“Good evening [Station support 2],

I will not give too much information just in case this email is delivered to the wrong person.

Very briefly, earlier this evening, (23/09/2019), I was leaving New Street station at approx. 18:15 hrs via the Drop & Go, North-West corner leading to Navigation Street, when I sustained some very serious damage to my car whilst traversing the traffic management system.

I believe that Network Rail are liable for the damage, and I would like to ask you if you have any CCTV footage in that area that may shed some further light on the matter please.

When you reply, and hence I can confirm that I am corresponding with the right person, I shall furnish you with much more detail.

Thank you for your time”.

“Good morning Mr. Chiverton,

In order for me to process your request I need you to fill out the attached form giving as much detail as possible on the form.

… return it back to me either by return email or to the following address…

Please ensure that you include the relevant ID as detailed on the form”.

Good morning [Station Support 2],

Thank you for your reply.

Following the incident at New Street Station, I have taken advice on the matter and I no longer require the request for possible CCTV footage.

I would like to immediately initiate the procedure to make a claim for the damage sustained to my car whilst on Network rail property.

Any help you could give me in this matter would be greatly appreciated”.

“Hi Barry,

No problem at all.

Please send a letter of claim to The Claims Department, [address redacted].

Or enquire through your solicitor”.

At this point I began to question the logic of only pursuing this singular course of action, so I emailed the Health & Safety Executive and reported my concerns.

“…Whilst exiting New Street station in my car, on Monday 23rd September 2019 at approximately 18:15 – Outside the North West Corner leading to Navigation Street from the drop and go area.

I drove over a speed bump and sustained excessive damage to my car.

The side of my bumper has been partially ripped off. Suffice as to say the damage could have also caused injury to members of the public as well as serious injury to myself.

Thankfully, I wasn’t injured.

Having taken a logical reassessment of the events, which were not complicated, I now know what has happened.

The traffic management system has damaged my vehicle and I am seeking financial compensation in order to repair all damage sustained.

I have included some images… I apologise for the slight blur but as you can maybe appreciate – I was obviously very shaken by the events.

I hope we can expedite this matter so that I can repair my car without delay and also to keep costs to a minimum.”

“Thank you for taking the time to report your concern to Health and Safety Executive (HSE)…

your enquiry does not fall within HSE’s enforcement remit…”

In light of the extensive damage to my vehicle and the negative thoughts and visceral feelings I was having – I decided to official submit a subject access request in order to safeguard myself.

Within that official Subject Access Request to Network Rail, I made the following declaration:

“On Monday 23rd September 2019 at approximately 18:00 hrs I drove my car into the drop and go at New Street Station via the Hill Street entrance.

I drove through that area and went and parked upstairs in the car park. At approximately 18:15.

I exited the car park via the North West corner leading to Navigation Street. As I drove over the ‘speed bump’ or ‘traffic management system’ at the exit, my vehicle was badly damaged.

As a consequence I would like to request any CCTV footage of my vehicle during that period.

1) Entering the drop & go

2) Parking in the upper car park

3) Exiting the drop & go

My car registration is: [redacted]”.

Footnote: I specifically requested the three separate locations so that the cameras would hopefully show:

1) I entered the train station with my car in pristine condition.

2) As I parked my car it was seen to be in pristine condition.

3) The actual impact upon my vehicle whilst traversing the speedbump.

And I reasoned –  just in case the actual impact wasn’t recorded, at least we could use the laws of probability to favourably proceed with an actual vehicle inspection.

“I write further to your letter dated 25th September 2019 in relation to the accident complained of at New Street Station on Monday 23rd September 2019. Please note that we are handling this matter on behalf of Network Rail, and request that you include our reference (in the subject line above) in all future correspondence.

Having reviewed your letter and attached photographs, We are unable to comment on liability without further, detailed information. Your letter details the place and approximate time of the incident (which we intend to investigate), however we require:

1. Detailed, colour photographs of all damage sustained to your vehicle.
2. Quotations for remedial works (or an invoice if already completed).

Please do not hesitate to contact me on the below information should you have any questions. I look forward to your response/the requested information”.

“Thank you for…

With regards to getting a quote for the repairs, I have been advised that the dealership would need to do an extensive inspection, not just visual because of the nature of the damage. As you can partly see from some of the images, the damage was done to the underside of my vehicle so any inspection that is not comprehensive could be wide of the mark by a significant percentage.

Any such inspection can be done but would require me to pay out of my own resources plus have the additional costs of car replacement whilst the inspection is being carried out, and all the other related issues that it brings.

Rather than do this and end up on a ‘claims hamster wheel’, I would rather hand the whole matter over to a company that handles these types of claims on a professional basis.

Therefore, I welcome any inspection of my vehicle from yourselves or your agents – as ultimately this is probably where we will end up.

This is of course also predicated upon whether or not liability is admitted on your side.

I am the victim here and will do everything within reason to help you in your investigations.

Images attached.

Regards”.

“Thank you for your email, and for providing the requested photographs.

I note your comments in relation to vehicle inspection/potential third-party involvement and intend to investigate this matter further/take instructions from Network Rail prior to progressing this matter further.

To facilitate this, could you please provide the registration plate number of your vehicle and general car details (make, model, colour)?

Thank you for your cooperation to date”.

“Dear [Paralegal 1],

Thank you for your email.

I appreciate that I am going through some sort of ‘claims funnel’ – but I would like you to also appreciate the frustrating position I find myself in.

[redacted], I would like to ask you and your company a question.

My vehicle was damaged on 23rd September 2019.

I walked into the Network Rail Offices in New Street Station and explained the situation in front of 3 or 4 staff member. One of the Network Rail Managers on site also came out to view the damage to my car.

Then as instructed, I sent a letter to the claims department, outlining the nature of the accident, including specific location and timestamp within +/- 10 minutes.

I also contacted the Health & Safety Executive and will be contacting the local Highways Agency – even though it may fall outside their remit.

What happened on that day could have led to me seriously injuring myself or losing control of my vehicle and causing injury to pedestrians.

There is obviously a serious issue here and the first duty of Network Rail is to investigate quickly and to make sure that all potential negative issues regarding public safety are alleviated.

My question is this:

Considering I have provided all possible information for you to undertake investigations with expediency and accuracy – What has actually been done to move this issue forward to some sort of resolution?

Regards”.

“Thank you for your email. I have noted your comments and can appreciate your frustrations to date.

Firstly, having identified the area in which the incident occurred, I have instructed Network Rail to inspect the speed bump and ensure that it complies with UK legislation/regulations. This will be the avenue that the HSE conduct their investigations and having reviewed the speedbump on google maps (albeit it may have been replaced since August 2018 – information which I have also requested), it does not appear that it is excessive in height/design, or that it was difficult to see (black and yellow colouring) or in an unsuitable location (please see the photograph provided below)… fig.4.

I have also requested records of any past complaints in relation to this speedbump, as this will also help us understand whether it had been previously identified as a risk/concern. These requests/initial investigations demonstrate that Network Rail is acting reasonably in response to your claim, and I will use this information (when available) to determine our position on liability in due course. 

In light of the above, and in consideration of the photographic evidence of the damage sustained to your vehicle (which does not appear attributable to speedbump damage at first glance), I require the information requested below in order to investigate any CCTV records of the incident and understand the cause of damage complained of.

To date, there is very little evidence to substantiate your claim, and although Network Rail staff members were on hand to view the damage post-incident, there is still no evidence to suggest that the speedbump in question actually caused the damage to your car.

Although you are free to approach a company to handle your claim, it is likely that, without further evidence, they can progress this matter any further, which may only cause you to incur further expense at this stage.

I should emphasise at this stage that the onus is on the claimant to prove their claim on the ‘balance of probabilities’ (51%+), and at this stage we are not of the opinion that this has been demonstrated. 

To help you understand the current position, the questions asked in my previous email are not intended to be representative of a ‘claims funnel’, or ‘claims hamster wheel’, but simply intended to help investigate the cause of damage and progress this matter as efficiently as possible. Without the registration plate/details of your vehicle, we are unable to take this matter further”.

