Written by In my previous article (How Burnetts and BPS Weaponised GDPR to Obstruct Justice: A Shocking Case Study), I detailed how Balliol Property Services (BPS) and Burnetts Solicitors LLP misused GDPR procedures to obstruct justice. Many readers have reached out, curious about the underlying reasons for such conduct. To provide a complete picture, I am sharing the full chronology of events that led to this prolonged legal battle. This account focuses on the actions of BPS and Burnetts, aiming to highlight systemic issues without attributing personal blame to individuals. It is intended to inform and encourage transparency while adhering to legal and ethical guidelines.
April, 2022: Will Drafted by Burnetts Solicitors
In April 2022, Burnetts Solicitors assisted me in drafting and storing my Will thus creating a fiduciary duty to me. In this document, I listed Flashback Toys Ltd as a significant asset for my children. This professional relationship with Burnetts later raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest when they represented BPS in the disputes involving my business.
July, 2023: Communication Breakdown Begins
As the director of the now failed Flashback Toys Ltd, I initiated correspondence with BPS, the property management company acting on behalf of Europark Properties—the landlord of Unit 33, Lillyhall Business Centre. I raised concerns about disputed rent arrears, the unreturned deposit, responsibilities for electrical safety certificates, and compliance with the Equality Act. Despite the importance of these issues, BPS remained unresponsive, setting a troubling precedent for future interactions.
Mid-August 2023: Misrepresentation of Arrears
Burnetts Solicitors, representing BPS, sent a letter of notice alleging rent arrears. However, the amount cited did not account for an unreturned deposit and a rent payment that had been incorrectly allocated. I promptly responded via email and regular mail, clarifying these discrepancies. Unfortunately, Burnetts did not reply, leaving these critical issues unresolved. This lack of communication contributed to confusion about the status of the lease and the alleged arrears.
August–October 2023: Mixed Signals on Lease Status
During this period, BPS accepted rent payments and service charge payments from me, implying that the lease was still active. This action contradicted their later claims of forfeiture and suggested inconsistencies that could potentially establish an estoppel, preventing them from denying the lease’s validity.
October 3, 2023: Conflicting Actions on Rent Payments
I proactively attempted to pay the November 2023 rent on October 3rd. Unbeknownst to me, BPS returned this payment on October 6th without providing notice or explanation at that time. This action was contrary to our ongoing business interactions and added to my confusion regarding the lease status.
October 17, 2023: Unlawful Lockout and Surveillance Issues
Without any prior notice, I was unexpectedly locked out of the property on October 17th. This came as a shock, as I believed it was business as usual due to the lack of communication regarding the returned rent payment. A bailiff present indicated that the lockout might have been unlawful based on his action prior to breaking the lock. Additionally, interference with the property’s CCTV system was discovered, raising serious security and legal concerns.
October 25, 2023: Coercive Lease Negotiations
Burnetts acting for BPS proposed new lease terms amid the ongoing dispute, which felt like an attempt to pressure me into accepting unfavourable conditions under duress.
October 30, 2023: Acceptance of Rent Post-Lockout
Contradicting their earlier stance, Burnetts acting for BPS accepted rent payments after locking me out. This invalidated their forfeiture position and added to the legal contradictions, as it suggested the lease was still considered active.
November 2, 2023: Continued Lease Enforcement Actions
Despite claiming forfeiture, Europark Properties continued to issue lease-related notices. These actions were inconsistent with their stated position and raised questions about their true intentions regarding the lease.
November 8–16, 2023: The Toll on Mental Health
The ongoing dispute took a severe toll on my mental health. Medical assessments indicated increased stress, requiring additional support and medication. This personal impact underscored the human cost of the unresolved issues.
November 9, 2023: A Plea for Resolution
Under significant stress, I reached out to Burnetts acting for BPS seeking a resolution (as they prevented access to my stock during the unlawful lockout). The response lacked engagement with the substantive issues, highlighting a disconnect that prolonged the dispute.
