CEL Default CCJ appeared on my file- person with similar name ***Credit Rating Restored***

[FTMDave]

Revised suggested letter to them.  Revised because it has been pointed out to me that delaying a threat of litigation and offering a further extension signifies weakness in the OPs claim.

Dear CEL,

thank you for your"letter of XXXXX.

I will not deal with all of the points raised here.  I will however add that we both know that you ignored my initial letter informing you that you had trashed my credit file and only took action once I had contacted your solicitors.

I deny that I failed to mitigate my loss.  However, even if that were true, it would be an admission that I suffered a loss and that it was caused by you!

I am replying to give your company the chance to propose a sensible counter offer in order to compensate me for my loss caused by your company which you have admitted to in writing.

Yours, XXXXX

[Nicky Boy]

Even if you decide not to go down the litigation route because of the risk involved, I think you should certainly keep up with "negotiating" an out of court settlement.

It will put them through the same process they subjected you to... Constant letters and stress.

"Dripping tap" scenario.

It will also cost them money...

As Dave said, because they don't want to drop themselves in it, they will be running to a solicitor every step of the way... Not cheap!

And, you never know, you may well get something for your efforts.

[AndyOrch]

5 minutes ago, Nicky Boy said:

It will put them through the same process they subjected you to... Constant letters and stress.

"Dripping Tap" scenario. 

It will also cost them money...

 Has the  Information Commissioner has been informed of this incident ? 

A further approach using the  " Dripping Tap" scenario." 

 

 

.

[Concerned From Essex]

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??

[Nicky Boy]

Yes, why not see what drivel these so called solicitors come up with?

You never know, they might reveal the tracing company in their SAR reply... I'll take a deep breath and hold it now............................... Knew I shouldn't have done that!

[lookinforinfo]

I have been looking at your case from the point of breaches of GDPR.

The Data Protection Act sets out eight principles. These are that information is:

1. Used fairly and lawfully
2. Used for limited, specifically stated purposes
3. Used in a way that is adequate, relevant and not excessive
4. Accurate
5. Kept for no longer than is absolutely necessaryCEL
6. Handled according to people’s data protection rights
7. Kept safe and secure
8. Not transferred outside the European Economic Area without adequate protection

So if we look at the 1st principle  -sending you demands for money that was never owed must mean that it was unfair and unlawful to demand money with threats .

Principle 3 was breached since under PoFA CEL are supposed to use reasoable cause when dealing with  the DVLA. How they could get your details when you have never owned that car means that CEL did not adhere to their Code of Conduct and the DVLA should be asked why they gave your details when they had no reasonable cause.

There is no doubt that they failed Principle 4.

5 .CEL have kept you r data for around two years when they shouldn't have had it at all.

6. By passing your data on to debt collectors and the Courts, as well as  falsely obtaining your data from DVLA is another obvious fail

 

That is 6  breaches out of 8. That should surely be at least £3500. There may be an additional charge of fraud  considering your ccj was for £275 so it looks as if they have slid through an extra amount . Check with the site on that and see what the concensus is.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Two things.  I think if you ask DCBL straight out they will lie.  I would just give them the info they want and see if they are daft enough to name the trace company in the SAR.

No, CEL have absolutely nothing they could sue you for.  They have caused you damage - not vice versa. 

 

[dx100uk]

DCBL would not have approached Trace?, they can't under GDPR surely without instruction from their client CEL, they are a 3rd party?

CEL can mind their SAR should have covered that one surely?

or have we never sent CEL an SAR to date? 

dx

 

[dx100uk]

On 09/02/2024 at 13:44, FTMDave said:

Yes.  DCBL have admitted they used the trace agency

noted

dx

 

[FTMDave]

I think the CEL SAR reply is in post 105.

[dx100uk]

yea just went through it.

where's the evidence that DCBL went to a Trace company?

 

[FTMDave]

In case the OP does decide to "go for it", claim form fees are here

Make a court claim for money: Court fees - GOV.UK

WWW.GOV.UK

---

How to take legal action if someone owes you money (small claims court), how much it costs, what happens next. Includes information from...

 

[FTMDave]

Been looking through it too dx but can't find the DCBL admitting post.  But it's there somewhere - I think!

More in a mo.

[FTMDave]

I suspect there may have been something in the post 105 attachment, which was edited.

[dx100uk]

On 17/01/2024 at 12:11, Concerned From Essex said:

I received a letter to my address for this person and absent-mindedly opened it. It was a PCN for a car that had no links to my address or me/my family. The letter stated that they had contacted the registered keeper of the car at the address supplied by the DVLA and as they did not get a response they used a tracking service and believe they lived here

 

On 17/01/2024 at 13:41, dx100uk said:

id be looking latterly to sue the trace company too.

i bet it's

TRACE Debt Recovery
Escalation Department
Barratt House, Suite S2
K1ngsthorpe Road
Northampton, NN2 6HT

.........thread title updated

i dont think we've seen this letter yet?

dave no i did that sar return and there nothing in there

[Concerned From Essex]

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....

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

9 hours ago, dx100uk said:

where's the evidence that DCBL went to a Trace company?

9 hours ago, FTMDave said:

Been looking through it too dx but can't find the DCBL admitting post.  But it's there somewhere - I think!

On 26/01/2024 at 08:23, Concerned From Essex said:

in their email, DCBL explained that when using their third party tracing service, my current address returned a high probability of being correct for the named person, which then allowed their letter cycle to commence. They said this can happen due to similarities within the name. 

Full comment here...

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/464573-cel-default-ccj-appeared-on-my-file-person-with-similar-name-credit-rating-restored/page/4/#comment-5244013

 

[lolerz]

Would need to see the actual correspondence from DCBL to confirm it's them and not CEL who used the tracing service.

[Nicky Boy]

Op said it was in an email

7 minutes ago, Nicky Boy said:

in their email, DCBL explained

 

[lookinforinfo]

I would have thought that when they see your evidence plus the number of th priciples thye have broken they will not want to go to court. It would be a shame if you didn't get some sort of recompense from them.

[Concerned From Essex]

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.

[FTMDave]

Apologies to dx.

Well found NB!

[lookinforinfo]

I would add " No matter how good your lawyers are you have no chance of winning in Court. But if you want to add their bill on to my costs that is up to you."

[lookinforinfo]

I think you should include the time that you wrote your initial letter to them. Otherwise it seems that it has only been

a couple of months that you have been concerned about their false accusations.

[Concerned From Essex]

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!