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

[Concerned From Essex]

Thank you..

.I have been doing some work on the letter and have made it shorter (ready to use the rest for a letter before claim).

It needs a bit of fine tuning but will do that before sending tomorrow.

All noted about the court fees, I've had a look at what they are just need to make some final decisions.

Letter to Civil Enforcement Limited - FINAL redacted (1).pdf

[FruitSalad1010]

I made an edit above which you may not have read so I have instead reproduced it here.

It would be best to check the order of the tree. My understanding is CEL will have used DCBL as their legal representatives albeit we know they are almost one and the same, then DCBL used a third party to trace the Defendant. If this is accurate then in my view CEL are top of the tree.

[dx100uk]

be very carefully using word to make PDF files 

you need to remove your pers details by unticking document properties after hitting the options box

[FruitSalad1010]

The current draft is a bit of a muddle between a letter of claim and a letter. If you want to make it a letter of claim make it clear from the outset, otherwise there is no need to give them notice that you will claim and it would probably be better not to mention going to court.

@FTMDave is very good at driving home points to private parking companies, see what they have to say.

Have you started a complaint to the ICO?

 

[Concerned From Essex]

I can’t seem to remove it now (might be because I’m a n my mobile)

but if someone else can delete the file I’ll post what is written into a comment box later. Sorry.

I will make the letter clearer, thank you.

I haven’t complained to the ICO, as when I went to do so prior to the CCJ being removed

the criteria was you had to notify the company of their error, give them chance to resolve and then chase before complaining.

I just now assume that they would see the matter as being rectified as the CCJ was removed…

[FruitSalad1010]

They may well see the matter as rectified but you are entitled to request their view as to whether CEL complied with its data protection obligations.

Just because the matter is rectified does not mean CEL acted in accordance with the law. I think you will find the ICO will be of the view they did not.

You have evidence that you notified CEL of their error and you can include that within your complaint.

[Nicky Boy]

Regarding identifying the trace agency... I understand that under SAR obligations, the recipient must also identify any other parties which it has shared your data with. Obviously someone MUST have shared your data with the trace agency in order to instruct them to find you.

As has been said, just await all SAR returns for now and all should be revealed somewhere along the line... Unless someone doesn't play by the rules.

[Concerned From Essex]

Good morning. I’ve been having a think and I am going to revert back to my original letter and clearly make it a letter before claim; on the basis that anything prior will just prolong the process. I’ll get it emailed and posted today and await the reponse.

During that time I will contact the ICO just seeking their opinion on what has happened and await the other SARs from the two other parking firms.

I’ll let you all know once its been sent later. Again, thank you for all the help, I would not have got this far without all your support.

 

 

[FTMDave]

OK, understood about your decision.

So you need to write LETTER OF CLAIM as a title and slightly alter the conclusion, which is that they have 15 days to pay you £3500 otherwise you will start court action.

[FTMDave]

On 07/02/2024 at 23:30, FruitSalad1010 said:

I'm not writing this to put you off, I think it is commendable when anyone seeks justice against an organisation that can effectively draw upon limitless resources compared to most private individuals but it is fairer to you if you have a fuller picture of what victory may entail.

Indeed.  We had two of the SAR distress cases quite close to each other.  In the first the parking company held up its hands immediately and paid.

In the other they went running to a dodgy firm of solicitors who are even worse than DCBL (really!) and who filed an absolutely ludicrous defence which would never have stood up in court.  But that wasn't the point.  The point was, presumably, (a) to make money out of their client, and (b) to drag things out in the hope that the Cagger gave up.  And sadly I think it worked as the Cagger disappeared and won't update the thread.

So don't expect matters to resolve themselves quickly - but we will help you all the way.

 

[Concerned From Essex]

Thank you.

Is there a difference between a letter of claim and a letter before claim? I was looking at information on making a small claim and that was referred to as before claim. Just wondering if there is a difference or if they are the same thing.

 

[FTMDave]

Same thing.  There's even a third version - Letter Before Action!

[Concerned From Essex]

Great thank you. Sending it now! 

[FTMDave]

On 08/02/2024 at 14:30, FruitSalad1010 said:

I don't think you need to mess around with the third party agents CEL used. There is a tree structure in terms of handling data. Where your dealings are with a registered data controller such as CEL then they are responsible for the actions of their agents which they have used to process your data.

Pursuing their agents would let them off the hook as you can't claim twice for the same issue.