November 13, 2023: Restrictive Access Conditions
Burnetts acting for BPS limited my access to the property to retrieve personal belongings (despite them collecting rent payment for that month on October 30), imposing strict time constraints. This raised concerns about fairness and my rights as a tenant to access my property.
November 14–23, 2023: Stalled Communications
Attempts to resolve the issues through further correspondence were met with limited engagement from BPS, prolonging the dispute and adding to the frustration.
November 26–27, 2023: Business Operations Jeopardised
The lockout severely impacted my business operations. Both Amazon and eBay accounts for Flashback Toys Ltd faced performance issues due to restricted access to inventory, leading to financial losses and reputational damage.
December 1–8, 2023: Seeking Legal Clarity
Correspondence continued as I sought clarity on the situation. Burnett’s responses did not address the key legal concerns, leading me to consider formal legal action. This would later become a pattern with Burnetts.
December 11, 2023: Escalation to Legal Proceedings
Frustrated by the lack of progress, I issued a notice of intended legal proceedings against Burnetts acting for BPS. This marked a shift from seeking informal resolution to pursuing formal legal avenues.
December 15–18, 2023: Settlement Discussions
BPS, through Burnetts Solicitors, provided a response and an insincere settlement offer. However, the offer did not adequately address the core issues, leaving significant concerns unresolved. I replied to this settlement offer outlining my grievances. This was left unaddressed. Burnetts would later claim they even made a settlement offer.
January 4–19, 2024: Continued Attempts at Resolution
I continued to seek a resolution, proposing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a way forward. The proposal was not accepted, which limited the options for an amicable settlement.
January 30, 2024: Rejection of ADR
The rejection of ADR marked a missed opportunity to resolve the dispute without further legal action. This decision contributed to the ongoing challenges in finding a mutually acceptable resolution. Burnetts have continued to stonewall from this point on.
April 2024: Exercising My GDPR Rights
In an effort to obtain transparency and accountability, I submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Balliol Property Services (BPS) under GDPR Article 15, requesting access to all personal data they held about me. Under GDPR Article 12(3), BPS was obligated to respond within one month, but they failed to comply without providing any valid justification.
Mid-2024 to November 2024: A Pattern of Obstruction
Rather than fulfilling their legal obligations, BPS without my consent redirected my SAR to Burnetts Solicitors who consistently demanded unnecessary ID verification, citing GDPR Article 12(6), despite having no reasonable grounds to doubt my identity. This was particularly perplexing given our extensive prior correspondence over verified email addresses and the fact that they had previously engaged with me without any issues regarding identification.
Burnetts acted inconsistently—at times presenting themselves as “data processors” and at other times as mere intermediaries. This lack of clarity created procedural confusion and further delayed the SAR process. Additionally, Burnetts used temporary and obscure email addresses for SAR-related correspondence. These practices undermined transparency and accountability, violating GDPR Article 5(1)(a), which mandates that personal data must be processed lawfully, fairly, and in a transparent manner.
November 13, 2024: ICO Findings
Frustrated with the lack of progress, I had filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO acknowledged that BPS and Burnetts had breached GDPR obligations but stopped short of issuing a compliance order. Instead, they recommended that I provide additional ID to expedite the SAR process, effectively placing the burden back on me. This recommendation overlooked the context of my extensive verified interactions with both BPS and Burnetts and failed to address their misuse of GDPR Article 12(6) as a delay tactic.
I expressed my dissatisfaction with the ICO’s response, highlighting:
- Verified Identity: The ample evidence confirming my identity through prior correspondence over verified email addresses.
- Unjustified Demands: The repetitive and unnecessary ID verification requests made by BPS and Burnetts.
- Obstructive Conduct: The ICO’s failure to address the procedural misuse and obstruction by both parties.
