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

[Concerned From Essex]

I tried the compressor (thank you, I never knew a PDF compressor existed!) but it will only get it down to 5.3MB and that's with me taking out the pages with my ID on etc. I can only upload to 4.88MB. I'll keep trying!

[FTMDave]

Have you tried  https://www.sejda.com/compress-pdf

 

[dx100uk]

do it in 2 or 3 files then and we'll sort it.

dx

 

[FTMDave]

Can you please also upload the actual oder from the court to pay £292.98, presuming you received it.

[Concerned From Essex]

Think I have managed it!!!

 

 

CEL SAR return.pdf

[FTMDave]

Thank you!

[dx100uk]

your problem was uploading pages we didn't need, like the PAPLOC I&E or the superfluous claimform further pages

we dont need blank forms..pointless...

see how it is now ive slimmed it down. 

[Concerned From Essex]

Yes thank you. I wasn’t sure what was needed so just uploaded it all (apart from my ID pages).

[FTMDave]

Thanks for all this.  We'll have a good mull over it.

Get the other SARs off tomorrow.

[Concerned From Essex]

Just by way of update,

I have sent out the other SAR letters and had formal confirmation from TransUnion that the CCJ is now removed from their records.

I have checked my Halifax app and they also my score as pre-CCJ.

I'm going to jot down a timeline of events and how much I have spent on postage etc, as while it was all sorted out (which I am SO grateful for)

there was a small period of time where my credit rating was ruined, I was worried about the whole thing and time spent trying to sort it out. 

Any further advice on me raising a claim would be appreciated, but I know how busy you all with this website/day jobs/life in general.

[lookinforinfo]

I would write to CEL informing them that  they know the serious  mistake they made with you and the breaching of your GDPR. . It has taken five years to get it all sorted and it has cost you  much time, effort and money not to mention the worry and stress involved  to finally have the CCJ rescinded.

Obviously if the matter went to Court there would only be one outcome. I would prefer to settle this quicker than using the Court and no doubt you would prefer not having nor name in the papers nor giving other motorists in similar situations to mine realising that they too could pursue you in Court.

So for different reasons we would wish to avoid going down the route to Court. However be in no doubt that should we not be able to agree terms, I will have no hesitation in using the Court to settle this matter.

As this has taken its toll on my nerves over the years in addition to the time , effort etc I described above I am looking at

a figure of £3500.

I expect you will need some time to reflect on this letter so will allow you 30 days to reply. Should  I hear nothing from you by that time I will issue a letter of claim forthwith and any additional charges involved thereafter  will be added to the £3500.

 

Something along those lines there. This saves you any  additional stresses about going to Court and the whole thing is resolved fairly quickly should they so choose.  They know they have erred and will be on a definite loser in Court  so they should be willing to avoid Court  and the extra expenses involved in that.  and if it works it will all be done and dusted quite quickly without additional stress.

See what the others think too.

 

[Concerned From Essex]

Thank you

I was wondering if I should just raise the claim or contact CEL first.

The only thing I would say is the first set of letters in 2019 were not down to CEL (it was another car parking company) 

would it be fair of me to include those?

I'll assume they will say that was nothing to do with them.

The first letter I got from DBCL was in February 2023.

This then escalated to the court action in December 2023.

My credit rating was affected by the CCJ for 27 days (09 Jan - 05 Feb) and the time I knew about it and had to sort it out was between 12 Jan - 25 Jan.

Could I also send the letter by email as I have been in contacted with their Legal team that way (and would be quicker) or would you suggest a posted letter is more appropriate?

[lookinforinfo]

Using emails  should be ok as long as you keep a copy of yours and theirs so there is a trail.

As far as a timeline is concerned, you can only use the date on which you first wrote and complained they had the wrong person.

[Concerned From Essex]

that's understood.

I am going to start drafting a letter which I will share before sending.

I have also heard from the British Parking Association (I sent them a ranty email about the situation a few weeks ago) and they want to escalate my email to their contact..

.I've asked who that is exactly before I agree!

Here's my first draft. I know its long, but I feel all relevant.

Letter to Civil Enforcement Limited v1.pdf

[FTMDave]

Will have a good read through this this evening when I knock off work.

[FTMDave]

The tone of your letter is absolutely spot on.  Well done.

However, I for one am absolutely knackered after a long day at work and need time to look at things when awake in the cold light of day.  You've said your letter is a draft, and that is right.  Please bear with us.  We want to help you smash these clowns but also want to make sure your case is watertight and we don't make a daft mistake along the way.

[FTMDave]

As scribbled before, your case is extremely atypical for us, 99.999999% of people on the forum have got a ticket from a PPC for breaking some hidden-away rule and don't want to pay.  That's why we've been scurrying around in the background trying to get our heads around how to proceed.

I know I keep saying this but I really, really, really, really promise to come on the thread when I knock off work this evening - 9:30pm UK time - to explain.

[Concerned From Essex]

Thank you and absolutely no problem. I really appreciate all the advice and help  

[FruitSalad1010]

Did the CCJ affect your ability to take out credit?

