So a letter came through from the court yesterday with the judge's review... The letter was not addressed to me, but to the person the CCJ was for.... The judge said "The court doesn't conduct litigation by correspondence. The issue MUST be taken up with the claimant. The complainant should take legal advice on the procedure of applying to have the incorrect judgement removed/set aside." ...

I did find it interesting that the court said it was "paid" yet CEL told me they asked for it to be "removed without trace"....maybe just terminology but if they have mislead the court in any way, without telling them about the error of issuing the CCJ to right person at the wrong address and as a result getting the CCJ applied to the homeowner of said wrong address...maybe there will be more scope for action from me... Yes the actual person never knew anything about this and I ended up taking the wrap for her and sorted it out!!

Hello all. So back in January when I was complaining to all and sundry about the CCJ, I wrote to the courts. I'd completely forgotten about it as I didn't think I would get a response. today I had an email which included the below. The last paragraph is very interesting and not sure if it will lead to anything, but I guess its good that the error has been raised to the judge?? What do we think? According to the Court record this case was paid on 25 January 2024 which is within one month since the Judgment was entered. I can confirm that the court records have been updated to mark the Judgment as 'cancelled'. Once the judgment is marked as cancelled, the Registry Trust is notified electronically via an overnight link. The Trust then updates the Register of Judgments in line with their work positions. Once this is done, then the credit reference agencies are informed. The agencies are responsible for updating their own credit files, and the court has no control over when this is done. In regards to your query regarding the name, I've considered the effect this has had on you and referred the matter to a District Judge on 13 March 2024. Please be advised due to our current turnout, cases may take 7 - 10 working days to come back form the Judge.

Hi all.. .I've been having a think and I am going to draw a line under everything now. I just wanted to say thank you again to everyone for all your help and support. This forum is invaluable and I'll continue to take an active interest in all the cases you are dealing with. You really do help a lot of people, who otherwise would be at a loss (like me)! Of course...if CEL ever reply to me, you'll be the first to know

Thanks both, I'll take a look at the links and all the information on the SAR. I certainly haven't ruled out writing to the ICO about the whole matter. Trying to get to the tracing company is my main aim now, so a follow up to Smart and DRP wont be a bad idea. I'm so appreciative of all the advice this group has given me. I would never have got this far I'm sure I'll keep you all posted!

Hello No, nothing from CEL yet (although I do wonder if they will reply). DBCL confirmed in writing that they had erased anything to do with me/my data following the SAR. Smart and DRP have not replied to my SAR. I gave them last week in case anything came through the post, but nothing. Its now over the month deadline, so what action can I take with them???

I've sent my response letter, so will let you all know when/if they reply...

No, no DVLA involvement, just the tracing company once the individual could not be contacted at the address the car was registered to. The other SARs were sent on the 5 Feb, so not too far off. Yes, that's my worry. My address has wrongly been associated with this individual/vehicle twice since 2019. The only good thing is that I now have all this proof that I'm nothing to do with it (!) plus, when you search the vehicle via the DVLA/Gov website, it no longer comes up. So assume its been scrapped!? I know its not got a current MOT as the last one was Sept 2023.

Thanks both. I don't think that CEL made an enquiry in my actual name with the DVLA. DCBL wrote to the right person first and when they had no reply from that address, the match was made to my address because the person had a similar name to me. This information was then passed over to CEL from DCBL after they used their "trusted" tracing company. The DVLA have confirmed that my name is not associated with the car (as expected!). This has just reminded me that I need to reply to DCBL's letter in response to my SAR...I will do that today.