November 29, 2024: Contradictory Communications Expose Obstruction
The situation reached a critical point on November 29. In the morning, BPS sent an email insisting on ID verification, directing me to provide proof to Burnetts’ office. This was contrary to Burnetts correspondence the previous week, which directed me to provide ID directly to BPS, despite Burnetts previous stance to route all SAR correspondence exclusivity through them and not to contact BPS directly. The email from BPS failed to specify the type of ID required or explain how my personal data would be securely handled, violating GDPR Article 32, which requires appropriate security measures for processing personal data.
Shortly after, BPS sent another email refusing to engage further until I provided the requested ID. However, in a contradictory move just minutes later, they sent sales invoices demanding settlement of alleged debts to my verified email addresses. These invoices included threats of legal action tied to disputed fees. This action demonstrated that BPS had no issue confirming my identity when it served their interests, undermining their justification for the ID verification demands related to the SAR.
Recognising this inconsistency, I responded by highlighting:
- Inconsistency and Bad Faith: The simultaneous pursuit of debts through verified channels while claiming uncertainty about my identity for the SAR.
- Procedural Flaws: The lack of justification for the ID requests and the absence of secure data handling measures.
- Contradictory Instructions: The conflicting directives from BPS and Burnetts, which undermined the credibility of their SAR process.
I reiterated that their actions breached GDPR principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability under Article 5(1)(a). I set a deadline for a compliant SAR response, warning that failure to comply would result in escalation to regulatory authorities and potential legal proceedings under GDPR Article 82 for damages caused by their non-compliance.
In the afternoon, I submitted additional evidence to the ICO, including the contradictory emails and invoices. I emphasised:
- Misuse of GDPR Article 12(6): BPS’s unjustified ID verification demands were being used to obstruct compliance.
- Lack of Transparency: Burnetts’ inconsistent communication practices and unclear role in handling the SAR.
- Urgent Need for Enforcement: I requested that the ICO issue a compliance order under GDPR Article 58(2) and investigate the repeated, vexatious behaviour.
The Bigger Picture: Patterns of Inconsistency
This chronology reveals patterns of inconsistent actions and communications by BPS and Burnetts. From the misrepresentation of arrears to the contradictory handling of rent payments and the SAR, these inconsistencies have had significant personal and professional repercussions for me.
Impact on Business and Well-being
The unexpected lockout and delayed communications destroyed Flashback Toys Ltd, leading to financial losses and strained relationships with business partners. The stress of the situation also affected my mental health, emphasising the broader impact beyond legal and financial aspects.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
The actions described raise important legal and ethical questions:
- Compliance with GDPR: Delays and obstructions in responding to the SAR may not align with GDPR requirements.
- Tenant Rights: The lockout and access restrictions raise concerns about adherence to tenancy laws.
- Professional Conduct: The handling of communications and negotiations prompts reflection on best practices in property management and legal representation.
Moving Forward: Seeking Resolution
My goal remains to resolve these issues transparently and fairly. Steps I am considering include:
- Engaging with Regulatory Bodies: Continuing dialogue with the ICO and other relevant authorities to address compliance concerns.
- Exploring Legal Options: Assessing the viability of legal action to seek remedies for the impacts experienced.
- Advocating for Fair Practices: Using my experience to highlight the importance of adherence to legal obligations and ethical standards in property management and legal services.
Conclusion: Advocating for Transparency and Fairness
This journey has been challenging, but I am committed to seeking a fair resolution. By sharing this account, I aim to promote greater transparency and encourage organisations to uphold the principles of fairness and accountability. It is my hope that others can benefit from this experience and that it contributes to positive changes in industry practices.
This account is based on my personal experiences and is intended to inform others about the challenges faced when dealing with property disputes and data protection issues. It focuses on organisational actions without attributing personal responsibility to individuals, adhering to GDPR guidelines by not disclosing personal data of third parties. This article is for informational purposes and should not be considered legal advice. For specific legal concerns, please consult a qualified professional.