Section 13 of the Data Protection Act says : 

13 Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements
(1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by
a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled
to compensation from the data controller for that damage. 
(2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention
by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is
entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress
if: 
(a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention,
or


My question is : what does "distress" cover in these circumstances?

(I am getting really p***** off with receiving spam after telling a
company I don't want any more - I am getting stressed!!! - am I
entitled to distress damages?)

Why would "distress" have specifically been written in to the law?

How would I have to prove "distress"?

On Sat,  6 Sep 2008 17:20:08 +0100, judith 
wrote:

>Section 13 of the Data Protection Act says : 
>
>13 Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements
>(1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by
>a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled
>to compensation from the data controller for that damage. 
>(2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention
>by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is
>entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress
>if: 
>(a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention,
>or
>
>
>My question is : what does "distress" cover in these circumstances?
>
>(I am getting really p***** off with receiving spam after telling a
>company I don't want any more - I am getting stressed!!! - am I
>entitled to distress damages?)
>
>Why would "distress" have specifically been written in to the law?
>
>How would I have to prove "distress"?
>
It is there, presumably, because it is well-established law that hurt
feelings, however severe, are not "damage". A purely mental effect
does not qualify unless it amounts to something coming within the
concept of "illness" or "injury", which is not easy to establish.

I am very doubtful about the whole business of legal remedies for
"distress" (there are even cases in which "causing distress" is made
criminal). If someone says that they feel distress, that seems to be
conclusive - what other evidence could there be? It is a normal part
of life.

If anyone can point to a decided case on the scope of this concept, it
would be very helpful.

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

In message , at 23:50:09 on 
Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Don Aitken  remarked:
>If anyone can point to a decided case on the scope of this concept, it
>would be very helpful.

Here is a case where someone did *not* win damages for distress caused 
by DPA breach:

<http://timtrent.blogspot.com/2008/08/penultimate-chapter-north-east-surr
ey.html>
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 09:05:04 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>In message , at 23:50:09 on 
>Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Don Aitken  remarked:
>>If anyone can point to a decided case on the scope of this concept, it
>>would be very helpful.
>
>Here is a case where someone did *not* win damages for distress caused 
>by DPA breach:
>
><http://timtrent.blogspot.com/2008/08/penultimate-chapter-north-east-surr
>ey.html>


I think you should perhaps read it carefully:
The case was not about whether the distress by a DPA breach:

Quote:
"This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Data Protection Act, nor
any breach or otherwise of the act. This has only to do with whether,
in law, a party is entitled to damages for pure distress"

Indeed, the DPA makes it clear that you can only claim for distress
*if* you have also suffered damages


The DPA:

13 Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements
 (1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention
by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is
entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage. 
(2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention
by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is
entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress
if: 
(a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention,
or

In message , at 09:25:17 on
Sun, 7 Sep 2008, judith  remarked:
>I think you should perhaps read it carefully:

I've been following it for months. The plaintiff was distressed by a DPA
breach (to do with the Crematorium and his mother's funeral).

In his own words:  "I used [the small claims court] to bring an action
for damages against the crematorium for the distress caused by their
acts back in November."

>The case was not about whether the distress by a DPA breach:
>
>Quote:
>"This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Data Protection Act, nor
>any breach or otherwise of the act. This has only to do with whether,
>in law, a party is entitled to damages for pure distress"

That is the plaintiff's description of the defendant's argument.

And he goes on to say:

        "The Judge, quite reasonably, while deprecating the actions of
        the crematorium, kept to the law and issue of damages. His
        opinion and the order he has made is that damages are
        inappropriate because there was no loss, just distress."

So this seems to show that, in the court in question, you can't get
damages for distress when there's been a DPA breach.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 18:30:17 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>In message , at 09:25:17 on
>Sun, 7 Sep 2008, judith  remarked:
>>I think you should perhaps read it carefully:
>
>I've been following it for months. The plaintiff was distressed by a DPA
>breach (to do with the Crematorium and his mother's funeral).
>
>In his own words:  "I used [the small claims court] to bring an action
>for damages against the crematorium for the distress caused by their
>acts back in November."
>
>>The case was not about whether the distress by a DPA breach:
>>
>>Quote:
>>"This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Data Protection Act, nor
>>any breach or otherwise of the act. This has only to do with whether,
>>in law, a party is entitled to damages for pure distress"
>
>That is the plaintiff's description of the defendant's argument.

>And he goes on to say:
>
>        "The Judge, quite reasonably, while deprecating the actions of
>        the crematorium, kept to the law and issue of damages. His
>        opinion and the order he has made is that damages are
>        inappropriate because there was no loss, just distress."
>
>So this seems to show that, in the court in question, you can't get
>damages for distress when there's been a DPA breach.


