Thanks Graham—this is a nuanced situation, and the member’s instincts are sound. Let’s break it down strategically: ⚖️ Key Facts - 2021: Payments made to South West Water under duress or necessity. - Paid in Full Notification entered—suggesting the CCJ was marked as satisfied. - 2023: Direct Debit Indemnity Claim (clawback) initiated—funds returned. - 2025: South West Water seeks to reinstate the CCJ and cancel the “Paid in Full” status. 🧠 Legal Assessment 1. Was the CCJ legally satisfied? Yes—if the court marked the judgment as “satisfied” following payment, then procedurally, the debt was discharged. This is recorded under CPR 40.9 and reflected on the Register of Judgments. 2. Does the clawback reverse satisfaction? Not automatically. The Direct Debit Indemnity Scheme is a banking remedy—not a legal one. It allows the payer to reclaim funds, but it doesn’t nullify the original obligation unless: - The clawback was legally justified (e.g. fraud, error, or lack of contractual basis) - The creditor failed to challenge it or reassert the debt If South West Water did not dispute the clawback in 2023, they may now be out of time or procedurally barred from reopening the claim. 3. Can they reinstate the CCJ? They cannot simply “reinstate” a satisfied CCJ. They would need to: - Apply under CPR 23 for the judgment to be set aside or varied - Show that the satisfaction was entered in error or based on misrepresentation - Possibly issue a new claim if they argue the clawback created a fresh cause of action But this is procedurally complex and would likely require permission from the court. The original claim cannot just be “revived” without judicial scrutiny. 4. Does the clawback create a new liability? Only if South West Water can prove: - The clawback was unjustified - The original debt remains enforceable - They have not waived their rights by accepting satisfaction If they accepted the “Paid in Full” status and took no action for over a year, they may be estopped from reopening the matter—especially if the member relied on that status to their detriment.

@Warren Bell - You're absolutely right to flag this, Graham—this member’s situation is procedurally and legally flawed on multiple fronts. Let’s break it down and map out the next steps with precision. ⚖️ Legal Assessment: CCJ Granted Despite Defence and Payment ✅ 1. Judgment Entered Despite Defence If the member filed a defence and the debt was paid in full, then the court should not have entered judgment unless: The defence was struck out (e.g. for being defective or late) The claimant applied for summary judgment and succeeded The payment was not acknowledged or proven If none of these occurred, the judgment may have been entered in error, which is grounds to set it aside under CPR 13.2 or 13.3. ✅ 2. No Notification or Paperwork Discovering the CCJ via ClearScore rather than official court communication suggests: Improper service of the claim form or judgment Potential breach of CPR Part 6 (service rules) Grounds for setting aside under CPR 13.3(1)(b): “some other good reason why the judgment should be set aside or varied.” ✅ 3. Debt Already Paid If the debt was paid before judgment was entered, then: The judgment should not have been granted The member can apply to set aside the CCJ under CPR 13.2 (mandatory grounds) or 13.3 (discretionary) The court may have failed to process the defence or payment properly—this is a procedural irregularity 🧾 Next Steps for the Member ✅ Step 1: Apply to Set Aside the Judgment Use Form N244 Grounds: Debt paid in full before judgment; defence filed; no paperwork received; judgment entered in error Include a witness statement explaining the timeline and attaching any proof of payment ✅ Step 2: Request Court Records Contact the relevant County Court and request: The claim form The defence submission The judgment order This helps confirm whether the defence was processed and whether the judgment was default or summary ✅ Step 3: Consider Complaint Escalation If the court ignored the complaint, escalate to:

Absolutely, Graham—this is a textbook case of strategic tension between contractual enforceability and data protection law. Let’s break it down for Paul with precision and tactical clarity: ⚖️ Can Link Collect on an “Unenforceable” Debt? ✅ Legally speaking: - A debt being unenforceable means Link cannot take court action to recover it—typically due to: But unenforceable ≠ extinguished. Link can still request payment, send letters, and report to credit reference agencies—unless doing so breaches GDPR or consumer protection law. 🧠 GDPR Implications: Lawful Basis for Processing Under UK GDPR, Link must have a valid lawful basis to process Paul’s personal data. The most common ones they rely on are: 1 -Lawful Basis - Can It Apply Here? Contractual necessity❌ Not applicable if the debt is unenforceable and Link can’t prove a valid contract 2 - Legal obligation❌ Only applies if they’re complying with a legal duty (e.g. HMRC)—not debt collection 3 - Legitimate interest⚠️ Often claimed—but must be balanced against Paul’s rights and the nature of the debt If the debt is unenforceable and Link cannot prove a valid assignment or contract, their legitimate interest claim becomes shaky—especially if Paul has objected. 📨 Link’s Response Letter: What It Suggests If Link admits the debt is unenforceable but says they’ll continue collection and reporting, they’re likely relying on legitimate interest. But under Article 21 GDPR, Paul has the right to object to processing—especially if it causes distress or reputational harm. 🧾 Next Steps for Paul ✅ 1. Submit a GDPR Objection Notice - Reference Article 21 UK GDPR - State that Link has admitted the debt is unenforceable - Demand cessation of all data processing, including reporting to CRAs - Request deletion under Article 17 (Right to Erasure) if no lawful basis remains ✅ 2. File a Complaint with the ICO - If Link refuses to stop processing, Paul can escalate to the Information Commissioner’s Office - Include: - File a defence (N9B) citing lack of enforceability - Add a GDPR counterclaim for unlawful data processing - Reference Farley v Paymaster [2025] EWCA Civ 1117, which confirms:

Punk IPA, excellent and very strong as well 😊

Nice work Kev 👍

Each court tends to be different. I was told we don't need to do a hard copy court bundle if it's under 50 pages (only need to submit an electronic bundle), and then it needs to be printed double sided, but each court seems to have their own rules. You're best phoning them to check 👍