Post 171 has the original draft...but here is the current one. Thank you Thank you for your letter of 21 February 2024. I will not deal with all of the points raised here as I have adequately set out my grounds for the claim in my letter dated 09 February 2024 . I will, however, add that you did cause a delay by only taking action once I had contacted your associates, DCBL. This is evident in your email reply to me on the 24 January 2024 which stated We have been contacted by DCBL with regards to matter you have outlined in your complaint. My “complaint”, as you are aware, was raised through your online portal on the 24 January 2024 chasing my original letter of the 15 January 2024, which went ignored. Through no fault of my own, this whole matter has caused me a great deal of stress, worry and time. I deny that I failed to mitigate my loss. However, even if that were the case, it would be an admission that I suffered a loss and that it was caused by you through misuse of my personal data. I refer to the Data Protection principles. It is my view that you have breached at least 5 of the 8 principles in that you used my address unfairly and unlawfully; you used it in a way that was inadequate, irrelevant and excessive; you failed to use it in an accurate way through serving court papers on the basis of a probability; you have kept my address on record for over a year which was longer than necessary since all letters were sent back were clearly marked that the individual was “not known at this address”. Subsequently, you have failed to handle my data in accordance with my data protection rights. As I have explained, I would prefer to settle this amicably then take legal action and I am replying to give your company the chance to propose a sensible counteroffer in order to compensate me for the flagrant misuse of my personal data, which you have admitted to in writing.

Thanks @lookinforinfo I am going to finalise a draft today and email it to them. I will let you all know if I get a response!

Maybe something like this in my reply to CEL... I will not deal with all of the points raised here as I have adequately set out my grounds for the claim in my letter dated 09 February 2024 . I will, however, add that you did cause a delay by ignoring my initial letter and only took action once I had contacted your associates, DCBL. This is evident in your email reply to me on the 24 January 2024 which stated We have been contacted by DCBL with regards to matter you have outlined in your complaint. My “complaint”, as you are aware was raised through your online complaints portal on the 24 January 2024 and was a chaser to my original letter of the 15 January 2024. All of this has caused me a great deal of stress, worry and time in rectifying your incompetence. I deny that I failed to mitigate my loss. However, even if that were the case, it would be an admission that I suffered a loss and that it was caused by you through misuse of my personal data. I refer to the Data Protection principles. It is my view that you have breached at least 5 of the 8 principles in that you used my address unfairly and unlawfully; you used it in a way that was inadequate, irrelevant and excessive; you failed to use it in an accurate way through serving court papers on the basis of a probability; you have kept my address on record for over a year which was longer than necessary since all letters were sent back were clearly marked that the individual was “not known at this address”. Subsequently, you have failed to handle my data in accordance with my data protection rights. As I have explained, I would prefer to settle this amicably then take legal action and I am replying to give your company the chance to propose a sensible counteroffer in order to compensate me for the flagrant misuse of my personal data, which you have admitted to in writing.

Morning that letter was the very first one (not from CEL or DCBL) but Smart Parking and DCBL. I have sent them both SAR and await their response. I think I'll go back to DBCL with the information they have asked for and see what they say. In their email to me they said they no longer had anything related to me or the case as it all went to CEL...they also said "it is standard practice for DCBL to conduct a further trace using our trusted third-party tracing service". So they have admitted using a service. I was thinking last night just to call it a day.. .but maybe one final letter, using what you've all suggested along with LookInForInfo breakdown of the DP principles, to see if they are willing to negotiate will be worth it....

I haven't informed the ICO when I first looked into raising a complaint their guidance was you had to give them a reasonable time to rectify the error. I also used it as leverage in my last letter, which after CEL resolved. That doesn't mean that I wont go to them though and I know there was an earlier suggestion of getting their opinion on the matter more so than making a complaint. If I do the "dripping tap", there isn't anything CEL can do to start a claim on me is there???? Sorry if that sounds silly. I also forgot! I had a reply from DCBL to my SAR. They say they have no information on me and had asked for the reference and car reg. This only came through yesterday I haven't replied. I was going to go back with the details and was thinking of asking them directly for the tracing company details.. .do you think that would be appropriate or just give them what they have requested??

Thank you FTMDave, that is really useful to know and appreciate you following up. I'll consider everything and let you all know what I decide.