Civil Enforcement Ltd CCJ's

stevecot1983

Hi All

I have read numerous post over the weekend here and on other forums and I have now completely confused/don't know what path to take.

On Friday a prospective employer told me I had two CCJ's outstanding against my name, which I was completely unaware of - they were issued to a previous address, they do not appear on any of my credit files (according to Credit Expert its because the address hasn't been linked to my name but I can see it on the linked addresses part)

After checking with Trust Online, and calling the courts (most unhelpful to begin with) I have found out these relate to Civil Enforcement Ltd.

I have never received any correspondence from CEL or anyone acting on their behalf, after some googling I have found out this is a parking firm

Timeline:
Moved out of previous address in September 2012
Updated my licence and log book October 2012 (no longer have to log book but my licence is dated October 2012 and was sent at the same time as my log book)
Entered on the Electoral Register at current address November 2012
CCJ's were issued in June and August 2015

I lived in the property for about a year and in that time I had two vehicles registered there one which was sold in March 2012 the other I part exchanged in October 2013. The second was the one I had when moving to my current property in 2012.

I believe I can try and get these set aside but after researching over the weekend I am feeling very out of my depth with all of this.

How can I get the court paper work and particulars of the claim?
I've tried contacting CEL on the telephone but I just get a voicemail, so how can I find out what vehicle this relates to, copies of the invoices/letters they sent etc?

Because of the work I do the most important thing to me is having these removed from any records.

Any help will be appreciated and apologies for posting yet another thread on this subject.
Thanks

Umkomaas

The only address CEL would have dealt with is the one on your V5C (logbook) at the time of the parking 'infringements'; they are not updated by the DVLA, and they have no reason (or cause) to go back to the DVLA.

The NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 covers, inter alia, set asides, as do the following links:

http://www.aboutsmallclaims.co.uk/

http://www.aboutsmallclaims.co.uk/county-court-judgement-against-you.html

http://www.aboutsmallclaims.co.uk/set-aside-default-court-judgment.html

If I have overstayed my welcome somewhere and wish to pay the invoices CEL sent can I set get the set aside.

This will definitely not get them set aside - unless CEL agree not to contest them (I think there may be a more technical term?) - but still has to be done via the court. Just sending CEL a cheque leaves you in exactly the same position as now, CCJ in place, credit worthiness in pieces. Do not just pay CEL.

HTH

The_Deep

Some more reading

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4504082/Wayne-Rooney-lost-500-000-two-hour-gambling-spree.html

https://www.stepchange.org/debt-info/ccj.aspx?WT.srch=1&gclid=CI6x9J3M8dMCFWe77QodYJgNGw

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_en-GBGB707GB707&q=CCJ+parking&gws_rd=ssl

On this forum alone there are a huge number of cases where a PPC obtained a CCJ without the knowledge of the motorist, you just have to search for them.

Fruitcake

A set aside costs £255 and you need a very good reason to get it agreed. In your case I think you would easily get this. You would then have to get the PCNs and CCJs overturned in court.
Given the dates of the PCNs and the date CEL got the default judgements, again I believe you have a very good chance of beating this. In addition, the original events were before the POFA 2012 came into force. This means that only the driver was liable. There was no keeper liability in force at the time and CEL had no business getting keeper detail three years later. The POFA 2012 cannot be applied retrospectively which is what the scammers appear to have done.

You will get all the help you need if you want to fight this. If/when you win, you will get the £255 set aside fee back, as well as some expenses up to £95 for your trouble. If you can prove that CEL acted unreasonably you can claim additional reasonable costs such as paying an advocate fee to a lay rep. Applying an act of parliament to an event that happened before it was enacted, and failing to search for someone three years later, would seem unreasonable to me.

Mrs May promised to stamp out this sort of thing where people get a CCJ after they have moved. You should write to her, and your MP, and Andrew Jones MP. I am absolutely serious about this. She made a promise, she needs to keep that promise.

You should also explain all this, including Mrs May's words, to the prospective employer explaining that all of this is a result of an unregulated industry that lies and cheats and does not follow the will of parliament.

Local and National press might also be interested. Just make sure that you do not reveal the driver's identity in any correspondence. You were the keeper at the time of the event and were therefore not liable. The scammers should have pursued the driver, not you.

You should also double check your first post and make sure there is no information that could reveal the driver's identity, especially as you may have used a real name as your username.

Fruitcake

I see you have removed your other post. The regulars here will need the timeline in order to help you, just make sure you don't identify the driver.
I, as keeper, is fine.
Never say, I parked.

stevecot1983

Fruitcake wrote: »

I see you have removed your other post. The regulars here will need the timeline in order to help you, just make sure you don't identify the driver.
I, as keeper, is fine.
Never say, I parked.