Footnote: “In light of the above, and in consideration of the photographic evidence of the damage sustained to your vehicle (which does not appear attributable to speedbump damage at first glance)…”

This subjective statement made me question the implications behind it.

“Thank you for your email. I appreciate your frankness and honesty.

You rightly make the point ‘… in consideration of the photographic evidence of the damage sustained to your vehicle (which does not appear attributable to speedbump damage at first glance)…

In business, I tell stakeholders and staff that historical or empirical data is great until it is met with new facts at which point all previous data should be called into question immediately.

What I am saying to you are facts – but I appreciate because you don’t personally know me or my character, you cannot see them as that – and besides… you have to follow due process.

I completely understand and agree with that.

Imagine for one moment [name redacted], that your very best friend told you exactly what I had told you.

What would you do?

You would probably suspend your disbelief, set aside all previous data, and try to figure out how it happened. Then, back up that thinking with probabilities.

At the very moment, the damage to my car happened I was looking ahead to observe the pedestrians in front of me.

It was the startled looks on the faces of two women in particular who were crossing the road in front of me – that made me realise that this was possibly quite serious. When I parked safely and surveyed the damage for myself I was shocked to put it mildly.

Because I was absolutely clear about what had happened, and where it happened – just like seeing a jigsaw puzzle assembled and then breaking it up to re-assemble again, I knew beyond doubt, the pieces had to fit. I had to find a logical explanation to this incident.

I stared at my vehicle and then sat in my car for what seemed like an eternity – and still couldn’t figure it out.

Then I sent the image of my vehicle, and another detailed image of the speedbump to someone et viola they gave me the logic to verify my facts.

And just like that image from a couple of years ago with the cigar sticking out of a brick wall, whereby people could or couldn’t see it – all became clear.

*The damage to my vehicle is only sustainable in one way. Just one.

To suggest the possibility that the events did not unfold exactly as I said they did would mean that I am lying and hence making a fraudulent insurance claim – that would be illegal!

Also, when looking at the ‘balance of probabilities’, one should also take my actions into account…

As well as all the actions I have told you about, the first thing I requested was any possible CCTV footage that may be held.

An official, completed application with documentation was sent a couple of days after the initial claim requesting CCTV footage of my entire time at the station because I could foresee these such assertions arising.

I am mindful that I have serious issue to now deal with. The implications for me in my personal and professional life are immense, so I will speak the truth and do whatever it takes to get justice.

Finally, here are two questions, albeit rhetorical:

1) Why on earth would I make up such a basic story and then set in motion every single possible process to try and uncover the truth – if by uncovering the truth would show me to be lying?

2) I said from the very outset I wasn’t injured, I also have indicated that I want to do everything to keep all additional costs to a minimum, so what could be my possible motive for pursuing a fraudulent or deceitful claim?

I will make this point again:

*The damage to my vehicle is only sustainable in one way. Just one.

I know you have probably seen it all before or heard insurance stories that would amaze and shock me in equal measure.

Well maybe, just maybe there will be a day when you tell the story of the guy [who had] a hole ripped into his Merc [while] going over a speedbump at the train station…

I pray there is some form of CCTV footage – but if there isn’t it doesn’t matter because the truth will eventually come to light.

Remember: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Vehicle details attached]”.

“Thank you for your email, disclosure of your car details and for your understanding at the necessity for us to follow due process in this matter.

As discussed in my previous email, this is not a ‘claims hamster wheel’, nor are we implying that this claim has been brought fraudulently – this matter simply requires investigation prior to a decision on liability being reached.

I will therefore investigate the evidence once obtained and take instructions from Network Rail before reverting to you with an answer”.

“Thank you for your email.

I fully understand the need for you to follow the correct processes.

I can be a bit naïve sometimes and I was made aware by someone that in the first instance, my version of events would not be believed.

Therefore, my initial email was an opportunity for me to get a ‘proper lay of the land’, so to speak.

I meant no offence by the statement regarding ‘claims funnel’.

…In 1995 at the age of 28 – I experienced a major life-changing experience.

As a result of that experience one of the many virtues or principles I vowed to live my life by was one of ‘integrity’.

I also chose to adopt the principle, as it was first written by the ancient Greeks:

nosce te ipsum – meaning ‘know thyself’.

And as William Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet:

“To thine own self be true…

And it must follow, as night follows day, then thou canst not be false to any man.”

These are two of the guiding principles I have held steadfast to for nearly 25 years!

And believe me [redacted], it hasn’t always been easy lol!

No one, nowhere, can with validity hold anything against me that can taint my actions, character, or ethics.

And I mean nothing…

I know myself and I walk through life on the straight and very narrow path of integrity. I also try to associate closely with other people of high levels of integrity.

Whatever happens regarding this matter, is going to happen and I am detached from the outcome.

Don’t misunderstand me here, justice will be served, but I am nonetheless detached from the outcome because I already know and have spoken the whole truth without deviation.

All the best [Paralegal 1]”.

“No offence taken. To clarify – it is not the case that your version of events is not believed, but we have a duty to our client to investigate these matters properly prior to considering our position on liability. Thank you for the provision of your car details – at this stage I require no further information from you, and I will get in touch as soon as we are in a position to progress this matter further.

Please do not hesitate to get in touch in the meantime should you have any questions”.

“Your request has now been processed and copies/extracts of information dated 23 September 2019 are enclosed”.

I was so excited to finally get the requested CCTV footage, but my excitement soon turned to despair. As I unpacked and inserted the DVD into my computer, immediately I noticed the timestamp was approx. 20:00 hrs – not the very specific times I had requested.

My second thought was to see if the CCTV camera had recorded the specific angle which would highlight the actual moment of speedbump impact upon my car.

As I proceeded to play the DVD I was overjoyed. The camera angle was perfect… and, in immaculate Super High Definition too!

I was thrilled. Absolutely over the moon.

Next I picked up the phone and called New Street station. Behold, I managed to get hold of [Station Support 2], at the first attempt.

I stated who I was and went on to explain that the data sent out to me contained the totally wrong timestamp and only showed one location, not the three which I had requested.

[Station Support 2] said words to the effect they thought it was the correct data.

I replied:

“I am not asking anybody to think, I just want the data processed as requested”.

I also made a point of asking [Station Support 2] to make a log of the phone call and furthermore mot to destroy the CCTV footage or allow it to be erased.

I ended the phone call with very mixed emotions and wrote an entry on my work whiteboard (fig.6) at 12:16 which said:

“Phoned Network Rail – Disgraceful people.

It’s shocking that I have to fight so hard to prove my truth! So be it!”

Footnote: Why did [Station Support 2] not reply to me in the first instance and say there was no footage of me at the specific times I requested?

Moreover, why send me footage covering a timeframe that was not contained within my Subject Access Request?

If a patron enters a restaurant and orders Lobster Thermidor and the waiter shortly thereafter brings out fish and chips, and says “Enjoy your meal”, before heading off back to the kitchen.

It is not a credible defence to say, “I thought that is what you ordered”, because it would be reasonable for the patron to say:

“Why are you ‘thinking’ when you should be ‘reading’ directly from for order form?”

I am asserting proper procedures surrounding the handling of my data was not observed.

“A clear, and full calendar month ago I made a Subject Data Request under the data protection Act 1998.

More than a week ago I received a disc with footage that did not correlate with the very precise timeframe which I had carefully provided.

The very specific timestamp was there to expedite this process – it seems to have had the very opposite effect.

Upon receipt of the incorrect data I spoke immediately, via telephone with [redacted], and to be honest I am a bit unsure as to why the 30-day period set out by Network Rail has been allowed to elapse.

I would be grateful if someone could send out the information without further delay otherwise I will have no other option but to begin legal proceedings in order to get to the bottom of this matter”.

“Hi [redacted],

Speed ramp 3.2 meters and looks like 5 mph ramp. Hope that’s enough info”.