Were you planning on taking out credit but did not because you became aware of the CCJ?

If so do you have evidence that you intended to take out credit?

I don't think there is a need to telegraph your actions instead I think it is better to write a short letter setting out that you wish to resolve this amicably without the need for court action.

Personally I would make it clear you are seeking compensation for their inaccurate data processing.

They will knock you back or maybe make a paltry offer to compensate you, probably no more than £200.

If they do, then I would consider writing a letter before claim setting out in further detail how their inaccurate data processing affected you and what sum you are claiming.

I would also make it clear that regardless of who searched for what, as a data controller you are holding them liable for their actions including the actions of any third parties they relied upon. If they consider it was the fault of their agent then that is a matter for them. If they truly meant it and were prepared to sue their agent (unlikely) they would counterclaim against their agent at the expense of their business relationship, but do not invite them to do this.

To receive anything more than a token gesture you will likely have to make good on your threat and issue a claim. The costs of issuing a claim and paying a hearing fee for a claim for £3500 could be upwards of £500. The fee's would be significantly less for a claim up to a maximum value of £3000, of course if you win these costs would be paid to you by the Defendant. Perhaps @lookinforinfo has a good reason for the figure of £3500?

I expect they would defend but will prefer to attack your claim rather than defend their actions. They may try and disrupt your claim by making an application to the court to strike out your claim. This will cost them close to £300 maybe up to £2000 if they use outside counsel. Even though it is difficult to convince a judge the claim has no prospect of success they may still consider it worthwhile because 1. it could be difficult to attend, 2. it's a good way of intimidating a litigant who isn't sure of their position and 3. it may draw out a few more facts which they would prefer not to wait to find out until 14 days before the hearing.

Read up on other claims on this site for inaccurate data processing so that you understand what hurdles you will have to overcome in order to be awarded your claim. This includes case law. There are almost no precedents set with regards to compensation for a data breach. It appears you have an eye for detail, so with some dedication the information will come to you.

If you haven't made a claim before or many claims expect to dedicate time, perhaps upwards of 40 hours to prepare fully, and don't treat it as a fishing exercise. If you embark on a course of action it is better to do so with the intention of following through.

Be prepared to explain why you brought a claim after initially offering not to if they rectified the issue immediately.

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.

Judges are certainly not against litigants and in my view are acutely aware of the issues intransigent organisations can cause individuals, however it doesn't mean they will allow the court system to be used as a whacking stick when deciding the facts. PPCs seem to get away with it either by discontinuing most of their claims before undergoing real scrutiny or by hoping to face off against unprepared litigants.

Edited February 7 by FruitSalad1010

[FTMDave]

OK, I've been having a legal lesson over the last few days ... in order in turn to give you a legal lesson!

The vast majority of cases we get here are called Part 7 claims where the claimant decides on the amount claimed.  So you dent my car and refuse to accept responsibility.  I get various estimates and the cheapest one to undent the car is £153.25 so i sue you for £153.25.  I can easily justify this to a judge.  These claims go on the "small claims track" and are simple to manage.

Part 8 claims are where the judge decides on the amount.  This would presumably include GDPR breach.  These claims involve a different "track" and a load of faffing around which TBH I'm not even sure about.

A little trick we've tried on several occasions,. to get round this, is to sue for £200 for distress caused by breach of GDPR, or refusal to respect a SAR, or in your case for knackering your credit file.  This is a small amount which a judge would be likely to grant and the other side might well hold their hands up for.  However, you were distressed for only 19 days for the knackered credit file and we reckon such a case wouldn't have legs.

Certainly a letter of complaint to all parties would be a good idea before racing straight into court action - will read yours now.

 

 

.

[FTMDave]

I cross posted with FruitSalad.

There's nothing I disagree with in your letter, but as FruitSalad says, i would reduce it a bit.

But I would add a bit - I would demand to know who the trace company is.

I see it was DCBL who actually used the trace company.  So they can be added to the list of companies to pursue.  Once you decide on a final draft of your letter, a version should go to DCBL too.

[FruitSalad1010]

Low value part 7 claims under the value of £10,000 are likely to be allocated to the small claims track where costs are limited. Not the fast track where costs are often budgeted and agreed for complex claims in order to prevent parties from trying to win purely by out resourcing the opposition.

Even if a claimant indicates they are willing to submit to the court's decision for deciding compensation I personally don't believe this destines a low value claim to the part 8 track. £3,000 is a lot of money but perhaps not so when viewed through the wider eyes of the entire court system. My understanding, and of course there is plenty of information out there, is that a part 8 claim is utilised for suing for an action such as performance of contract.

The reason the water is muddied is because in order to sue for access to data it would be necessary to issue a part 8 claim. However a successful claim for distress arising from having access to data withheld essentially leads to a finding that the Defendant hasn't complied with its obligations and so while the court order wont specify performance it is clear what the Defendant must do to comply with its statutory obligations.

I also expect the Defendant would dispute matters of fact such as how the distress was manifested, how it affected the Claimant and how of course how much ought to be paid as compensation as a result.

