RE: Badaloo Cleared by FCA and Courts

Addressee Only Crime Number 2407314/15
Matthew Hill acting as CEO [email protected]
c/o Compliance Department Registered Post WM 14075344 3GB
The Chartered Insurance Institute 21-04-2026
20 Aldermanbury , London EC2V 7HY Pin: 001044430A

                                           NOTICE AND DEMAND TO PRINCIPAL AND AGENT

Formal Data Rectification Request Under UK GDPR Article 16

Dear Mr Hill,

Thank you for your response of today, to my formal Challenge of 13-04-2026. I note your position but it does not address the substantive issues raised in my correspondence.

The "No Appeal" Defence Is Legally Unsound
You state that I did not appeal the 2019 decision and that it is therefore "not subject to further discussion."

A decision based on fraudulent or materially inaccurate evidence is void from the outset and cannot be validated by the expiry of an appeal deadline.
See: Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21 – "A void act is void from the outset."

The CII's 2019 decision was based on a purported Certificate of Conviction that:
(a) The Court Manager at Harrow Crown Court (Mr Steven Williams) has confirmed in writing has no underlying sealed order - his email of 4 March 2016 states: "There is no document issued by the court called an Order of Conviction (sealed or otherwise)."

(b) Is contradicted by the Caseman court record system which shows no conviction recorded.
(c) Relates to an alleged offence of "trespass" at a property I owned, as confirmed by the Land Registry.
(d) Your own investigator, Ms Hirosha Thilangarajan, admitted on a recorded call that she did not have a sealed court order (timestamp 11:50 of the recording previously provided to the CII).
A decision based on a certificate that the issuing court says has no underlying order is a nullity.

The FCA Has Now Confirmed No Action Against Me As An Individual

On 17 April 2026, the FCA's Jeremy Parkinson confirmed in writing:
"There is no FCA or PRA disciplinary or regulatory action against you as an individual."
The FCA has also:
Removed references to convictions and tribunal decisions (October 2025)
Removed my name and address from historical records (January 2026)
If the regulator itself has confirmed no action exists against me, on what basis does the CII maintain sanctions?
Furthermore, Church Hill Finance is a sole trader business. The FCA has confirmed there is no action against the individual. A sole trader has no separate legal personality from the individual. Therefore the FCA's confirmation that there is no action against me necessarily means there is no action against Church Hill Finance.

Formal Request Under UK GDPR Article 16
Regardless of the CII's internal appeal procedures, I have a statutory right under UK GDPR Article 16 and Common Law, to the rectification of inaccurate, misleading and false personal data.
The CII holds and publishes data stating that I was subject to disciplinary sanctions based on a criminal conviction. That conviction is now contradicted by:

(a) The issuing court's own manager (no order exists)
(b) The FCA itself (no action against individual)
(c) The CII's own investigator (no sealed court order)
(d) The Land Registry (trespass at own property impossible)

Please treat this notice as a formal demand for rectification under UK GDPR Article 16 and confirm within 30 days:

(a) Whether the CII will rectify its records to remove all references to the 2019 disciplinary decision and sanctions;
(b) If not, the specific grounds on which the CII maintains that the data is accurate, notwithstanding the evidence listed above;
(c) Whether the CII has independently verified the Certificate of Conviction by obtaining a sealed judicial order, Issued by the Court, pursuant s134 of the County Court Act 1984 (which the court confirms does not exist).

If the CII Refuses
If the CII does not rectify its records within 30 days, I will:

(a) File a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office for breach of UK GDPR Article 5(1)(d) (accuracy principle) and Article 16 (right to rectification);
(b) Refer this matter to the Professional Standards Authority as evidence that the CII relied on unverified and defective evidence to impose sanctions;
(c) Include the CII's conduct in any judicial review proceedings against the FCA.

I request that any substantive response be provided on CII headed paper, signed in wet ink by the author, with their full name and position clearly stated, so that I may identify the individual responsible and accountable for the CII's position on this matter.

                                                                   Yours sincerely,