That is a superb point which I confess hadn't clicked with me.

20 hours ago, Nicky Boy said:

Regarding identifying the trace agency... I understand that under SAR obligations, the recipient must also identify any other parties which it has shared your data with. Obviously someone MUST have shared your data with the trace agency in order to instruct them to find you..

Yes.  DCBL have admitted they used the trace agency.  So I think yet another SAR is in order, this time to DCBL.

[Concerned From Essex]

Hi all

I have had a response from CEL to my letter:

We do not agree to your settlement figure of £3,500 for reasons set out below.

1. Our Letter Before Action and Letter Before Action reminder was sent to your address in October and November 2023 to which we received no response informing us that xxx did not reside at the address of xxx. Furthermore, the Claim Form was issued to your address, and you failed to contact us at the point of the Claim being issued to inform us of this error. Had you contacted us once the Claim was issued, we would have ensured no further action would be taken against yourself, as you were not the intended recipient of these proceedings.
2. Upon receipt of your letter dated 15/01/2024, this mistake was rectified without delay. There is nothing to suggest that Civil Enforcement Limited have been uncooperative.
3. You have failed to mitigate your loss and have not pleaded how you have arrived at the sum of £3,500. Furthermore, you have failed to provide evidence of how this Judgment has affected your credit record. We appreciate a judgment can significantly reduce your credit score and can affect your ability to take out a loan or obtain credit, however we have not been provided with such evidence to show this Judgment has impacted you financially.

Should you proceed with legal action, please be aware we will defend all proceedings and invite the Court to strike out your claim for an abuse of process under CPR 3(4)(2)(b).

Thoughts?

[lolerz]

Well, of course they're going to decline it, if they didn't they'd have to pay you money and that's definitely not in their modus operandi.

If my maths is right, your LBA expires on the 24th (Saturday) so I'd be drafting your particulars of claim to submit first thing Monday Morning.

[FTMDave]

That isn't their usual rubbish.  Legal concepts such as "mitigation" are used correctly.  They've obviously gone to a solicitor for advice.

Bits of it are nonsense - the address mess-up is your fault! - but it's very well argued nonsense.

We need to have a little think.  As lolerz says, you have till Monday.  I'm at work now but will be on the forum this evening.  See what the other regulars think.

[FTMDave]

OK, so the developments were predictable.

You were never just going to get a cheque for three and a half grand!  CEL have gone running to their solicitors.  The solicitors have done what solicitors do, dug up as many reasons as possible to undermine your case.  Some would stand up in court and some wouldn't, but that's not important at the moment, they are doing their job of attacking your case in the hope that you will give in.

Before going into the minutiae of what they state, perhaps consider what you hope to get out of this and how much effort you're prepared to put in.  You can of course issue the claim on Monday, but you could also write back and ridicule part of their letter (but without playing all your cards too early) and see if they are willing to negotiate a figure.  They must after all realise they are in the wrong and that a judge will award you something, if not the whole £3500.

[Concerned From Essex]

Morning, I did consider whether I should reply, so maybe I will take the approach you suggested first and see if they will negotiate.

I guess the stark reality is, if they defend and the court upholds their defence, I'll be liable for their court costs wont I - and giving them any money is not what I want!! Again, lots to think about with this and like you say I need to consider what I want out of it and how much more of my time I am prepared to spend on this.

Thanks again for all the support.

[FTMDave]

Let's look at what they argued.  Remember here the solicitor is throwing the kitchen sink in the hope it'll frighten you off.

1.  Nonsense.  It's not up to you to open other people's letters and answer them.  You returned to sender like anyone would have done.  You weren't to know what the letters contained.

2.  Nonsense.  They ignored you first letter and only moved once you contacted their solicitors.

3.  There is a legal concept called "mitigation".  It means even the wronged party has a responsibility to reduce their loss.  Say I get a plumber to fix a pipe.  A week later I find the floor under the newly-fixed pipe is wet.  I do nothing about calling the plumber.  The problem gets worse and worse.  Eventually the room floods and damage is caused to my home.  The plumber is responsible, sure, but probably only for a small part as it was my own fault for not "mitigating" the damage.

They are trying to pretend your lack of communication caused the court claim - nonsense as explained above.

They do have a point however about quantifying the £3,500 and about credit not being refused.

The forum is normally extremely gung-ho about encouraging Caggers to exert their legal rights.  However, as scribbled before, you case is very untypical which is why I'm being cautious.

