Shell Energy - Failure to disclose data

[Intrepid]

How late can a Defendant appoint a legal representative prior to a court hearing?

Is this likely to affect a hearing date?

[Andyorch]

If you left it too close to the hearing possibly but if provided sufficient notice.

 

Form N434: Tell a court about a change of legal representative - GOV.UK

WWW.GOV.UK

---

Use this 'notice of change' to tell a court that the legal representative in a case has changed.

 

[Intrepid]

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

[Intrepid]

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

[Andyorch]

55 minutes ago, Intrepid said:

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

 

I never inferred you were....as long as the above form has been submitted and processed in time then I really cant see a valid objection.

 

Notice of change of solicitor

2.1 Rule 42.2(1) sets out the circumstances following which a notice of the change must be filed and served.

2.2 A notice of the change giving the last known address of the former assisted person must also be filed and served on every party where, under rule 42.2(6):

(1) the certificate of a LSC funded client or assisted person is revoked or discharged,

(2) the solicitor who acted for that person ceased to act on determination of his retainer under regulation 83 of those Regulations, and

(3) the LSC funded client or the assisted person wishes either to act in person or appoint another solicitor to act on his behalf.

2.3 In addition, where a party or solicitor changes his address for service, a notice of that change should be filed and served on every party.

2.4 A party who, having conducted a claim by a solicitor, intends to act in person must give in the notice an address for service that is within the United Kingdom⁵.

2.5 Subject to paragraph 2.7A, practice form N434 should be used to give notice of any change. The notice should be filed in the court office in which the claim is proceeding.

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part42/pd_part42

 

[Intrepid]

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.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

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

[Intrepid]

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.

 

Quote

Dear xxx,

 

Claim reference xxxx.

 

I write in reference to the letter sent on behalf of Shell Energy Retail Limited (“Shell Energy”) dated 10th May 2022.

 

Your offer in full and final settlement of the claim referenced above is rejected in full.

 

Any payment received will be returned.

 

Your breach of statutory duty is on-going and your failure to comply with your statutory obligations is an important matter of record. The Court will understand that your offer made with no admission of liability is nothing more than an attempt to wriggle out of your obligations.
 

Your offer, which was made only after significant time and costs have already been invested by the Claimant and received hours prior the claim was due to be heard, does not account for the costs that have been incurred by the Claimant and could have been avoided should you have acted reasonably and in accordance with the law.

 

Yours,

 

[Ethel Street]

On 15/05/2022 at 14:11, Intrepid said:

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

 

 

Thanks for the update. Just a comment on the Signed For service.

 

Royal Mail have never been required to deliver letters only to the named individual. They say they deliver it to the address and ask for the signature of someone resident at the address to sign for it on behalf the person named on the letter.

 

But during Covid they made a further change in their generall T&C  to reduce the risk of Covid spreading through contact with their signing pads. According to their website:

 

"Temporary Coronavirus-related changes. All Signature services. 

 

We’ve put in place a temporary procedure for those services where we would normally capture a recipient’s signature on delivery in the UK. For items delivered on or after Saturday 14th March 2020, our postmen and women will not request a signature but will capture the recipient’s name and will ensure they take in the item. You can still check that we have obtained confirmation of delivery and who we delivered to by tracking your parcel at www.royalmail.com/track-your-item (where you may see a special code, ‘XP1’ instead of signature).  As a result, we will not consider refunds or compensation requests for not capturing a signature for items delivered on or after Saturday 14 March 2020 and until further notice."

 

Was it signed for by XP1?

[Intrepid]

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.

[Intrepid]

  

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.
 

Quote

Dear XXXX,

 

Claim reference XXXX.

 

I write in reference to the letter sent on behalf of Shell Energy Retail Limited (“Shell Energy”) dated 10th May 2022.

 

Your offer in full and final settlement of the claim referenced above is rejected in full.

 

Any payment received will be returned.

 

You will be aware from your own records that Shell Energy ignored the Cease and Desist letter you received and continued its campaign of harassment. Shell Energy sent a total of 20 harassing text messages to my personal mobile phone on a near daily basis, over a number of weeks.

 

If you are serious about seeking an out of court settlement in respect of this dispute, I expect that you sensibly compensate me for the distress you have caused me and the value to you of avoiding a court judgement against you.

 

CAG - SE - Harassment - Settlement Offer 10.05.22 - Redacted.PDF

[Intrepid]

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.

[Andyorch]

 Many thanks Intrepid

 

Andy

[Andyorch]

Topic open

[Intrepid]

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.

[stu007]

Hi

 

Yes the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) now includes the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) it's also understanding the GDPR and the power contained within it as to your Rights under it.

 

This link breaks down specifically the GDPR into it's different Articles and Sections so that the anyone can understand there rights better to use those GDPR Articles and Sections:

 

Table of contents EU General Data Protection Regulation (EU-GDPR). Privacy/Privazy according to plan.

WWW.PRIVACY-REGULATION.EU

---

Easy readable text of EU GDPR with many hyperlinks.