“I am writing to you to expressing my deepest concerns that, albeit I have given yourselves ALL required information – nobody has yet contacted me with a resolution to this situation.

It is quickly approaching two months since the incident and I feel the way I have been treated is appalling and unacceptable.

…I would like to know what the Company position is on this matter before deciding upon my next course of action”.

“Dear Mr Chiverton,

I hope you are well.

I write further to the above matter and in response to your recent letter to Network Rail (attached) to address your concerns.

Firstly, I apologise for the delay in progressing this matter. This is not uncommon during the claims process, as each matter needs to be fully investigated before a decision can be made. Having said this, I am nearing the end of this process and expect to have a response prepared in the coming week. 

With respect, you have been contacted in relation to this situation within the last 2 months, and we have notified you that we are acting on behalf of Network Rail (thus ceasing their involvement in your claim). I informed you approximately a month ago that I will revert to you at my earliest opportunity, and this position remains the case.

… we expect to be in a position to revert to you shortly. We appreciate your patience in this matter”.

Footnote: This line:

“… we have notified you that we are acting on behalf of Network Rail (thus ceasing their involvement in your claim).”

Is an obvious reference to the letter I sent to Network Rail, New Street and/or the phone call I made to [Station Supervisor 2], regarding my Subject Access Request.

It troubled me deeply because I felt it legally and morally wrong that a claims department should be attempting to dissuade me from pursuing personal data which I am legally entitled to.

Now everything became clear. Crystal clear. The Occam’s Razor principle.

“On the 30th September 2019 I made a Subject Data Request, asking for CCTV footage from Network Rail, New Street Station, Birmingham, regarding an incident involving myself, which occurred  on the 23rd September 2019.

I gave a very clear and concise 15-minute timeframe for them to follow.

On the 24th or 25th October 2019 I received a disc from Network Rail with footage that did not correlate with the very precise timeframe which I had carefully provided.

The very specific timestamp was there to expedite this process – it seems to have had the very opposite effect.

Upon receipt of the incorrect data I spoke immediately, via telephone with… the Station Support Assistant.

I explained at great length the mistake that had taken place and asked [they] also make a note of the current conversation. In spite of that conversation, I have heard nothing since from Network Rail.

On 01st November 2019, I sent a letter, via recorded delivery [and] asked for the CCTV information again.

Once again, I have heard nothing at all from Network Rail.

I would be grateful if someone could help me in this matter because something is not quite right here. I feel as though I am being duped and fobbed off”.

“We confirm that we have received your correspondence. We will respond within 14 days”.

“Before we can consider your complaint we need additional information from you”.

“Enclosed, you will find all of the information requested.

As I stated in my initial letter, even though I had personally spoken to [Support Assistant 2] immediately upon receipt of the incorrect data – and, although I sent an additional letter, further explaining the matter, they have gone silent on me.

I thank you for your help in this matter”.

“The further information you have provided along with the original information is now being considered as a complaint under a new case.

This case will be assigned to a new case officer who will respond in due course”.

On the 30^th September 2019 I made a Subject Data Request, asking for CCTV footage from Network Rail, New Street Station, Birmingham, regarding an incident involving myself and extensive damage to my car, on the 23rd September 2019.

I gave a very clear and concise 15-minute timeframe for them to follow.

On the 24th or 25th October 2019 I received a disc from Network Rail with footage that did not correlate with the very precise timeframe which I had carefully provided.

The very specific timestamp was there to expedite this process – it seems to have had the very opposite effect.

Upon receipt of the incorrect data I spoke immediately, via telephone with [Station Support 2].

I explained at great length the mistake that had taken place and asked [Station Support 2] to also make a note the current conversation. In spite of that conversation, I have heard nothing since from Network Rail.

On 01st November 2019, I sent a letter, via recorded delivery asked for the CCTV information again.

Once again, I have heard nothing at all from Network Rail.

I would be grateful if someone could assist me as a matter of urgency because I will be taking this issue to the highest court authorities and media channels available to me within days if no reply is immediately forthcoming.

I think it is absolutely disgraceful how I have been treated.

It is also having an adverse effect on my personal affairs not to mention several breaches that your organisation has and continues to make by not addressing this issue”.

“Complaint about a lack of response from NWR – relates to a Subject Data Request that was submitted on the 30/09/19 – Trying to obtain footage from 23/09/19 – New Street Station.

I just thought I would flag this as the customer will be taking the issue to the highest court authorities and the press if he doesn’t receive a response within the next few days.

I’ve attached the customer’s letter if you want (to) have a look at the complaint”.

“Hi All,

Please see this complaint that has been logged.

This is the only SR I have for this man, so unsure if you have any info on him at the station”.

“Thanks [redacted],

I will ask [Station Support 2] about this in the morning”.

“Hi [Station Support 2],

Have you had a CCTV request for a Barry Chiverton in regards to damage to his vehicle on CCTV? He has written to community relations as [he] has not heard back for a while in regards to the footage. Do you have any update?

I will pop up and talk to you about it on Friday”.

“Hi [redacted],

Yes I have had a request and sent him the footage that we had however there was some dispute about the times he was here. He said he was here at 1800-1830 but [redacted] could not find him on the CCTV but found him much later at around 1900-2030.

We sent all of the footage we had.

To note though he has put a claim in for this and this should now be going through the solicitor”.

Footnote: Interesting use of the word ‘dispute’.

The word ‘dispute’ is another hidden premise. The implication is that I was not there at the time I asserted.

Here is fig.2 again: Which indicates I was standing at the actual ticket machine at 18:02

– This is a fact.

Also as per the Subject Access Request, I also submitted my passport as photo identification. Therefore, there can be zero ambiguity about what I look like.

The car park in question only had a handful of cars during that period of time. The possibility of lots of people milling around therefore making it ‘difficult’ to see me is not a valid premise either.

So there is no valid premise for any ‘dispute’!

The use of term is an explicit, deceitful attempt to mislead the reader of the email.

You cannot see that which you refuse to see.

“With reference to my two previous letters and emails, I note that no attempt has been made to contact me with a resolution to this very serious matter.

In my first letter dated 25 September 2019 I stated:

“I hope we can expedite this matter so that I can repair my car without delay and also keep costs to a minimum”.

That clearly has not happened and if I do not receive any positive correspondence by Friday 31 January 2020, I shall begin court proceedings without further notice”.

“…I note that no attempt has been made to contact me with a resolution to this very serious matter.

It is now approaching 4 months since this incident happened and I have been treated appallingly to say the least. I [had] hoped for a quick and amicable resolution to this matter.

That clearly has not happened…”

“Further to our letter dated 18th November 2019 (below), Network Rail have informed me that you have sent them the attached letter (dated 13th January 2020) in relation to your claim, in which you state that Network Rail has made ‘no attempt’ to ‘contact you with a resolution to this very serious matter’.

Please note that we represent Network Rail, and that our letter (below) represents their position on liability.

As liability has been denied, no offers will be made, and should you wish to contest this then we recommend that you seek independent legal advice (as per our letter) prior to incurring the cost of issuing proceedings at court. 

I recommend that you refrain from contacting Network Rail directly in relation to this matter, as this will only prove counter-productive and hinder the progression of this claim”.

“Firstly, I meant Network Rail has not contacted me ‘directly’ in response to my letters.

I was merely stating a fact.

In view of your clarification, I will therefore not be contacting them directly in the future.

Secondly, I note that you say that liability has been denied.

Is this the first instance of you making me aware of this?

I just want to make sure that I haven’t missed an email or letter since our previous contact.

Finally, considering my only evidence lies in the CCTV footage of the incident, of which I gave you the details, did you indeed retrieve the footage as you said you were going to?

If you did, may I please ask for a copy, for which I am obviously willing to pay.

If you haven’t yet retrieved that footage, may I ask, ‘Why not?’

Kind Regards”.

“Thank you for your email. To clarify, Network Rail will not be contacting you directly as we are instructed to manage the claim on their behalf. 

