Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • mckln335
    • By mckln335 26th Jun 17, 1:40 PM
    • 19Posts
    • 7Thanks
    mckln335
    Unknown default CCJ from VCS/BW Legal
    • #1
    • 26th Jun 17, 1:40 PM
    Unknown default CCJ from VCS/BW Legal 26th Jun 17 at 1:40 PM
    Hello!

    I'll try to keep this brief! A family member parked in a private car park in a retail park in April 2014 and went over the specified time limit. We subsequently received a parking charge notice from Vehicle Control Services through the post with photographs of the vehicle from the ANPR system. I can't remember the exact amount of the fine, but after looking for advice on the internet, we didn't pay it and chose to ignore/bin any further correspondence from Vehicle Control Services. We sold the car in September 2014 and moved house in July 2015 so didn't think about the issue again, until now!

    Fast forward to the present day and after applying for a loan, we were rejected. I checked both of our credit reports and noticed a CCJ from Vehicle Control Services dated 21/09/2016 on the wife's report. We obviously knew nothing about this as we had moved house and therefore a default judgment was made. I have done a little research about getting the CCJ set aside etc so we can try and get it removed, but there is such a plethora of information it's all a bit confusing. I know we have to issue a N244 form to the court but I don't want to waste too much time coming up with a massive long winded witness statement when we really need to get the ball rolling.

    Any help anyone can give would be greatly appreciated!

    Cheers,

    Mark
Page 3
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 5th Sep 17, 9:37 PM
    • 417 Posts
    • 746 Thanks
    Johnersh
    I've said it once, I'll say it again....

    If valid service of the claim form has not been executed the CPR dates clearly that the court MUST set aside the judgment. That is not discretionary, it is mandatory.

    So, if the o/p proves (I) it was sent to the wrong address (II) he was 'there to be found' with a basic search, he can procure a set aside.

    There is no need to address the merits of the case in the application (at all). If people wish to, so as to cover the bases, that does no harm. Strictly speaking, those points relate to a set aside where default has been obtained (usually through inaction) and you need to show the case is more than merely arguable.

    Notwithstanding the above, the o/p has stated (more than once) that he wants the fastest easiest route to set aside. He has been assisted with that. His case, his choice, nothing missed.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Sep 17, 9:09 AM
    • 7,004 Posts
    • 6,074 Thanks
    The Deep
    Thank you, I take it that you agree with me.

    So why do so many here emphasize that you must have a defendable case to succeed with a set aside when the victim is totally unaware of the action?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 6th Sep 17, 9:48 AM
    • 5,955 Posts
    • 7,672 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Thank you, I take it that you agree with me.

    So why do so many here emphasize that you must have a defendable case to succeed with a set aside when the victim is totally unaware of the action?
    Originally posted by The Deep
    I guess to get two issues sorted in one case.
    Trouble is the victim had no idea what to defend in the
    first place so unknown/unaware is the defence

    Despite the MayDay woman vowing to stamp out this abuse
    over a year ago, it seems it was just pie in the sky dreaming
    as of the 1st of October, this government don't have a problem
    allowing the abuse to continue

    I say Jacob Rees-Mogg for Prime Minister, maybe he can
    sort out these wannabee lawmakers who have their
    heads in the clouds
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 6th Sep 17, 10:00 AM
    • 32,781 Posts
    • 16,806 Thanks
    Quentin
    Thank you, I take it that you agree with me.

    So why do so many here emphasize that you must have a defendable case to succeed with a set aside when the victim is totally unaware of the action?
    Originally posted by The Deep
    You do need to have a defence when applying for a "set aside".


    In this case the application is for a "set aside by consent". Essentially a rubber stamping procedure.


    With both sides happy about the terms of the set aside, there is no need to show the court any defence!
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Sep 17, 10:07 AM
    • 7,004 Posts
    • 6,074 Thanks
    The Deep
    I know that, but that was not the question I raised which was, why do CM and others frequently advise posters, when dealing with a surprise CCJ, to prepare a defence?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 6th Sep 17, 10:21 AM
    • 32,781 Posts
    • 16,806 Thanks
    Quentin
    I know that, but that was not the question I raised which was, why do CM and others frequently advise posters, when dealing with a surprise CCJ, to prepare a defence?
    Originally posted by The Deep

    As explained in #44 - because that is the procedure when applying for a set aside hearing.