 

[Intrepid]

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

[Andyorch]

Topic open

[Intrepid]

On 24 August 2021 I issued a claim against Shell Energy as a result of their breach of the DPA 2018. This resulted in a default judgment and payment following enforcement action.

On 16 November 2021 I issued a claim against Shell Energy as a result of their still on-going breach of the DPA 2018. This resulted in a hearing and judgment in my favour which was paid. However inspite of this judgment Shell Energy did not review their data disclosure or disclose any further data shown to be missing.

On 20 February 2023 I issued a claim against Shell Energy as as a result of their still on-going breach of the DPA 2018. This has resulted in a default judgment and further enforcement action.

[Intrepid]

Shell Energy have woken up to the default judgment and their solicitors have written to me (attached).

I am unsure whether to respond to their letter.

If I were to do so it would probably be along the lines of the following:
 

Quote

Dear xxx,

 

Shell Energy Retail Limited ("Shell Energy") has a history of ignoring claims and is wholly disorganised.
 

Shell Energy failed to respond to the letter of claim it received dated 24 December 2022.
 

Shell Energy failed to respond to the court in response to the claim it received issued on 19 February 2023.
 

You will understand that it is without question Shell Energy has withheld my personal data following the judgment issued by the Court on 18 November 2022.
 

Despite me writing directly to Shell Energy on this issue it continues to ignore its obligations pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018 and therefore you have no chance to succeed in defending the claim.

I do not consent to the set aside and on the issue of costs I will bring to the attention of the judge Shell Energy's history in failing to comply with the directions of the court.
 

Any application you decide to make is a waste of both parties time and the court and will be contested.
 

Enforcement has already been issued and I note you have not offered to pay the costs I have incurred as a result of Shell Energy's complete disorganisation and contempt for the court process.

Yours

 

 

SE - Defendant - Letter 18.04.23 - Redacted.pdf

[dx100uk]

id write

[BankFodder]

As you know, I have been out of the loop on this thread for a considerable period of time.

I'm afraid I haven't taken the trouble to go back and remind myself of all of the facts.

Have a look at the draft letter below. It is based on a sketchy memory that I have of the sequence of events.

If you're happy with the letter then maybe you should fill in the blanks and then post the final version here before you send it off. If there are things missing all things incorrect then please let us know and we can make necessary amendments

 

Quote

Dear xxx,

 

Shell Energy Retail Limited ("Shell Energy") has a history of ignoring claims and in being in breach of its statutory duties. And is wholly disorganised.

 

In this respect, judgements have been entered against your client on:

1. date XXX – basis of judgement – e.g. breach of statutory duty
2. date XXX – ditto
    

A properly constituted letter of claim was sent to your client on XXX date. Shell Energy your client failed to respond
 

A claim in respect of a further breach of statutory duty was filed against your client on XXX date and your client failed to enter a defence.

Judgement was properly entered against your client on XXX date
 

You now claim that your client had no knowledge of the claim against them.  I'm quite sure that a court would consider that this is most unlikely given the fact that the claim was issued electronically and would have been served upon your client by the court themselves.

 

Despite the court actions and judgements against your client, they have still failed to disclose my personal data and therefore are in continuing breach of their statutory obligations.

I expect that you are aware that in addition to convincing the court that the claim was not brought to their attention, you must also convince the court that if you are permitted to defend you stand a reasonable chance of success.

Your letter to me discloses no basis for defending the action and furthermore as I have said above, your clients are committing a continuing breach of their statutory duties under the Data Protection Act.

I do not consent to the set aside and on the issue of costs I will bring to the attention of the judge Shell Energy's history in failing to comply with the directions of the court.

 

If you wish me to give this matter further consideration than I suggest that you begin by providing to me the evidence that you would be obliged in any event to supply to the court – namely

1. The reason why your clients will not have been aware of a court issued County Court claim against them,
2. A draft of the defence which you would eventually be obliged to supply to the court and which you believe would stand a reasonable chance of convincing the court that your clients have not breached their statutory duty. 
    

In the unlikely event that I would accede to your set-aside application, I would require at the very least an undertaking you will indemnify me for all my wasted costs, that your clients would attempt to remedy their breach of statutory duty by making a full disclosure of all data which they hold on me up to and including the date of disclosure, an apology and finally a substantial payment which I suppose you would prefer to disguise as some kind of gesture of goodwill.

 

Please understand that my suggestion above is merely a suggestion and not an offer.

Furthermore, please understand that this is an open letter and will be shown to the court if that is the way you want to go.

 

 

Yours

 

 

[Intrepid]

Email from Shell Energy's solicitors attached.

I realise now Shell Energy were given two opportunities to respond to the claim and the reply above needs adjusting, I will post up a draft soon.

SE - Defendant - Email 20.04.23 - Redacted.pdf

Edited April 20, 2023 by Intrepid

[BankFodder]

 

 

Quote

Dear XXX

 

Reference number XXX

Your letter of the 20th instant refers.

I enclose a copy of the claim form as requested by you.

