**NEWBIE** CCJ Set Aside Application and breach of Data by CEL/DVLA

StealthLady

Hi all and thanks for adding me. 

I've checked the board and cannot find a case like mine. 

In a nutshell, CEL had issued 4x PCNS. Two had photos of the vehicle in question. Two didn't. 

The vehicle in question is not mine. 

In their haste to send out these notices they got a letter wrong on the registration. Both cars are the same colour but both different manufacturers. 

Despite an appeal (which I have no Popla details from them), they saw fit to involve Dbl and then apply for a CCJ.

The courts granted this last week and I thought I had an extra 7days to submit my Defence. 

I've contacted them and paid £303 to have it set aside.

I'm struggling as I can't see any cases that are the same - ie. It's the wrong vehicle they have and they should not have applied to get my details from DVLA. The photo of the vehicle in question is grainy, but using a magnifying glass, you can see the registration number - and it's not mine. 

Now I have a CCJ on me for 4xPCNs that don't belong to me. 

Has anyone experienced this and/or can offer advice?

Believe me, I am planning on suing DVLA and anyone else I can for giving these "people" my details without even checking they had the correct registration and car.

These PCNS apparently relate to October and December 2023 and are about 60miles away from where I live. 

Thank you in advance from this "Newbie" 

Coupon-mad

Was the claim filed by CEL themselves or by DCB Legal?

If you've already put in the N244 what did you put as the Order you want the court to make?

Did you attach a Witness Statement and evidence that this is the wrong vehicle?

StealthLady

CEL. 
I didn't attach an Order as yet as I've had to wait the weekend to get accepted here. I got this all on Friday. 

I've got photos of the correct vehicle which, their PCNs with the vehicle in question (but my personal details) and photos of the back and front of my car. 

Say my reg was LLNN "IDD"..., they had LLNN "IOD" and it's giving the DVLA that reg that has got these PCNs in my name. Their camera footage still shot shows "LLNN" IOD"

I'm truly at a loss what to explain apart from it is the wrong vehicle and I should have never had got a CCJ for something I did not even do. 

Coupon-mad

But you said you'd "already paid £303" and applied.

So what did you put as the 'Order you want the court to make'?  That is not an attached Order, it is a question in the N244 form, so you must have put something in that box. Hence my question.

LDast

What exactly did you submit with your N244 set aside application? What is in your Witness Statement (WS)?

Ideally, you could have sent CEL a Letter of Claim (LoC) giving them 14 days to have the CCJ set side at their own expense and demanded compensation for their unlawful request of your DVLA data without reasonable cause.

You now have to probably submit a Supplementary WS and the draft order and then you will have to sue CEL separately for damages for breach of your GDPR. You should also make a formal complaint to CEL about the unlawful request of your DVLA data before you can make an official complaint to the ICO.

You must also make a formal complaint to the DVLA for CELs unlawful request for your DVLA data and subsequent misuse of it.

Suing CEL for damages is fairly straight forward although, if you'd defended the original claim, you could have counterclaimed for damages at the same time.

Bazarius

I don’t get this ? “In your nutshell” makes no mention of whether you received the court claim form or not , or why an application for it to be set aside is made? A Court claim form isn’t a CCJ …. 

StealthLady

I don’t get this ? “In your nutshell” makes no mention of whether you received the court claim form or not , or why an application for it to be set aside is made? A Court claim form isn’t a CCJ …. 

I'm not an idiot. I'm asking for help. I'm aware of what a CCJ is. 

Let me put this as simply as I can because I started my post by saying I could not find a case like mine. 

1. CEL issued 4 PCNs. Two have a photo of the vehicle in question. It is NOT my car BUT they have my registration as they made an input error in keying in the vehicle reg. A further 2 PCNs were received with no photographic evidence of the car in question but at the same place on different dates.

2. I appealed two and told them they keyed in the wrong registration. That the vehicle description is for my vehicle (details I assume they got from DVLA) but the vehicle in the photo is a different make, model and reg. I was no where where this alleged charge took place. 

3. I do not own the vehicle that CEL has issued PCNs in. Nor have I ever. It is a mistake they made by getting one letter wrong.