If there had been a breach of the DPA  - and he had suffered some loss
- then he would also have been able to claim distress.  There was no
loss - so he could not claim for distress.

He believed that "The Data Protection Act allows and encourages civil
claims for damages because of distress. " - he was wrong - the DPA is
very clear on this - you cannot just claim for distress on its own.

In message , at 19:25:13 on 
Sun, 7 Sep 2008, judith  remarked:
>the DPA is very clear on this - you cannot just claim for distress on 
>its own.

Which is the point I was seeking to illustrate.

Anyway, I've given you some tangible distress that wasn't compensated, 
far worse than a few spam emails.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 09:25:17 +0100, judith 
wrote:

>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 09:05:04 +0100, Roland Perry 
>wrote:
>
>>In message , at 23:50:09 on 
>>Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Don Aitken  remarked:
>>>If anyone can point to a decided case on the scope of this concept, it
>>>would be very helpful.
>>
>>Here is a case where someone did *not* win damages for distress caused 
>>by DPA breach:
>>
>><http://timtrent.blogspot.com/2008/08/penultimate-chapter-north-east-surr
>>ey.html>
>
>
>I think you should perhaps read it carefully:
>The case was not about whether the distress by a DPA breach:
>
>Quote:
>"This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Data Protection Act, nor
>any breach or otherwise of the act. This has only to do with whether,
>in law, a party is entitled to damages for pure distress"
>
>Indeed, the DPA makes it clear that you can only claim for distress
>*if* you have also suffered damages
>
>
>The DPA:
>
>13 Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements
> (1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention
>by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is
>entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage. 
>(2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention
>by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is
>entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress
>if: 
>(a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention,
>or

Why did you snip the  bit after the 'or' -  "(b)the contravention
relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes."?

(The "special purposes" BTW are journalism, artistic purposes or
literary purposes)
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Reality is an obstacle to hallucination.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 19:25:13 +0100, judith 
wrote:

>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 18:30:17 +0100, Roland Perry 
>wrote:
>
>>In message , at 09:25:17 on
>>Sun, 7 Sep 2008, judith  remarked:
>>>I think you should perhaps read it carefully:
>>
>>I've been following it for months. The plaintiff was distressed by a DPA
>>breach (to do with the Crematorium and his mother's funeral).
>>
>>In his own words:  "I used [the small claims court] to bring an action
>>for damages against the crematorium for the distress caused by their
>>acts back in November."
>>
>>>The case was not about whether the distress by a DPA breach:
>>>
>>>Quote:
>>>"This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Data Protection Act, nor
>>>any breach or otherwise of the act. This has only to do with whether,
>>>in law, a party is entitled to damages for pure distress"
>>
>>That is the plaintiff's description of the defendant's argument.
>
>>And he goes on to say:
>>
>>        "The Judge, quite reasonably, while deprecating the actions of
>>        the crematorium, kept to the law and issue of damages. His
>>        opinion and the order he has made is that damages are
>>        inappropriate because there was no loss, just distress."
>>
>>So this seems to show that, in the court in question, you can't get
>>damages for distress when there's been a DPA breach.
>
>
>If there had been a breach of the DPA  - and he had suffered some loss
>- then he would also have been able to claim distress.  There was no
>loss - so he could not claim for distress.
>
>He believed that "The Data Protection Act allows and encourages civil
>claims for damages because of distress. " - he was wrong - the DPA is
>very clear on this - you cannot just claim for distress on its own.
>

You can in some circumstances, just not those of that case.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Reality is an obstacle to hallucination.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 21:40:06 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>In message , at 19:25:13 on 
>Sun, 7 Sep 2008, judith  remarked:
>>the DPA is very clear on this - you cannot just claim for distress on 
>>its own.
>
>Which is the point I was seeking to illustrate.
>
>Anyway, I've given you some tangible distress that wasn't compensated, 
>far worse than a few spam emails.


Thank you - however I am still not sure why you introduced a
red-herring  - I cannot see the relevance to my question in the OP -
is there any?

On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 23:20:16 +0100, Alex Heney 
wrote:

<snip>

>>
>>If there had been a breach of the DPA  - and he had suffered some loss
>>- then he would also have been able to claim distress.  There was no
>>loss - so he could not claim for distress.
>>
>>He believed that "The Data Protection Act allows and encourages civil
>>claims for damages because of distress. " - he was wrong - the DPA is
>>very clear on this - you cannot just claim for distress on its own.
>>
>
>You can in some circumstances, just not those of that case.



I am saying that I do not think that you can claim distress (without
also claiming  for loss) under the DPA.