    There is an explanatory guide here:


    https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/howtosetasideacountycourtjudgment/settingasideaccj.aspx
    Last edited by Quentin; 06-09-2017 at 10:23 AM.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Sep 17, 10:40 AM
    • 7,004 Posts
    • 6,074 Thanks
    The Deep
    I am none the wiser Quentin, did 'you not understand my question?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 6th Sep 17, 10:41 AM
    • 3,188 Posts
    • 3,225 Thanks
    DoaM
    It also gives the judge at the SA hearing the option of dismissing the original claim, thus avoiding any further court activity (unless the PPC decides to restart/appeal the judgment).

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/judge-disposes-of-civil-enforcement.html
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 6th Sep 17, 10:55 AM
    • 32,781 Posts
    • 16,806 Thanks
    Quentin
    I know that, but that was not the question I raised which was, why do CM and others frequently advise posters, when dealing with a surprise CCJ, to prepare a defence?
    Originally posted by The Deep
    Ok.

    To answer your specific question.

    They do this in order to help.

    See guide in # 46 on set aside procedure
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 6th Sep 17, 2:16 PM
    • 417 Posts
    • 746 Thanks
    Johnersh
    OK - there are two reasons to set aside. First, where judgment has been obtained where the Defendant failed to respond to a claim CORRECTLY SERVED. Second, where judgment has been obtained where the Defendant WAS NOT SERVED.

    (SCENARIO A) When applying to set aside, if the Court find you were correctly served (irrespective of what you say) then if there are no other arguments, the Judgment stands.

    (SCENARIO B) As noted above, if you were not correctly served (perhaps because the PPC obtained your address details and then sat on them for 4 years, during which time the Defendant moved house and they took no steps to check the address was still current) a set aside would be mandatory.

    In scenario A, if the applicant/Defendant has a "fall back" argument that the case is defensible, even if service was valid, it may be possible to then argue that the claim has prospects of success and that it is in the interests of justice (CPR 1) to allow the claim to be defended and that the prospects are more than merely false, fanciful or imaginary (broadly the same test as for summary judgment, but applied the other way).

    *sigh*
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Sep 17, 2:33 PM
    • 7,004 Posts
    • 6,074 Thanks
    The Deep
    Thank you, but I was not asking about scenario A, most cases here fall within screnario B.

    So my answer is "because they do not understand the procedures". I hope that those who have been giving incorrect advice read this and take heed.
    Last edited by The Deep; 06-09-2017 at 2:35 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 6th Sep 17, 2:38 PM
    • 3,188 Posts
    • 3,225 Thanks
    DoaM
    See my reply in post #48 ... this relates to scenario B. It gives a reason why a decent defence alongside the SA request can be useful.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Sep 17, 2:44 PM
    • 7,004 Posts
    • 6,074 Thanks
    The Deep
    It does, but is it necessary?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 17, 12:37 AM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,420 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, because you get Judges like this one (if the case was genuine...I wasn't sure):

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=109044&st=40

    and because in several other cases now, we've seen the entire claim struck out and the £255 ordered to be refunded, at a set aside hearing. More than once. That wouldn't happen without a defence to run through with a Judge who may aim to save court time and deal with it, if the claim is shown to be without merit.

    Emanresu says (in that link) and he does have knowledge of what's happening in cases:
    It's becoming the norm as Southpaw says. Cases are not that complex so with a few pertinent questions, the judge gets a feel for the likelihood of a defence.

    The judge wants to protect the interests of the court / court resources so people going for a CCJ set-aside hearing should be warned to take everything with them.
    I agree with IamEmanresu.

    Whether or not they *have to* I think posters are well-advised to take a basis of a defence to a set aside hearing, which is surely better advice than telling a poster not to bother, then they find themselves put on the spot: ''what defence will you put forward then? ParkingEye v Beavis case...blah blah...must be in order, it a parking charge...no defence...go away oik'' by a narky Judge at Wigan, or another awful pro-PPC Court.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 07-09-2017 at 12:41 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

829Posts Today

5,664Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Luciana is on the advisory board of @mmhpi (we have MPs from most parties) https://t.co/n99NAxGAAQ

  • Follow Martin