Firstly, I will flag this up once again to highly-experienced Site Team members.

Secondly; I'm wondering if a letter like this might be appropriate.

Dear CEL,

thank you for "your" letter of XXXXX which we both know was not written by anyone in your company, you have obviously gone running to solicitors.

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!

My intention was to issue court proceedings this coming Monday 26 February.  I will wait one additional week until Monday 4 Match 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

However, this is just a suggestion, we have a few days spare, please don't rush into anything.

[lookinforinfo]

What a bunch of shysters they really are. You have told them several times, before they issued the LOC that they had the wrong person. You returned innumerable letters saying you were not the right person including their LOC which had they opened their returned mail they would have understood the situation. [No I am sorry they wouldn't have understood as they are pig ignorant ].

You could write back to them saying

"I am in receipt of your letter  blaming me for not replying to your letter which was intended for some one else who lived some where else who I don't know and whose car I have never owned! On top of that I have phoned you and  written to you over the past two years  advising you that I am not the person you are pursuing. And if your mail office was better than your tracing agency you would have been given the letters I have returned unopened marked "Not known at this address". I have photos of those letters and one of them would have been your Letter of Claim hence the reason I did not respond to it.

What a wonderful business system you have. You send out a PCN which if the recipient does not reply to you then find another person in another town with a similar name and hound them with debt collectors and solicitors threatening them with ever increasing [and unlawful amounts]. I realised that when I saw so many other people claiming you had done the same to them as you did to me when I checked you out  on Trust Pilot. You have to be careful with this plan though as when the word gets out to the Judges you may find it difficult to obtain  CCjs in future where the defendant is not in attendance. So you will forgive me if I treat with derision your comment that you rectified YOUR mistake without delay. Two years is some delay.

Do you have any idea the fear I have been going through since your finacial demands have been coming to my door ? Almost two years of harassment demanding ever larger unlawful  amounts plus threats of being taken to Court, bailiffs ainvolved nd CCJs for a debt I have never owed.,

And then I discovered that you had managed to have  a CCJ in my name. I was both terrified and angry  as I knew that my good name had been trashed and I was being labelled as a debtor. I didn't know what to do at first since you had ignored all my attemts at proving I was not the person you were supposed to be pursuing.

I then spent a lot of time and effort writing to the DVLA, the Credit companies, the ICO, the Registry company etc in an attempt to clear my previously good name. Eventually I received the information I needed to be able to get you to cancel the unwarranted ccj.  To date I still have not had as much as an apology for all the torment I have been through in the past two years.

All you have done is  blame me for your mistake and witter on about the amount I am asking for to compensate for besmirching my name with debt collectors, ,solicitors, credit reference agencies and the Courts. Plus the time I have spent being ignored by  you and  going through the anguish of your threatening letters followed by the many from debt collectors which I have kept for the Court so that the Judge can see see their threatsand  what a rotten bunch of rogues are involved in the parking industry.

I think £3500 is cheap when you consider what I have had to go through these past years. All the stress and worry that I, an innocent woman, has had to endure without a single apology and only a grudging mention of a "Mistake". More like a major blunder that has caused me inordinate pain and worry.  So to find out that  this is by no means the first time you have made this "mistake", I consider that £3500 is a small price to pay.

See you in Court.

Something along those lines there. I would keep in the Trust pilot piece as I am sure they would prefer that a Judge did not know of that and may be keener to settle out of Court since a Judge may offer you more than just £3500.

See what you and the Site team think. It can be improved and I can only guess at the anguish you have gone through since their first letter..

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry Dave I was doing the same thing you were doing only taking longer to do it.

[Concerned From Essex]

Thank you both for the suggestions which are equally as impactful and amazing  

I am going to take all this onboard and start a draft, but like you say, I have some time to consider everything so no rushing needed!

[FTMDave]

OK, I've had a reply from Site Team members who, unlike me, are highly-experienced and know what they are talking about.

They are very much of the opinion that you should not issue your claim.  It would be too much of a gamble.  CEL, idiots though they are, did "untrash" the credit file very quickly.

I see LFI very much disagrees.  That's fine.  We're not North Korea!  We don't get many cases like yours.

It's your decision and we will back you up whatever you decide.

I personally don't see any downside to sending one further letter, based on my ideas and on LFI's, to see if they will offer a settlement.

 

[Concerned From Essex]

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.