Are you saying that you can?

What are the circumstances to which you refer?

On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 23:20:12 +0100, Alex Heney 
wrote:

>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 09:25:17 +0100, judith 
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 09:05:04 +0100, Roland Perry 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message , at 23:50:09 on 
>>>Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Don Aitken  remarked:
>>>>If anyone can point to a decided case on the scope of this concept, it
>>>>would be very helpful.
>>>
>>>Here is a case where someone did *not* win damages for distress caused 
>>>by DPA breach:
>>>
>>><http://timtrent.blogspot.com/2008/08/penultimate-chapter-north-east-surr
>>>ey.html>
>>
>>
>>I think you should perhaps read it carefully:
>>The case was not about whether the distress by a DPA breach:
>>
>>Quote:
>>"This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Data Protection Act, nor
>>any breach or otherwise of the act. This has only to do with whether,
>>in law, a party is entitled to damages for pure distress"
>>
>>Indeed, the DPA makes it clear that you can only claim for distress
>>*if* you have also suffered damages
>>
>>
>>The DPA:
>>
>>13 Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements
>> (1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention
>>by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is
>>entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage. 
>>(2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention
>>by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is
>>entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress
>>if: 
>>(a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention,
>>or
>
>Why did you snip the  bit after the 'or' -  "(b)the contravention
>relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes."?
>
>(The "special purposes" BTW are journalism, artistic purposes or
>literary purposes)


Precisely - and they were not relevant to my question or the
red-herring which  Roland introduced - (I left the "or" to show that
there were other circumstances)

On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 23:45:12 +0100, judith 
wrote:

>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 23:20:16 +0100, Alex Heney 
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>
>>>If there had been a breach of the DPA  - and he had suffered some loss
>>>- then he would also have been able to claim distress.  There was no
>>>loss - so he could not claim for distress.
>>>
>>>He believed that "The Data Protection Act allows and encourages civil
>>>claims for damages because of distress. " - he was wrong - the DPA is
>>>very clear on this - you cannot just claim for distress on its own.
>>>
>>
>>You can in some circumstances, just not those of that case.
>
>
>
>I am saying that I do not think that you can claim distress (without
>also claiming  for loss) under the DPA.
>
>Are you saying that you can?
>
>What are the circumstances to which you refer?
>
>

The circumstances where the breach is one where the data is being used
for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes.

i.e. the "or" that you snipped when quoting the law.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 00:40:10 +0100, Alex Heney 
wrote:

>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 23:45:12 +0100, judith 
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 23:20:16 +0100, Alex Heney 
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>>If there had been a breach of the DPA  - and he had suffered some loss
>>>>- then he would also have been able to claim distress.  There was no
>>>>loss - so he could not claim for distress.
>>>>
>>>>He believed that "The Data Protection Act allows and encourages civil
>>>>claims for damages because of distress. " - he was wrong - the DPA is
>>>>very clear on this - you cannot just claim for distress on its own.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You can in some circumstances, just not those of that case.
>>
>>
>>
>>I am saying that I do not think that you can claim distress (without
>>also claiming  for loss) under the DPA.
>>
>>Are you saying that you can?
>>
>>What are the circumstances to which you refer?
>>
>>
>
>The circumstances where the breach is one where the data is being used
>for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes.
>
>i.e. the "or" that you snipped when quoting the law.


OK - agreed - I snipped because I did not think it relevant to my
question or the bit about the crematorium.

(Do you have any view on when "distress" under DPA may be
appropriate?)

In message , at 23:45:05 on 
Sun, 7 Sep 2008, judith  remarked:
>Thank you - however I am still not sure why you introduced a
>red-herring  - I cannot see the relevance to my question in the OP -
>is there any?

You asked about distress and the DPA. Perhaps we are getting distracted 
by the "and damage too".

You original posting seemed as if it was asking "when is distress bad 
enough to constitute damage". The crematorium example was to show that 
the "damage" has to be a "loss".

So perhaps you are asking something like: "if I received a distressing 
spam email that caused me to spray coffee over the keyboard, would that 
be sufficient loss to be damage"? (That's not supposed to be as flippant 
as it sounds - in this space it's often a case of catching gangsters for 
tax evasion).
-- 
Roland Perry

judith  wrote in
news:v9m8c4hp86e8n1npnda3gha0oksa59sej2@4ax.com: 