I can confirm that our denial was set out in our letter dated 18th November 2019, which was sent in an email to you on the same date. You can see this email/letter further down this email chain, but I have re-attached it to this email for your convenience. 

We have received the available CCTV evidence (18.30-20.00) and I had been informed that it had also been disclosed to yourself.

Our letter considers the available evidence, and should it be the case that you have not received the available CCTV evidence, then I would be happy to revert to Network Rail for permission to disclose it”.

“The only problem with the CCTV footage… and I spoke with [Station Support 2], the very day I received it…

is that it does NOT correlate with the times which I gave you.

In my letter dated 25th September 2019 it clearly states:

“Whilst exiting New Street station in my car, on Monday 23rd September 2019 at approximately 18:15 – Outside the North West Corner leading to Navigation Street from the drop and go area…”

That is as clear and concise as anyone can possibly make it…

The CCTV footage given is taken from 18:30 onwards.

I told you many times, I am telling you the truth!

Kind Regards”.

“Thank you for confirming that you are in receipt of the available CCTV footage.

I can confirm that there is no CCTV evidence available prior to 18:30 pm. The evidence disclosed to you is the only CCTV evidence available in the timeframe of the alleged incident. You will note in our letter that we have considered your timescale as being ‘approximately 18.15’ and have referred you to the Station Supervisor’s account of inspecting your vehicle at approximately 20.00 (1.75 hrs after your account) and the CCTV footage demonstrating a vehicle hitting the curb at 19.56.

I appreciate that this may be frustrating for you, but should you wish to issue proceedings and progress this matter further then a court can only case judgement on the evidence available.

As per our letter, we are confident that you have failed to establish your case on the balance of probabilities, and that our defence would be upheld.

In light of the above, and as recommended previously, we urge you to seek independent legal advice should you wish to contest our position/progress this matter further”.

“No,

I contest there is obviously footage of the said incident.

Destroying evidence doesn’t strengthen a case, it weakens it!

I have told the truth 100% consistently throughout.

I am shocked by the way I have been treated and will commence court proceedings without further delay. We will see if a judge sees it the same way.

I have nothing further to add.

Kind Regards”.

“I am gathering together the chronology of correspondence and I seem to be missing some important bits.

Could you please assist me?

You make reference to your position of liability as laid out in the ‘letter’ dated 18th November 2019

Please can you explain to me where that is please?

Was it an email or an actual letter?”

“The letter has been attached to both my email dated 18th November 2019 and to today’s email, both of which are evidenced in the chain of correspondence below.

Would you prefer me to send you a hard copy in the post?”

“I am puzzled… I cannot see anything!

Please write a reply with the first sentence of the said letter copied into your email reply please.

Thank you for your assistance”.

“The letter is attached to this email. I will print off a hard copy and send it to you”.

“Point 1.

With all due respect and courtesy, I am not remotely interested in what may have, or not happened previously.

My car has been damaged, and I have been made out, from day one to be a liar or fantasist – that is not nice.

I asked for the CCTV footage from a very specific time-frame. You did not supply that.

I AM THE ONE who made a Subject Data Request application.

You failed to comply.

I requested, not one – but three bits of CCTV that would have shown the evidence of what happened clearly.

You did not comply.

What your organisation has done is illegal and I can’t wait to get in front of a judge.

Point 2.

A car hit the curb at 19:56 you say.

The Station Supervisor inspected my car at 20:00 so you say.

If it was my car, that hit the curb… and it was NOT – how could I get out the car park, drive down a one-way street through TWO sets of traffic lights and re-enter the station, park up, get a ticket, make my way to the head office to complain… and get back to have my car inspected within 4 minutes?

Point 3.

All of your assumptions are false, and I can prove it.

You have made assertions that never intended to find the truth.

If you wanted the truth you would have got the correct time of the CCTV!

I said I entered the train station at 18:00 hrs and left at approximately 18:15 hrs – and what do you do?

You send me footage from 18:30 hrs to 20:00 hrs – are you having a laugh?

You say you emailed me a letter outlining your position TWO months ago?

I am not even going to comment…

I am not even upset. Really I’m not.

You have completely missed the point. It is so embarrassing what is happening here.

Let’s get in front of a judge.

There is no need to send me a hard copy of a prior email [which] I NEVER previously had delivered!”.

“In the interests of narrowing the issues and progressing this matter efficiently, I will consider each of your points in turn.

1. You will be aware, from the correspondence that has been exchanged previously, that liability has been denied. I can assure you that at no point has anybody called you a ‘liar’ or a ‘fantasist’- please rest assured that a denial of liability is not calling into question your character- it is simply setting out that the presence of a speed bump, in a station, has not created a foreseeable risk of harm and when we say, you are put to proof, as you are the claimant you will have the burden of satisfying the legal basis of your claim should the matter proceed to court.

Although you may have requested CCTV footage from a particular timeframe (unfortunately this request does not appear to have been submitted to us), the CCTV footage disclosed to you is the extent of the footage available. The requested evidence has not been deleted intentionally, nor are we purposefully withholding it. Network Rail would have discussed this with you at the time of providing you with the CCTV, and we have exhausted the position on this front.

For the avoidance of doubt, I cannot agree that there is anything illegal at play and can assure you of this. I would encourage you to take independent legal advice on your claim and the allegations being made, and would be grateful if you could refrain from making such statements going forward.

2. There is a clear factual despite between your account of the time you say the incident happened and the time our Station supervisor says it happened- regardless of this, our position is that the presence of the speed bump is to ensure drivers take due care and attention when navigating around the station- give how busy the station is. The presence of a speed bump does not, in itself, create a foreseeable risk of harm (quite the opposite, it intends to quell the risk of any harm.) So regardless of the factual matrix/timings- we say that the speed bump is not hazardous in any event.
3. Further to the above, we deny that our assumptions are false and that we have not ‘attempted to find the truth’- whilst we have attempted to submit the factual matrix to your (which you agree with), this does not mean that our assumptions are false- they are simply not accepted by you.

Our letter outlining our position was sent to you by email on 18th November 2019 at 09:45. We have no further comments to make in this regard, but can confirm that a hard copy has been sent to your address to prevent any further confusion.

Should you wish to issue proceedings (as you have indicated), then we strongly urge you to seek independent legal advice before incurring further legal costs”.

“Firstly may I ask you to stop referring to an email sent on 18/11/2019 please.

That email does not show up in the email thread (screenshot attached), and furthermore, such an important piece of correspondence should have been sent my mail.

You correctly point out in a prior email: “as you are the claimant you will have the burden of satisfying the legal basis of your claim should the matter proceed to court”. 

Yes, I absolutely agree. Although two things would have done this instantly:

1) A vehicle inspection of my car would have/could still show an engineer in less than 30 seconds what had happened. You have declined to do this.

From my email dated: Mon 07/10/2019 16:33

‘Therefore, I welcome any inspection of my vehicle from yourselves or your agents – as ultimately this is probably where we will end up’.

2) The footage from the CCTV. You have failed as an insurer to provide this or to ensure your client Network Rail provided said footage.

From my email dated: Thu 10/10/2019 15:47

‘I pray there is some form of CCTV footage – but if there isn’t it doesn’t matter because the truth will eventually come to light’.

In your email from earlier today you state:

“Although you may have requested CCTV footage from a particular timeframe (unfortunately this request does not appear to have been submitted to us), the CCTV footage disclosed to you is the extent of the footage available.

The requested evidence has not been deleted intentionally, nor are we purposefully withholding it. Network Rail would have discussed this with you at the time of providing you with the CCTV, and we have exhausted the position on this front.”

I spoke to [Station Supervisor 2] at Network Rail upon receiving the incorrect footage and gave [Station Supervisor 2]… an opportunity to rectify the matter…

I expressed the urgency around the matter and still they failed to do anything to this day!

If you were doing your job properly you would have ensured that the correct footage was processed – but you didn’t.