 

A separate response to your letter of the 18th is presently being drafted and will be sent to you in the next day or so. This letter deals only with your message to me of the 18th.

In respect of your assertion that the claim form was not received, of course this is complete nonsense. The claim form was issued electronically through the courts' own system and was sent to you by them to the address contained on the enclosed claim form and which is also the same address which has been used for enforcement and in respect of which your clients are clearly fully aware and have now reacted.

It is significant that not only of your clients failed to respond to earlier warnings about the forthcoming claim, but also to the claim itself and in fact have only decided to react now that enforcement proceedings are en route.

As I have said above, it is absurd to suggest that the form has not been received. In fact what has happened is that the claim form has been received but your client f has ailed to deal with it in exactly the same way that they have failed to deal with repeated requests for statutory disclosure.

This will be pointed out to the court at some point and I have no doubt that the court will understand that the proceedings were correctly served on your client.

Secondly, your letter of 20th makes some very generalised assertion that you have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. This is an extraordinary statement to make when in the same letter you are trying to say that you haven't received the claim form and you have no idea what it contains.

You might like to explain to me and certainly I'm sure that the judge will be interested to know how you can be so certain that you can make a successful defence of an issue of which you pretend to have no knowledge.

Once you have seen the claim form and once you have carried out a proper investigation as presumably you have been paid to do by your client, you will understand that your clients are in breach of their statutory duty and there is no answer.

Finally, your letter contains wild threats in respect of costs – which I presume are made by way of an attempt to menace a lay claimant and intimidate him with a piece of nonsense that both you and I – and of course the court will realise is just some bullying posture.

As I have said above, I enclose a copy of the claim form.

I suggest that a sensible way forward for you would be to provide me with a copy of your proposed defence which you apparently so strenuously believe stands a chance of success if you are permitted to defend in court.

You will have to provide a copy of this draft defence to the court anyway if you proceed with the set-aside but in the meantime, don't imagine that I intend to back down or give way in any way to you especially in the light of the tone of your letter.

 

I suggest that you start conducting yourself in a straight dealing and professional way.

This letter will be disclosed to the court as will any other correspondence generated by me or received from yourselves.

Yours blah blah blah

 

 

[Intrepid]

Attached is the correspondence chain between myself and Shell Energy prior to the issue of the claim on 20 February 2023.

Below is a draft response to the letter recieved dated 18 April 2022.

FYI I have already defeated one application by Shell Energy to dismiss another claim for a separate issue. It appears from the statement of costs sent by their solicitor (which Shell Energy appointed late into proceedings) that they wasted over £1500 on the application, of course for them it's not about the money.

 

Quote

Shell Energy Retail Limited ("Shell Energy") has a history of ignoring claims, failing to comply with court directions, acting in defiance of the civil procedure rules and being in breach of its statutory duties.
 

In this respect, judgments have been entered against your client on:

1. 15 September 2021 - In default for breach of statutory duty;
2. 18 November 2022 - At trial for breach of statutory duty.

Your client failed to provide a satisfactory response to the letter of claim it received dated 24 December 2022 and further letter dated 6 January 2023.

 

A claim in respect of a further breach of statutory duty was issued against your client on 20 February 2023 and your client failed to enter a defence.

 

Judgment was properly entered against your client on 12 April 2023.

 

You now claim that your client had no knowledge of the claim against them. I'm quite sure that a court would consider that this is most unlikely given the fact that the claim was issued electronically and would have been served upon your client by the court themselves.

 

Despite the court actions and judgments against your client, they have still failed to disclose all my personal data and therefore are in continuing breach of their statutory obligations.

 

I expect that you are aware that in addition to convincing the court that the claim was not brought to their attention, you must also convince the court that if you are permitted to defend you stand a reasonable chance of success.

 

Your letter to me discloses no basis for defending the action and furthermore as I have said above, your clients are committing a continuing breach of their statutory duties under the Data Protection Act.

 

I do not consent to the set aside and on the issue of costs I will bring to the attention of the judge Shell Energy's history in failing to comply with the directions of the court.

 

If you wish me to give this matter further consideration then I suggest that you begin by providing to me the evidence that you would be obliged in any event to supply to the court – namely:

1. The reason why your clients will not have been aware of a court issued County Court claim against them.
2. A draft of the defence which you would eventually be obliged to supply to the court and which you believe would stand a reasonable chance of convincing the court that your clients have not breached their statutory duty.

In the unlikely event that I would accede to your set-aside application, I would require at the very least an undertaking you will indemnify me for all my wasted costs, that your clients would attempt to remedy their breach of statutory duty by making a full disclosure of all data which they hold on me up to and including the date of disclosure, an apology and finally a substantial payment which I suppose you would prefer to disguise as some kind of gesture of goodwill.

Please understand that my suggestion above is merely a suggestion and not an offer.

 

Furthermore, please understand that this is an open letter and will be shown to the court if that is the way you want to go.

 

Yours,

 

combinepdf 24.12.22 - 11.01.23.pdf

Edited April 21, 2023 by Intrepid