> On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 23:20:12 +0100, Alex Heney 
> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 09:25:17 +0100, judith
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 09:05:04 +0100, Roland Perry
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message , at
>>>>23:50:09 on Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Don Aitken 
>>>>remarked: 
>>>>>If anyone can point to a decided case on the scope of this
>>>>>concept, it would be very helpful.
>>>>
>>>>Here is a case where someone did *not* win damages for distress
>>>>caused by DPA breach:
>>>>
>>>><http://timtrent.blogspot.com/2008/08/penultimate-chapter-north-
e
>>>>ast-surr ey.html>
>>>
>>>
>>>I think you should perhaps read it carefully:
>>>The case was not about whether the distress by a DPA breach:
>>>
>>>Quote:
>>>"This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Data Protection Act,
>>>nor any breach or otherwise of the act. This has only to do with
>>>whether, in law, a party is entitled to damages for pure
>>>distress" 
>>>
>>>Indeed, the DPA makes it clear that you can only claim for
>>>distress *if* you have also suffered damages
>>>
>>>
>>>The DPA:
>>>
>>>13 Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements
>>> (1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any
>>> contravention 
>>>by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is
>>>entitled to compensation from the data controller for that
>>>damage. (2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any
>>>contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of
>>>this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for
>>>that distress if: 
>>>(a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the
>>>contravention, or
>>
>>Why did you snip the  bit after the 'or' -  "(b)the contravention
>>relates to the processing of personal data for the special
>>purposes."? 
>>
>>(The "special purposes" BTW are journalism, artistic purposes or
>>literary purposes)
> 
> 
> Precisely - and they were not relevant to my question or the
> red-herring which  Roland introduced - (I left the "or" to show
> that there were other circumstances)
> 

For completeness, I assume the man in the crematorium case could 
have won damages for distress if he had also been able to claim 
financial damages for the same breach.  If, for instance, someone 
with a contact at the marketing company had burgled his house while 
he was at the funeral.

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 01:00:20 +0100, judith 
wrote:

>On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 00:40:10 +0100, Alex Heney 
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 23:45:12 +0100, judith 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 23:20:16 +0100, Alex Heney 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If there had been a breach of the DPA  - and he had suffered some loss
>>>>>- then he would also have been able to claim distress.  There was no
>>>>>loss - so he could not claim for distress.
>>>>>
>>>>>He believed that "The Data Protection Act allows and encourages civil
>>>>>claims for damages because of distress. " - he was wrong - the DPA is
>>>>>very clear on this - you cannot just claim for distress on its own.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You can in some circumstances, just not those of that case.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I am saying that I do not think that you can claim distress (without
>>>also claiming  for loss) under the DPA.
>>>
>>>Are you saying that you can?
>>>
>>>What are the circumstances to which you refer?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The circumstances where the breach is one where the data is being used
>>for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes.
>>
>>i.e. the "or" that you snipped when quoting the law.
>
>
>OK - agreed - I snipped because I did not think it relevant to my
>question or the bit about the crematorium.
>
>(Do you have any view on when "distress" under DPA may be
>appropriate?)

When information that should have been private is published in a
newspaper, causing you significant embarrassment with friends or
relatives, for instance.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
This mind intentionally left blank.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

In message , at 01:30:14 on 
Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Alex Heney  remarked:
>>(Do you have any view on when "distress" under DPA may be
>>appropriate?)
>
>When information that should have been private is published in a
>newspaper, causing you significant embarrassment with friends or
>relatives, for instance.

I thought we'd established that there has to be a loss as well?
-- 
Roland Perry

"Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
news:9dvtc41676e12oupbihi6o5k5g3dkdqgq7@4ax.com...
> On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 01:00:20 +0100, judith 
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 00:40:10 +0100, Alex Heney 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 23:45:12 +0100, judith 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 23:20:16 +0100, Alex Heney 
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If there had been a breach of the DPA  - and he had suffered some loss
>>>>>>- then he would also have been able to claim distress.  There was no
>>>>>>loss - so he could not claim for distress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He believed that "The Data Protection Act allows and encourages civil
>>>>>>claims for damages because of distress. " - he was wrong - the DPA is
>>>>>>very clear on this - you cannot just claim for distress on its own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You can in some circumstances, just not those of that case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am saying that I do not think that you can claim distress (without
>>>>also claiming  for loss) under the DPA.
>>>>
>>>>Are you saying that you can?
>>>>
>>>>What are the circumstances to which you refer?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The circumstances where the breach is one where the data is being used
>>>for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes.
>>>
>>>i.e. the "or" that you snipped when quoting the law.
>>
>>
>>OK - agreed - I snipped because I did not think it relevant to my
>>question or the bit about the crematorium.
>>
>>(Do you have any view on when "distress" under DPA may be
>>appropriate?)
>
> When information that should have been private is published in a
> newspaper, causing you significant embarrassment with friends or
> relatives, for instance.
I once had a bunch of exam results published without permission.  They later 
apologised.  Could I get some distress damages from them?