You may have won the battle with a few legal technicalities, but herein lies your problem:

I did not just casually ‘ask’ for the CCTV footage – I made an official Subject Access Request!

Made under the Data Protection Act 1998. This was processed by Network Rail on 30/09/19

I have enclosed the said request for three, yes, three bits of data – just so that you can see what I am eluding to.

None of that data was supplied… None of it.

Now, I am sure you are aware of the significance of failing to comply with a Subject Access Request.

If you are not aware of the significance and the penalties – I suggest you speak to a senior colleague or Google it.

I am just giving you a little insight…

What is about to happen – cannot get swept under the carpet.

And to quote from my own very limited bit of legal jargon:

“Ignorance is no defence”.

Now, here’s a question?

Am I still just a litigant in person?

We’ll see what the ICO has to say about the matter.

Kind Regards”.

“Good morning [redacted],

…the attached correspondence regarding a request for CCTV.

Our external claim handlers who are currently handling a claim have asked me to make you aware of this as it appears the claimant may escalate this matter to the ICO”.

“Although you may have requested CCTV footage from a particular timeframe, the CCTV footage disclosed to you is the extent of the footage available. The requested evidence has not been deleted intentionally, nor are we purposefully withholding it.

The CCTV provided is the only footage that we held of you in and around the station on that date and following your conversation with the station supervisor at the time”.

Footnote: This is the first correspondence from [Station Support 2], since our telephone call of 23 October 2019 – All this despite writing two letters requesting the correct Subject Access Data.

Network Rail has a legal and binding obligation to supply this my data to me as, and when  requested  –  to clearly stonewall me in this manner, and then only re-surface to communicate this falsehood and mislead an investigation is illegal and morally bankrupt.

Also notice the direct correlation between my mention of the ICO involvement in an email to [Law Firm 1], 17 January 2020 @ 15:08 – and then this very loud dog-whistle to derail any possible ICO investigation!

The absurdity of the denial of CCTV footage from [Station Support 2] beggars belief.

Imagine all of the great technology used within New Street Station, known and unknown…

Imagine all of the backup technology just in case of electrical outages and other unforeseen eventualities…

Add to this the fact Network Rail had three separate camera locations to choose from…

Plus a specific 15-minute window within which to find a Black Man in a Big Blue car…

And yet still, [Station Support 2] had the temerity and audacity to commit that CCTV denial to paper.

These actions were now becoming increasingly pernicious.

“I appreciate the case officers must be indeed very busy with different cases – and no doubt every case has a most valid set of circumstances behind it.

I am writing to give you a new letter which I received a few moments ago… from Network Rail regarding the data which I requested.

This is the first letter, since receiving the wrong data I requested from them, and the letter was only prompted because I spoke to their insurers and notified them that they had indeed broken the law and I was going to contact the ICO so the truth can come to light and I can get some justice.

What they say in the letter makes light of the fact that:

1. I requested THREE different bits of data. They provided me with none of the requested data.
2. When they sent me the original data on disc, there was no explanation or reference to the fact that they had not sent any of the data requested. They assumed they had sent the correct data.
3. When I spoke to [Station Support 2] for whatever length of time is was, (I am going to try and get the phone log of that call), at no point did [Station Support 2] elude that they didn’t have my data. [Station Support 2] only said they thought they had sent the correct data.

So to say none of that data is – or was never available is incredulous!

Moreover, I would like to dig deeper into this deception because, Network Rail have technically implied that an act of terror could have taken place at New Street Station, and the THREE cameras in three different areas, in a main part of the 2nd or 3rd biggest train station in the United Kingdom would not have caught the people carrying out the act.

I am sure that the public, media, government, and security services would like to know more about this apparent critical lapse in security.

Sometimes when people try to cover-up they merely end up digging ditches.

I am only looking for justice and I’m getting the feeling that legal technicalities or people perverting the course of justice – intentionally, or unintentionally, will prevent me from doing so.

I thank you for your help in this matter.

Kind Regards”.

“Thank you for your letter dated 20th January 2020 from [Station Support 2] outlining the absence of CCTV footage in regard to my accident on 23rd September 2019.

I would like to request two things please:

1) A copy of your accident/incident reporting procedures

And

2) A copy of the accident/incident log as pertaining to the matters involving me on the 23rd September 2019.

I appreciate your continued help in this matter”.

“Dear [Data Protection Officer FM],

See attached letter received late yesterday from Mr. Chiverton.

Just a couple of questions.

– Can I supply him with the accident/incident reporting procedure?

– He has also asked for the log detailing the information involving him – there is no accident/incident form for these types of incidents. We only fill out a level one investigation form if there is no injury involved. There is a mention in the log and an email from the SSM to me directly?”

Footnote: Observe this almost imperceptible hidden premise…

Transpose the word ‘can’ for ‘do I have to?’ in the following sentence:

– Can I supply him with the accident/incident reporting procedure?

Also use this inference in the question referring to the logs.

You see, the technical, rolling daily logs would not show a critical outage of the CCTV on 23 September 2019. And, if there was no outage reported, then one would deduce, the cameras were all operational.

Therefore, if all cameras were operating properly, then the question would again arise:

Why wasn’t the Subject Access Request processed with the requested times and locations?

“I will endeavour to respond to you as soon as possible and in any event by 26 February 2020”.

“You requested the following information:

2) A copy of the accident/incident log as pertaining to the matters involving me on the 23rd September 2019.

(shift manager’s log extract)…

20:00 (hrs) – Male claims to have gone over the speed bump at the end of the drop and go which caused his bumper to rip off – [Station Support 1] given him details for [Station Support 2] to request CCTV and also advised him to go through customer relations.

(email 23 September 2019 @20:50 from [Station Support 1] to [Station Support 2])

“A Barry Chiverton came into reception and stated that his car had been damaged while exiting the drop [and go] outside the NWC. He will email you regarding CCTV/claim or direction to customer relations.

I inspected the vehicle and the area of the damage NWC. I identified a small area on the right-hand kerb stone that had a recent scratch (Dry area on the wet curb. Raining at the time) and the vehicle had a scratch on the front right alloy wheel and marks on the right bumper 12-18 inches from floor level.

After viewing the area and the damage to the vehicle I would say the vehicle went wide on the exit corner and hit the curb and the metal pedestrian barrier.

Mr. Chiverton was at a loss as to what caused the damage other than the speed bump.

*Please Note: Also included in the documentation was a detailed data log which does not show a critical failure of CCTV equipment at New Street Station on 23 September 2019.

Footnote: This account of me hitting the curb is unequivocally factually incorrect.

This is a subjective statement formulated from bias.

Recount the testimony “… and the vehicle had a scratch on the front right alloy wheel…”

Yes, “…a scratch”!

Impacts which leave “…a scratch” on a pristine AMG wheel do not cause thousands of pounds of secondary damage.

Also as I originally asserted:

“Having ended the call, I showed [Station Support 1] the speedbump in question and also highlighted the fact there was no discernible damage to the metal railings”.

“I hope you find this information useful…”

Enclosed Network Rail’s ‘Reporting & Investigation Manual’.

“Thank you for your letter dated 31st January 2020… in regard to my accident on 23rd September 2019 at New Street Station Birmingham.

I would like to request three things please:

1) A copy of all of the correspondence between Network Rail and it’s Insurers as pertaining to the matters involving me on the 23rd September 2019.

2) A copy of all of the correspondence between Network Rail and it’s Customer Services/Customer Relations Department as pertaining to the matters involving me on the 23rd September 2019.

3) Any other communication involving me – the data subject (by, name, date of birth or address), as pertaining directly or indirectly to the matters previously outlined dated 23rd September 2019.

I appreciate your continued help in this matter”.

“We will put most of our effort into dealing with matters we think give us the best opportunity to make a significant difference to an organisation’s information rights practices.

I note that in their 20 January 2020 letter Network Rail say they do not hold CCTV footage of your vehicle for the time period you stipulated. In these circumstances I regret we are unable to take the matter further, as we have to accept what the organisation says”.