My view is that is isn't unreasonable to specify what you think the value of compensation should be but also set out that ultimately you are willing to submit (which of course you would have to anyway) to the judge's discretion as to what the value of compensation should be and therefore the claim is suitable as a part 7 claim.

Edited February 7 by FruitSalad1010

[lookinforinfo]

FruitSalad the reason I picked on £3500 was that I had done some research online and from one website Dataguard they said "

• For a minor breach of personal data, such as your name, date of birth, home address, and email address, the lowest compensation is offered. For such violations, you may be entitled to compensation of up to £2,000."
• So I reasoned that this was a larger breach with debt collectors, ccjs and credit rating companies being erroneusly informed that £3500 was a more appropriate amount. And of course CELare going to haggle over the sum .
• 

  Understanding GDPR and Data Breach Compensation in the UK | DataGuard

  WWW.DATAGUARD.CO.UK

  ---

  Explore our comprehensive guide on GDPR and data breach compensation in the UK. Learn about your rights, potential compensation amounts, and how...
• The above wedsite has a lof of info. on what other companies have paid out for diferent kinds of breach so I feel that £3500 is not over the top at all.

After reading a few more websites now I think that perhaps when writing to CEL instead of using the Courts as a reason to deal with your case, it would be better to suggest that if you and Cek cannot come to a conclusion you will , because of your lack of experience in GDPR breaches use a no win no fee lawyer to take your case.

If it goes to Court with them CEL know they will be paying a few thousand in fees to those lawyers before the Judge even gets round to compensati--on for you. Plus if you had to use them you would not have to pay any Court fees.

Here is one  -https://data-breach.com/

Data Breach Compensation | Start Your GDPR Claim Here

DATA-BREACH.COM

---

Use data-breach.com to ensure you get your data breach compensation. Get in touch with one of the UK's top data breach solicitors. Start your claim...

 

Data Breach Compensation | Start Your GDPR Claim Here

DATA-BREACH.COM

---

Use data-breach.com to ensure you get your data breach compensation. Get in touch with one of the UK's top data breach solicitors. Start your claim...

PS I liked your letter as it included worries and stress that you had gone through.

Did you ever have to see your doctor to help your anxiety or sleeplessness.

That all helps to increase your compensation and why not.

They have put you through hell trying to clear your name.

[Concerned From Essex]

Thank you everyone, I really appreciate the advice and guidance. I am going to mull over everything today, do the research and then make a final decision on the letter tomorrow and send it off. In answer to the questions-

I wasn’t making an application for credit, nor did I need to during the time. There had been talk of my work getting me a corporate credit card prior and if that had come up again I would have advised against it while this was going on. It definitely dropped my score (quite significantly on TransUnion, from 700 to 540).

I never saw my doctor about the situation. There’s no specific reason other than being focused on trying to get it sorted out and working full time etc.

After the suggestion, I made some calculations based on days of ruined credit rating and days of stress/worry which amounted to £3,300. I then added the £200 for additional cost and time. So there is a method behind it, but I guess its all relative.

Good to know about the court fees and other options of legal action. 

I will pursue the trace company and am hoping the SAR from the other companies may return something. 
 

Do you think there will be any harm in contacting DCBL and asking them directly? Maybe stating that I am taking further action and would like to know who they used. I doubt they will say but worth a shot maybe? 

[FruitSalad1010]

I agree with @lookinforinfo I don't think the figure of £3500 is unreasonable, just that it is worth considering cost bands if going it alone.

I also agree the contents of your letter is good, my personal take is I would save it for later after getting knocked back as it will add a lot of weight to a letter of claim and perhaps focus their attention.

I prefer to give organisations an opportunity to display their integrity, they will know what they have done is wrong and could easily curtail this straight out the gate. When they knock you back they already start to appear unreasonable and then your letter of claim will set out exactly why you seek the money you do and what will happen if they don't pay.

There have been similar claims brought for distress for inaccurate credit entries. What makes your case more significant is that rather than a simple marker for non payment the recording of a CCJ is rather more serious.

Using a no win no fee would certainly reduce the burden on you and I expect it would lead to earlier settlement, it would save you time and a lot of research but it would also mean a portion of your compensation is paid to them.

The Court may take a view to award damages on what actually happened, not based upon what you think might have happened if the error wasn't corrected.

This would lower the value of compensation awarded to you, however the Court may also award punitive damages as a clear signal of its displeasure as to the Defendant's actions and to steer them to take more care in future.

CEL essentially got away with it thanks to your diligent monitoring of your credit file. If you had instead sleep walked into being denied a mortgage or having been offered more costly borrowing then I think the claim would include those losses and the court should look to remedy them.

I don't think its been mentioned yet but what would certainly bolster your position is submitting a complaint to the ICO. It will take longer but in the likely event the ICO issue a view that CEL has breached their data protection obligations your claim is a slam dunk in terms of liability.

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.

I'm not aware of any precedent for compensation based on the number of days a data breach occurred. While it may be useful to you in coming up with a sum you will likely have more success by justifying your compensation in reference to other decisions by the court. They are few and far between but they are out there.