other side of the road. Either way if it is confusing enough for people to make a mistake I think that is evidence in and of itself the signage is not fit for purpose. I will of course check for planning permission, however I note the signage they have evidenced is located on the side of a building, so may not fall under the council's jurisdiction and may be erected with permission of the building owner. Either way they will be put to strict proof they have permission to erect the signage on display. The actual situation may be made somewhat clearer using a top down view of Google maps on a perfectly sunny day, but unsurprisingly I doubt the driver or any driver at all breaks out the reconnaissance drone prior to making their parking decisions, particularly on a stormy rainy day. I missed your point above that some of the car park may have been allocated to residents. If this is the case then the address is incorrect and that is the end of the matter.

Thank you for the responses. Upon consideration I decided not to agree to mediation and agree with the premise that it should only be relevant with regards to costs. With regards to costs: Eversheds Sutherland missed their deadline to file a defence. The Court has indicated on the DQ that the claim is suitable for allocation to the Small Claims Track - which should limit costs. I have not made a claim for costs myself. Ultimately I think it is in the interest of justice that a judge hear the evidence against Lloyds Bank PLC and make a ruling rather than simply have the issue skirted under the table at mediation.

For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions.... 1 The date of infringement? 07/12/21 2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] No Have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days] Yes What date is on it? 08/01/22 Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? Yes - The photographic evidence is inconclusive please see my additional comments below. 3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?] Yes 4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK, did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process? [it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances] N/A 5 Who is the parking company? UK Parking Control LTD 6. Where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? The alleged location on the windscreen slip and NTK states 1 to 21 The Martletts, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1ER The driver of the vehicle at the time is under the impression that they parked at 3 Parkside, Crawley, RH10 1ER Additional comments / potential mitigating circumstances. 1. The windscreen slip states "Parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit". 2. Parking was paid for at the time stipulated on the speculative invoice - receipts have been retained. 3. There was torrential heavy rain on-going at the time the car was parked and upon returning to the vehicle. 4. The car park was severley flooded in areas which could have osbcured bay markings. 5. The windscreen slip was not discovered for several days until after it was allegedly left placed on the windscreen and was eventually found stuffed at the bottom of the windscreen under the lip at the top of bonnet. 6. If everything UK Parking Control allege is correct then it would still appear to be totally unreasonable to have some bays in a car park subject to permit control and not others. This could clearly cause confusion to parking customers. The attachment below contains the following. 1. A redacted copy of the windscreen slip 2. A redacted copy of the NTK. 3. A redacted copy of the photographic evidence disclosed by UK Parking Control on www.paycharge.co.uk 4. A redacted copy of the payment receipt UKPC - CAG Combined PDF.pdf

@BankFodder DQ received, to mediate or not to mediate? So far I have taken the approach with claims of this nature that the breach occurred and thus there is nothing to mediate. However perhaps it would be better to take the same approach as the Hermes claims and use mediation as an opportunity to offer the Defendant a chance to settle without also incurring the cost of losing at a hearing.

DQ filed and served agreeing to mediation. A final response has been received from Fitness Superstore regarding my query concerning their incomplete disclosure. They maintain their position that a full data disclosure has been made. A complaint has been submitted to the ICO and Fitness Superstore informed as such. Fitness Superstore is registered with the ICO.