Footnote: ICO investigation successfully derailed. Just like that!

“Please allow me to ask a couple of questions because something isn’t sitting right with me here.

Who’s role is it to ensure Organisations process the publics’ data fairly?

The reason why I start with that question is because in your letter you make reference to the fact the ICO has to accept what an organisation says.

The letter from Network Rail: 20th January 2020 (enc), offers an explanation of sorts to the absence of the data.

The initial letter from Network Rail: 23rd October 2019 (enc), says:

“Your request has now been processed…”

There is no caveat, no explanation as to an absence of data. Why would that be?

After receiving the initial data I spoke to [Station Support 2] on 24th October 2019 @12:16 and requested the correct data be sent out – at no time in the conversation did [Station Support 2]  elude to the fact that they did not have the correct data.

Why would that be?

Also, I asked for three different points of data – they only ever sent one incorrect data point.

As I pointed out in my previous letter, it is inconceivable that the 2nd or 3rd largest train station in the U.K. had a critical CCTV failure for that period of time.

It is also worth noting the New Street station logs do not show a critical CCTV failure at these three locations simultaneously.

Therefore it must be concluded the data was recorded, Network Rail just didn’t process my data fairly or in accordance with my very clear Subject Data Request.

I had very deep suspicions from the outset I was being discriminated against, hence the reason I submitted the Subject Access Request.

When my concerns about being not being treated objectively seemed to be becoming a reality, I contacted the ICO on 23rd November 2019 – I knew in my gut what was happening!

It took Network Rail two clear months from that date to confirm my suspicions of them not taking my request seriously and/or processing my data fairly.

My second and final question(s) is this:

What is the real point of submitting a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1988 if an Organisation can merely respond by saying that they do not have any data?

If every request is given a “we don’t have that data”, where is the recourse for the individual?

…thank you very much for taking time out to read this”.

“Attached is an internal Network Rail email thread regarding my incident.

The highlighted message does not purport to say there is an absence of CCTV as indicated in the letter dated 20th January 2020.

It says they could not find me (why not?), on the CCTV at the time I requested but found me ‘much later at around 1900-2030’.

Note the use of singular CCTV – not multiple or plural as I had requested.

If a request were made for 18:00-18:15 on three separate cameras, why would an operative, (probably the same individual who I reported the incident to on the night), search so far past the requested timestamp unless they were specifically looking for that time?

The email also eludes to the fact that:

‘there was some dispute about the times he (Mr. Chiverton), was here.

There is no dispute. They are saying they don’t believe me!

I have the actual ticket from the car park machine that shows clearly what time I arrived and what time I was due to leave – that’s why I was able to be so fastidious about my timings.

The Network Rail letter from [Station Support 2] of the 20th January 2020 was intentionally worded ambiguously so as to make believe there was no footage – that clearly is not the case.

In fact, in the conversation I had with [Station Support 2] on 24th October 2019 @12:16 [Station Support 2] said something along the lines of:

‘I thought that was the time you were here’, (not verbatim).

I replied:

‘I am not asking anybody to think, I just want you to process the data I asked for.’ (That was verbatim).

As I said before, Network Rail did not process my Subject Access Request in accordance will the law and along the way have tried to mislead with false information so as to deny me justice.

All they had to do was send the CCTV footage x3 with a timestamp of 18:00-18:15.

If Network Rail had processed my data request properly that would have happened, and this matter would have been resolved instantly.

Kind Regards”.

Footnote: This data which included additional emails has already been added to the timeline for correct chronology.

“Thank you for your letter dated 26th March 2020 from [Data Protection Officer CS] in regard to my accident on 23rd September 2019 at New Street Station Birmingham.

Could I first address two outstanding matters please.

In my letter dated 27th February 2020 amongst my requests were:

1) A copy of your accident/incident reporting procedures.

In regard to the above I was sent some generic policies which do not exactly pertain to my issue. I would therefore like to specifically request an accident/incident reporting policy relating to motor vehicles either causing damage to network rail property/fixtures and/or motor vehicles directly involved in an accident on Network Rail property.

2) A copy of all of the correspondence between Network Rail and it’s Customer Services Department as pertaining to the matters involving me on the 23rd September 2019.

I have attached and highlighted an email thread which mentions my communication with Community Relations. Could you please send me all communication involving Community Relations and me – the data subject (by, name, date of birth or address), as pertaining directly or indirectly to the matters previously outlined dated 23rd September 2019.

Also, finally,

Can you confirm by way of data logs there was no data recorded from CCTV between 18:00 and 18:30 on the 23rd September 2019 in these three public areas:

1) Entering the drop and go via Hill Street.

2) Parking in the upper car park above the drop and go.

3) Exiting the drop and go via the North West corner leading to Navigation Street.

From this data I can then extrapolate the exact times recorded data from the CCTV in these three areas stopped and then restarted recording again.

Thank you so very much for your continued time and patience”.

“It has been more than two months since my last correspondence to yourselves.

I am disappointed I have not had a reply or even an acknowledgment of that communication.

I have enclosed the said letter and I await your timely response”.

“Sorry for the delay in responding to you. Your letter was received by Network Rail on 30 April 2020. Unfortunately due to the COVID pandemic and government guidelines we are currently working from home and we only received your letter yesterday.

I can confirm that question 1 of your request is being processed under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA / Environmental Information Regulations (EIR).

Question 2 of your request and the enquiry about the CCTV will be dealt with by the data protection team and our teams will respond to you directly”.

“I have processed your request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

As I explained in my acknowledgement letter, I am responding to question 1) under the FOIA, and your second question is being separately considered by our data protection team.

I have made further enquiries and can advise that we do not hold the information you have asked for. The document supplied… is the only reporting and investigating manual we use.

To assist, I can give you some further explanation about this. I have spoken to a member of staff at the station and [they] have confirmed that they follow the guidance in the policy that we previously sent to you. If they encounter property damage at the station , the station only deals with claims up to a maximum of £200 locally; everything above this follows the Network Rail claims procedure and is handled by our solicitors directly.

If an accident is reported to our staff at the time, we will endeavour to get as much information as possible to aid with any potential claim that may arise, for example, ensuring the CCTV footage is downloaded and saved on our system before the footage is automatically overwritten after thirty days.

Footnote: I indeed reported an accident. It is evident very little information was taken at the time of me reporting the accident.

And more importantly, the CCTV footage was not downloaded and saved on Network Rail’s system as outlined per procedure.

Why is that?

“Your request has now been processed. From the information you provided to us we have conducted a reasonable and proportionate search and are now in a position to release the personal information you are entitled to…

Part one of your request involving all communication involving Community Relations and you is a repeat request from 28/02/2020. Your request specifically seeks an email thread with Community Relations, and I enclose this email along with this response.

Part two of your request seeks ‘data logs’ which are not held by Network rail. I can confirm the station staff stated you could not be found on any CCTV footage until later that evening, approx. 20:00.

This was confirmed to you in conversations with station staff and reiterated by our claims handlers [Law Firm 1].

To clarify, CCTV is recorded at our managed stations 24/7 to ensure the safety and security of the railway. The footage provided to you on X date were the only images of you found from approximately 6 p.m. onwards and this is the only footage held of you exiting the car park.

Every possible camera angle is explored for each request and in this case it involved collating images from two of the cameras cited in your request. These are parking in the upper car park above the drop and go (2) and exiting the drop and go via the North West corner leading to Navigation Street (3). Note this camera faces outside the carpark.

These images were retained as part of your original request for footage (subsequently withdrawn on 25 September 2019 after the request had been processed) and your claim”.

“With regard to Network Rail accident/incident reporting procedures it was stated in your response:

‘…we will endeavour to get as much information as possible to aid with any potential claim that may arise..’

May I ask:

1. What documented evidence was taken at the time of the incident being reported?

Also can I have a copy of that documentation please?

iii. What is the accident handling procedure of the Network Rail Solicitors and/or insurers?