4. I called Dbl when their first letter arrived and they were useless. 

5. I received a court claim from CEL 30/09. I responded to the AoS advising I would be defending and counterclaiming. I got a CCJ in the post on Friday given in default of no action by me. I thought I had 28days to respond from 30th and was preparing to file at the weekend. 

6. I called the courts who took my case number and advised the only thing I could do is apy to have the CCJ set aside. She advised me where to find the for and to send it in as soon as possible. She also said it would cost £303 and they would not look at it until this money is paid. So I paid it Friday (the same day I got the CCJ). 

7. I remembered this Space and tried to join then. Even emailed. Got a response back and now, today I can post. 

8. I posted whilst at work to ask if anyone knows of a case like mine or has any advice because I do not believe this CCJ is just or legal as it was an input or ANPC error. Either way, I intend to haul CEL through the courts every way I can. And that includes the DVLA who should have never given CEL my information if they were uncertain they had the wrong car. 

Anyone who works with cars would know the one in the PCNs is not the one the DVLA confirmed to CEL. 

CEL took a "O" to be a "D" and thus, got my registration, address etc and now have secured a CCJ on me. I work in finance and this will have an effect. Never mind the ga t my house insurance is due Dec and I will struggle to get good quotea with a CCJ. 

I have been stressed beyond belief and it is 100% not my vehicle nor any area I frequent. To have a CCJ where I may have been at fault is one thing, but this is not my vehicle and the photo shows it. 

If I sound frustrated, I apologise, but I truly feel at a loss with being unable to find any help for someone in my position. 

StealthLady

LDast said:

What exactly did you submit with your N244 set aside application? What is in your Witness Statement (WS)?

Ideally, you could have sent CEL a Letter of Claim (LoC) giving them 14 days to have the CCJ set side at their own expense and demanded compensation for their unlawful request of your DVLA data without reasonable cause.

You now have to probably submit a Supplementary WS and the draft order and then you will have to sue CEL separately for damages for breach of your GDPR. You should also make a formal complaint to CEL about the unlawful request of your DVLA data before you can make an official complaint to the ICO.

You must also make a formal complaint to the DVLA for CELs unlawful request for your DVLA data and subsequent misuse of it.

Suing CEL for damages is fairly straight forward although, if you'd defended the original claim, you could have counterclaimed for damages at the same time.

It has not been sent yet, just paid for. I responded to another member with the details of events. 

I intend to sue everyone responsible and in breach that I can. My migraines are worse since this began last year and the doctors have had to increase my painkillers.

Thank you for your advice. I truly appreciate it

LDast

A slight problem here is that you did not file a defence after you submitted your AoS. You will need to address this head-on in your WS and demonstrate to the judge that your failure to file a defence on time was a genuine mistake. You’ll need to focus on persuading the judge that setting aside the judgment is in line with the Overriding Objective of fairness and justice, which underpins the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

Ignorance of the law or, in this case, miscalculating when your defence was due by, is no excuse. However, if you are persuasive enough in your application WS, which we have not seen yet, you should be able to get this rectified.

Trying to recover the costs of the N244 application is more problematic because the claimant did nothing wrong by applying for the default CCJ when the did as the claim had not been defended. Of course, if the case can be argued that you have been wronged because of the claimants original failure to do their job properly and they have acted unreasonably throughout (except for the default CCJ application) then there is a good chance that you will get your costs back.

Here is a suggested outline of what your WS (or SWS) should include as points:

1. I am the Defendant in this matter and make this witness statement in support of my application to set aside the default judgment entered against me on [insert date of judgment] under CPR 13.2 or, alternatively, under CPR 13.3.

Genuine Mistake in Filing a Defence

2. I acknowledge that, after submitting my Acknowledgment of Service (AoS), I failed to file a defence within the prescribed timeframe. This was a genuine and honest mistake on my part, due to a miscalculation of when my defence was due. I mistakenly believed that I had additional time to submit my defence, which was based on a misunderstanding of the court's deadlines.