The first post should hopefully be there still, I edited it to clarify some details.

Thankyou everyone for the links and help, I will do some more reading. I will start preparing the N244 form today. As I have no idea what this vehicle this relates to or when the alleged contravention took place I'm not 100% sure how I will word the N244 form or any future defence.

Fruitcake

stevecot1983 wrote: »

The first post should hopefully be there still, I edited it to clarify some details.

Thankyou everyone for the links and help, I will do some more reading. I will start preparing the N244 form today. As I have no idea what this vehicle this relates to or when the alleged contravention took place I'm not 100% sure how I will word the N244 form or any future defence.

My apologies, I was getting confused with another post on another thread.

Your post looks OK as it is, just be careful how you word other posts so that you only refer to The Keeper and The Driver. Since this was years ago it is quite reasonable that you can honestly say you don't know who was driving.

stevecot1983

I have put together a witness statement to accompany the N244 form could you please take a look through and make any comments before I submit to the courts?

I found the layout and some defence arguements on one of the links on the newbie sticky and amended to suit my situation.

[FONT=&quot]I am xxx of xxx and I am the Defendant in this matter.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is my statement to support my application dated xx May 2017 to:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Set aside the Default Judgement’s dated 19th June 2015 and 17th August 2015 as it was not properly served at my current address.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Order for the original claim to be dismissed[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Order the claimant to pay the defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DEFAULT JUDGEMENT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1.1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I understand that the claimant obtained two Default Judgements against me as the Defendant in June 2015 and August 2015. These claim forms were not served at my current address and thus I was not aware of these Default Judgements until a prospective employer made me aware on 12 May 2017. I understand that these claims were served at an old address (xxx). In support of this I can provide confirmation from MEDWAY Council showing my entry on the electoral register in November 2012 at my current address.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1.2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I have never received any previous documentation from the Claimant in this matter and I was never able to properly challenge the Claimant’s claim.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1.3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]On the 15th May 2017 I contacted the Court to request further details of both Default Judgements. The court papers only give “Breach of Contract” as the details of the claim.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1.4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I have made several unsuccessful attempts to contact a member of the Claimants staff via telephone on 12 May 2017 and 15 May 2017 using the number provided to me by the Money Claim Centre.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1.5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing the claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendants current and correct contact details. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1.6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate “abuse” of the CCJ System and so called “Credit Clamping” as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1.7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendants current address when bringing the claim.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1.8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Considering all of the above I was unable to defend this claim properly. I believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ORDER DISMISSING THE CLAIM[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2.1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” which the Claimant believes are due because of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2.2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If the Claimant has obtained details of the vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, and used those details to make a claim for a “Parking Charge Notice”, I thus dispute the claim in its entirety as I do not know the wording of the contract nor do I know the means by which the contract was alleged to come into force.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2.3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I believe these claims to relate to “Parking Charge Notices” issued pre-October 2012 therefore the Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedom Act 2012 does not apply and the Registered Keeper of the vehicle cannot be held liable where a breach of contract may have occurred by a driver of a vehicle the Defendant is the Registered Keeper and where said keeper is unable to identify the driver.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2.4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For the Claimant to have obliged the Defendant to provide the drivers details at the time of said breach the Claimant would be required to apply for a “Norwich Pharmacal Order”, I am not aware of any such order being made upon the Defendant.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2.5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Furthermore, given the time delay of approximately three years between the alleged breaches of contract and the dates of these Claims it is unreasonable to expect the Defendant to have records of who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2.6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot] I further submit that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2.6.1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is unlikely to be the landowner of the car park in question, and will have no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, will have no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder, and only they would have been able sue for any damages or trespass.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2.6.2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any motorist of the vehicle of which I am the Registered Keeper. I further submit that any loss to the landholder (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be at most a few pounds.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2.6.3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No contract with the claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the Claimant to the motorist; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the motorist to Civil Enforcement Ltd.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2.7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]On this basis I believe that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2.8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as keeper of a vehicle, I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant. [/FONT]


Thanks

stevecot1983

Also is it acceptable to submit the N244 form for two CCJ's for the same claimant? Will it still be the same fee?

Fruitcake

stevecot1983 wrote: »

Also is it acceptable to submit the N244 form for two CCJ's for the same claimant? Will it still be the same fee?

I can't answer this, but the set aside request from the previous post looks good to me, although I am no expert in these matters.

Coupon-mad

No to this - obviously, post ParkingEye v Beavis, no chance with this argument:

2.6.2. No Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any motorist of the vehicle of which I am the Registered Keeper. I further submit that any loss to the landholder (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be at most a few pounds.

Have you read saggi's thread? They got their £255 refunded as well as CEL's CCJ and claim booted out.