 As a result of them working directly on your behalf of Network Rail, you are no doubt aware of the broad process which they employ for dealing with claims.

2019. Could you please send me a copy of all correspondence between Network Rail and it’s Solicitors and/or Insurers involving me – the data subject (by, name, date of birth or address), as pertaining directly or indirectly to the matters previously outlined dated 23rd September 2019.

This information must include any Network Rail departments or offices.

Also in my previous letter I requested:

Can you confirm by way of data logs there was no data recorded from CCTV between 18:00 and 18:30 on the 23rd September 2019 in these three public areas:

1) Entering the drop and go via Hill Street.

2) Parking in the upper car park above the drop and go.

3) Exiting the drop and go via the North West corner leading to Navigation Street.

From this data I can then extrapolate the exact times recorded data from the CCTV in these three areas stopped and then restarted recording again.

The response sent to me stated…

1. The ‘data logs’ are not held with Network Rail.

With whom are they held and how can I get a copy of them please?

1. ‘… the station staff stated you could not be found on any CCTV footage until later that evening, approx. 20:00’.

The whole of my dispute is based upon the fact there is no conceivable, logical reason why I would not have been seen on all three cameras if my data had been processed properly.

I entered New Street train station in a big blue car and for thirty minutes I was not picked up on any camera? Why would that be? Thirty minutes. New Street Station.

To say that I ‘could not be found on any CCTV footage’ is a very bold statement, and one which needs to be disproved or clarified, so we can get to the truth.

iii. The highlighted section of your response which explains how the CCTV is managed at your stations 24/7 is fantastic and reassuring news.

You also state: ‘Every possible camera angle is explored for each request…’

But miraculously there is no footage of me outside or inside my vehicle on any of the three cameras at the three different times which I requested on my original subject access request.

Why do you think that is? Seriously ask yourself that question.

How could it be that I was not seen on any of those three cameras at the times I requested?

This is why I need to have evidence to support whether there was a failure in part, or in whole of the CCTV cameras on that day at that specific time.

Once again thank you so very much for your continued time and patience”.

“Sorry for the delay in responding to you. Your correspondence was received by Network Rail on 7 September 2020. Due to the COVID pandemic and government guidelines we are currently working from home and we have experienced a delay in receiving your letter.

Your request for information contains both a request for your own personal data and information which falls outside your own personal data.

Therefore, we will process your request so far as it relates to your own personal data under the relevant data protection legislation…

I will endeavour to respond to this part of your request to you as soon as possible and in any event by 5 October 2020.

“I am writing to you in relation to the information you have requested that falls outside your own personal data, namely:

‘What is the accident handling procedure of the Network rail solicitors and/or insurers?’

I have processed this part of your request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and I can confirm that we do not hold any information that directly meets this request. This is because neither we nor our solicitors/insurers hold a record outlining a single, overarching accident handling procedure.

Instead, accident claims are handled differently depending on the origin of the claim, the size of the claim and the nature of the accident”.

Footnote: ”… depending on the origin of the claim, the size of the claim and the nature of the accident.” This is in essence open to discrimination because it is subjective.

The term ‘origin’ and ‘nature’ is, in my view inclusive of the subjective individual – as most claims emanate from individuals. So this is not an objective accident handling procedure – and is therefore, in my humble opinion, flawed.

“I am writing in response to your letter received on 07 September 2020.

Part three asks for confirmation of whom ‘data logs’ are held and if a copy can be provided. This request is similar to your previous requests which I have responded to. I hope it is helpful for me to provide some further background.

As mentioned previously, CCTV at our managed stations is recorded 24/7 on an approx. 30-day cycle which is then overwritten. No backup images are retained unless an incident or accident was reported to staff and these are retained for investigation purposes. My previous response should have clarified that no ‘data logs’ are held unless they relate to footage needed for an investigation.

I can confirm the station staff stated you could not be found on any CCTV footage until later that evening, approx. 20:00 and this is the footage which was retained and provided to you.

This was confirmed to you in conversations with station staff and reiterated by our claims handlers [Law Firm 1]”.

“Thank you for your most recent replies to my correspondence.

I am very focussed on getting the correct answers to my specific questions so please bear with me.

In answer to my previous first question:

1. What documented evidence was taken at the time of the incident being reported?

Also can I have a copy of that documentation please?

I requested documented evidence taken at the time of reporting, such as a notebook entry or actual victim statement to support this previous statement which was made:

‘…we will endeavour to get as much information as possible to aid with any potential claim that may arise..’

2. Could you please send me a copy of all correspondence between Network Rail and it’s Solicitors and/or Insurers involving me – the data subject (by, name, date of birth or address), as pertaining directly or indirectly to the matters previously outlined dated 23^rd September 2019.

This information must include any Network Rail departments or offices.

It has been suggested this request was met under correspondence number DPMK1920_030.

This is not the case. The relevant data was absent. No such data has ever been sent to me.

I am requesting all correspondence between Network Rail and their Solicitors/Insurers pertaining to me. This information has not been sent, hence the reason for asking for it.

This is a particularly important point and one which is clear in its objective.

The third and final point seems to be another sticking point for some reason.

It is a straight-forward question, and I don’t understand why I am being stonewalled so rigorously.

There has been an accident involving myself on Network Rail premises in which I sustained damage to my vehicle.

I not only reported that accident in the proper manner, but I also thankfully, took the unusual step of submitting a Subject Access Request form in order to safeguard myself.

Upon receipt of the incorrect Subject Access Request data, I immediately telephoned the station manager and was told there was a mistake in processing that data, and that it would be rectified.

After two months of chasing up for a reply, the said manager responded in January 2020 via letter saying:

“Although you may have requested CCTV footage from a particular timeframe, the CCTV footage disclosed to you is the extent of the footage available. The requested evidence has not been deleted intentionally, nor are we purposefully withholding it. The CCTV provided is the only footage that we held of you in and around the station on that date and following your conversation with the station supervisor at the time.”

By way of setting aside any ambiguity in the above statement, I am merely trying to clarify the statement.

Is the statement saying:

1. a) The cameras in three separate areas, at three separate times did not see me in my car?

or

1. b) All three sets of cameras, at three separate times stopped working when I entered New Street train station at 18:00 hrs?

This is a straight-forward question.

Were any of these CCTV cameras working at this specific time or not?

I think you would agree I have a right to ask because it will largely determine what happens next.

So, to reiterate my previous question:

Can you confirm by way of data logs there was no data recorded from CCTV between 18:00 and 18:30 on the 23^rd September 2019 in these three public areas:

1) Entering the drop and go via Hill Street.

2) Parking in the upper car park above the drop and go.

3) Exiting the drop and go via the North West corner leading to Navigation Street.

From this data I can then extrapolate the exact times recorded data from the CCTV in these three areas stopped and then restarted recording again.

In the enclosed letter […] it is stated:

“No backup images are retained unless an incident or accident was reported to staff…”

Well, I did report an accident, and for some reason, from day one nobody has engaged me in a proper dialogue or shown any duty of care whatsoever.

The letter also states:

“I can confirm the station staff stated you could not be found on any CCTV footage until later that evening…”

So, at the risk of repeating myself, but, for the purpose of absolute clarity…

1. Does this mean there was no recorded CCTV footage at that time?

or

1. Does it mean there was CCTV footage, but I could not be found on it?

In anticipation of a possible “the CCTV cameras where not working at that specific time” scenario – I am asking about operational CCTV ‘data logs’.

This is not my field of expertise, so you may call them by another name.

Regardless, I am merely asking for any CCTV records which clearly show if, when and which CCTV cameras stopped working as per my perfectly legal, Subject Access Data request.

Hence the reason for previously asking:

With whom are they held and how can I get a copy of them please?

Once again thank you so very much for your continued time and patience”.

“I am writing in response to your most recent letter dated 10 October 2020.

As data protection officer my role surrounds your request to access your personal information, and as such my response will focus on whether we have fulfilled your original request.

I shall take each of your points in turn, all of which has been requested and provided in our previous responses to you.