3. While I appreciate that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, I ask the court to take into account that I acted in good faith throughout the process. Upon realising the default judgment had been entered, I promptly took action by paying the £303 fee to apply for this set aside. I have always intended to defend the claim vigorously.

Overriding Objective

4. I respectfully submit that it would be unjust to allow the default judgment to stand in this case, given that the claim is based on a clear misidentification of my vehicle. The Overriding Objective of the Civil Procedure Rules is to deal with cases justly and proportionately. In this instance, I have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as demonstrated below, and setting aside the default judgment is necessary to ensure fairness.

The Vehicle in the PCN is Not Mine

5. The claim arises from four Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd. Two of these PCNs are accompanied by photographs of a vehicle that does not belong to me. The vehicle in question is of a different make and manufacturer, although it shares the same colour as my car. Upon closer inspection, it is clear that the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) in the photographs is not mine. A copy of my vehicle’s V5C logbook is attached (Exhibit A) as proof of my correct VRM.

Unlawful Access to My Data

6. Given that the vehicle in the PCNs does not belong to me, Civil Enforcement Ltd unlawfully requested my personal data from the DVLA. The misidentification of the VRM means that the Claimant did not have 'reasonable cause' to request my keeper details, in breach of both the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR. This amounts to unlawful processing of my personal data, causing significant distress.

Failure in the Appeal Process

7. I submitted an appeal to Civil Enforcement Ltd in relation to these PCNs, but I did not receive any further communication or details regarding an independent appeal process (POPLA). Despite this, Civil Enforcement Ltd escalated the matter to debt collection and applied for a County Court Judgment (CCJ) without proper consideration of the facts, which I intended to defend.

Costs of the N244 Application

8. While I acknowledge that the Claimant was entitled to apply for a default judgment, it was their original failure to identify the correct vehicle and their unreasonable behaviour throughout the process (including ignoring my appeal and unlawfully accessing my data) that has caused this situation. Therefore, I respectfully request that the court consider ordering the Claimant to reimburse me for the £303 fee for the N244 application, as their unreasonable actions necessitated this application.

Conclusion

9. I respectfully request that the court set aside the default judgment entered against me, either under CPR 13.2 on the grounds that the judgment was irregularly obtained, or under CPR 13.3 as I have a real prospect of successfully defending this claim. I also ask that the court consider awarding me the costs of the N244 application in light of the Claimant's unreasonable conduct.

Regarding the two NtKs that were without images, have you tried logging in to the appeal website and seeing if they have photographic evidence online? You really need to double check for any evidential images and if they are available online, make sure you download copies of them.

Coupon-mad

I disagree that the OP should make the first point an excuse for missing the defence deadline.  Unimportant.  Mention it but not front & centre.

Under the circumstances there is clearly 'some good reason' (CPR 13.3) to set aside this CCJ.

- Wrong car. And the C and their useless legals (both) knew, or should have known, this.

- This involves illegally or negligently obtained DVLA data. Breach of the DPA 2018.

- then, illegally processed and shared data AFTER CEL had been told in the appeal that this wasn't his/her car;

- Unlawfully and negligently issued court claim AFTER DCB group had been informed on the phone at pre-action stage that this was the wrong car;

- in all the circumstances, this is indisputably wholly unreasonable conduct in litigation and the C must be liable for all the D's costs and be ordered to respond to the counterclaim.

I would put in the N180 Order box:

An order is sought under CPR 13.3 to:

(a) set aside the CCJ, having read the Defendant's application and their attached defence and counterclaim, applying the Denton principles and Overriding Objective and therefore granting relief from sanctions for the minor delay in filing same;

(b) the Defendant's defence and counterclaim do stand filed and served; 

(c) the Claimant do file and serve a Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim by DATE

(d) the Claimant do pay the Defendant the costs of the application and attendance costs (in the alternative, the wholly unreasonable conduct of the Claimant - who knew, or should have known, at pre-action stage that they had made an error with the VRM - is noted by the court and the Defendant's costs be reserved). 

Coupon-mad

Attach a bespoke defence and counterclaim.

And get this in within days (NOW) and copy in DCB Legal/Ltd or you will have DCB HCEOs with a writ on your doorstep and clamping your car by the weekend.