– 1. What documented evidence was taken at the time of the incident being reported?

We have provided you with copies of what documented evidence we hold for this incident… and confirm no handwritten notes exist.

– 2. Could you please send me a copy of all correspondence between Network Rail and it’s Solicitors and/or Insurers involving me.

This request has been met… and the response confirmed that you have received the information you are entitled to. This equates to information which is not subject to an exemption and in this case some information was withheld due to the following exemptions applying:

– Legal advice and proceedings / Legal professional privilege

– Third party personal information

– 3. Were any of these CCTV cameras working at the time or not?

The CCTV was recording at the time in question.

– 4. So, at the risk of repeating myself, but for the purpose of absolute clarity…

1. Does this mean there was no recorded CCTV footage at the time?

Or

1. Does it mean there was CCTV footage, but I could not be found on it?

Of the footage from that date, there were no images found of you from the time your requested (18:00). The images of you can be found at approx. 20:00 and this footage has been provided to you by the station.

– 5. I am merely asking for any CCTV records which clearly show if, when and which CCTV cameras stopped working.

– 6. With whom are they held and how can I get a copy of them please?

As stated previously the cameras were in operation. To help provide some background, whilst cameras are in working order, there is no such ‘data log’ which confirms this, rather there may be a record of maintenance or malfunction required for a camera.

Questions 5 and 6 relate to ‘CCTV data logs’ or ‘records’ the cameras were operational and is not something specifically relating to you personally. As such this would be normally handled as a Freedom of Information request.

This now concludes our data protection obligations but if you remain dissatisfied with our responses you can contact the Information Commissioner.

Footnote: There we have it.

Unequivocal confirmation – the CCTV cameras were recording all along!

So, the question remains:

Why was my Subject Access Request not processed in accordance with the law?

Also: Why did [Station Supervisor 2], write a letter dated 20 January 2020, which clearly and intentionally declared there was no footage of me at New Street Station between 18:00 – 18:30?

“Thank you for your most recent reply… to my letter dated 10 October 2020.

Your insurers had previously ‘dared’ me to take legal action and as far back as  November of 2019.

Not long after that I stated my intention to approach the media to highlight the injustice against me. I never understood the ‘why’ in regard to the way I was being treated. I do now!

I have been the victim of a discrimination motivated situation, and Network Rail have made no attempt to investigate in any reasonable manner. As a result of this negligence Network Rail have also breached Health and Safety Regulations by failing to ensure the safety of other members of the public (I will explain in detail to my solicitor).

My data was not processed correctly, and Network Rail, by virtue of not having proper accident reporting policies, (in fact they are an incubation for discrimination), have allowed employees to lie and attempt to gaslight me.

I can categorically prove I was in the train station at the exact times I entered on my Subject Access Request and I still find it incredible the way I have been treated in these ‘so called’ modern times.

It is wholly unacceptable. It is illegal. It will not go unchallenged. Justice will be served.

… in order to expedite this matter, my email address is:

[redacted]

Could you please email me the email address of the person I need to communicate with in regard to the upcoming legal process please.

I shall wait for a short, but reasonable period of time to receive this email then I shall report the matter directly to West Midlands Police and immediately begin court proceedings with my solicitors as well as reporting my experiences to the media and various relevant organisations.

Thank you for your assistance.

Kind Regards”.

“I would like to draw your intention to some new information which confirms which I asserted all along with regard to the above Case Ref….

I have enclosed some correspondence for expediency.

The main purport of which is a letter from Network Rail Data Protection Team whereby, after many months of gaslighting me, finally admit to the fact that the CCTV cameras were in working order. This is what I asserted in my earlier letters dating back to 23 November 2019.

And runs contrary to the Network Rail letter of 20 January 2020 which effectively derailed this ICO investigation.

It can now clearly be seen that I, and the ICO have been purposely misled.

I trust an investigation into these serious matters can now resume.

If any more information or copies of previous letters are required, I will be more than happy to oblige.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards”.

Before I depart let us venture down the final route.

Let’s imagine, as hard as it may be, that Network Rail and the vastness of their legal team manage to concoct and conspire to find some legal gymnastics, loopholes and exceptions which invalidate all of the evidence I have just presented.

In such a scenario, please allow me to remind you of this email once again:

07 October 2019 @ 16:33

My email sent to [Paralegal 1] at [Law Firm 1], including this text:

“… I welcome any inspection of my vehicle from yourselves or your agents – as ultimately this is probably where we will end up.

I am the victim here and will do everything within reason to help you in your investigations.”

Also this email:

17 January 2020 @ 15:08

My email sent to [Paralegal 1] at [Law Firm 1], including this text:

“A vehicle inspection of my car would have/could still show an engineer in less than 30 seconds what had happened. You have declined to do this.”

Well, for nearly two years I have had had to endure the torment, embarrassment and constant reminder of the deplorable way Network Rail have treated me. I knew I had to preserve the one piece of evidence that could not be destroyed, misinterpreted, or denied – my car.

In spite of all the wrongs that have been done unto me, I still offer Network Rail the chance to inspect my vehicle. I do this because I speak the truth and I need justice to be seen to be done.

It is highly improbable for Network Rail to casually write a five-figure cheque for the repair of a vehicle on the say-so of some unknown 3^rd party.

I daresay even an inspection from Sir Lewis Hamilton himself and the rest of the esteemed Mercedes-Benz group would not suffice.

Albeit Network Rail, New Street may have in all likelihood, destroyed the previous speedbump, it is safe to assume that the technical specifications are still available as well as all of the contact details of the manufacturer of the speedbump.

We can therefore, then proceed to recreate that said speedbump and environment in order to see if the offending section of the speedbump fits like a jigsaw into the exact damage sustained beneath my car.

Alternatively, to prove that a 30 second visual inspection is not even technically required… the very same pictures of the damage to my car which I sent to [Law Firm 1], and received the following reply:

09 October 2019 @ 16:17

Received email from [Paralegal 1] at [Law Firm 1], including this text:

“… in consideration of the photographic evidence of the damage sustained to your vehicle (which does not appear attributable to speedbump damage at first glance)…”

I can send the exact images to Sir. Lewis Hamilton for him to have a look at.

Those images along with my explanation will surely make interesting viewing and reading.

Yes, the more I think about it, I am sure Sir. Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes-Benz would have an awful lot to say about this incident from a brand and personal perspective.

I believe in the principle of 6 degrees of separation so I don’t think it will be too difficult to get an image of my Mercedes to Sir. Lewis Hamilton to take a look at.

At least no more difficult than the fastidiousness and patience I have had to endure to expose this discrimination against me thus far.

I am tired of this now – I just want justice as a human being.

Is that too much to ask?

As I said in my opening comments:

The wonderful thing about truth is that it is infinitely divisible by itself. In fact, far from becoming weaker – truth is in fact anti-fragile.

In conclusion…

I refer back to this email:

11 October 2019 @ 05:56

My email sent to [Paralegal 1] at [Law Firm 1], including this text:

“…In 1995 at the age of 28 – I experienced a major life-changing experience.

As a result of that experience one of the many virtues or principles I vowed to live my life by was one of ‘integrity’.

I also chose to adopt the principle, as it was first written by the ancient Greeks:

nosce te ipsum – meaning ‘know thyself’.

And as William Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet:

“To thine own self be true…

And it must follow, as night follows day, then thou canst not be false to any man.”

These are two of the guiding principles I have held steadfast to for nearly 25 years!

And believe me [redacted], it hasn’t always been easy lol!

No one, nowhere, can with validity hold anything against me that can taint my actions, character, or ethics.

And I mean nothing…

I know myself and I walk through life on the straight and very narrow path of integrity. I also try to associate closely with other people of high levels of integrity.

Whatever happens regarding this matter, is going to happen and I am detached from the outcome.

Don’t misunderstand me here, justice will be served, but I am nonetheless detached from the outcome because I already know and have spoken the whole truth without deviation.

All the best [Paralegal 1]”.