Urgent: Got CCJ on my credit records

Coupon-mad

Sassii wrote: »

Sad news permission for appeal refused although I been represented by barrister from citizen advice bureau who managed my appeal from last Friday.

so now how much I need to pay to pcm?. dcbl letter added around £200 more than the default court order on 2015 as 0.2 interest and £90 compliance stage fee.

Do I need to pay all of that in dcbl letter or just the amount stated in the court order 2015?.

Why was it refused, due to the delay?

Thought about suing the solicitor who delayed it?

Quentin

Sassii wrote: »

Yes the original claim contains £20 interest & £150 for costs. so why they claim £110 for interest dcbl letter?

Interest will continue to be added on a daily basis from the judgement date.

But don't pay anything you don't understand.

Though the stay on enforcement you got is ended now you lost your appeal.

Read up on the large fees high court bailiffs are allowed to charge - you need to stop their bill growing which it will!

Sassii

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why was it refused, due to the delay?

citizen advice bureau managed to get the transcript and filed it 2 days before hearing and I paid for it

We discussed:

-CPR 13.3(1) and (2), CPR 27.11(1) (a) and (b) and 27.11(3)(a) and (b) and Judge said I may have level prospect of success but there is no other good reason as my email informing pcm debit recovery agent for new correspondence address doesn't mean I moved & and doesn't mean I didn't receive the claim form.

- PD 23A(6.11) & (6.13) that PD explain the court shouldn't took pcm WS into account as it's served to court less than 2 days before the hearing and never served it to me (PD says 7 days before the hearing), but judge said that is not important.

[Deleted User]

I'm afraid that, FWIW I think the judge went wrong, but sadly it's not clear all the arguments were presented to the court.

It's CPR 6.8 that concerned me. Was service ever valid? You nominated an address prior to service that was not used. CPR 6.8 permits that. The fact that it was sent to your home (and whether you were still living there) is irrelevant. Hence I referred to Naglean v Royal Free where D received papers but the claim form was not served as a solicitor was nominated.

my email informing pcm debit recovery agent for new correspondence address doesn't mean I moved

This is irrelevant you were not required to prove you weren't living there. C was on notice it was wrong. In Nanglean the defendant definitely received court papers (not their lawyers) and it was held to be defective service.

and doesn't mean I didn't receive the claim form.

In Barton v Wright Hassell the supreme court found it was not valid service when papers were received by email not post (ie. The defendant clearly took electronic receipt and that was common ground)

The rules are applied rigidly (so say the supreme court). If there was no valid service of claim form and Particulars there can be no default judgment. CPR 12 PD4.1(1).

The lack of an Acknowledgement of Service means the failure to serve correctly was not rectified.

jkdd77

I would give them a taste of their own medicine by instructingh his/her HCO officers in relation to the £1,500 in costs the OP is apparently owed in the other thread, http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5662425, and where it appears that Gladstone's application for a stay was itself refused.

With luck, the OP will come out ahead.

I agree with johnersh that the decision to refuse leave to appeal is wrong and perverse; unfortunately, the only avenue open would be to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to bring a second appeal against the refusal of the application for set aside.

The CoA will grant such an application if and only if they are satisfied both that there is reasonable prospects of success, and that there is a strong public interest in giving leave for a further appeal.

If the case law referred to by johnersh was properly referenced and dismissed then I think the OP would have a reasonable chance of success at the CoA. In my opinion, the "public interest" test is clearly satisfied by the injustice and human rights implications if PPCs (and other frivolous claimants) are able to get binding CCJs (including for extra amounts which cannot be due) by wilfully sending claim forms to the wrong address (and then inflate the amount owed exponentially further by instructing baliffs or HCEOs).

However, there would be very considerable financial implications in pursuing a further appeal, and Gladstones would continue to be able to undertake enforcement in the meantime.

If the case law referred to by johnersh was not properly referred to then it is probably futile to appeal.

Permission to appeal test !!!8211; second appeals
52.7

(1) Permission is required from the Court of Appeal for any appeal to that court from a decision of the County Court, the family court or the High Court which was itself made on appeal, or a decision of the Upper Tribunal which was made on appeal from a decision of the First-tier Tribunal on a point of law where the Upper Tribunal has refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
(2) The Court of Appeal will not give permission unless it considers that;

(a) the appeal would;

(i) have a real prospect of success; and

(ii) raise an important point of principle or practice; or

(b) there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.

[Deleted User]

it would appear the OP notified
PCM's debit (sic) debt collection agent

They were the agent. That should be good enough.

the OP appears to have spent considerable time and money on this already already expending the set aside fee and the application to appeal.

This is true. It'll probably need legal representation to tidy this up. It would be cheaper at this point for Sassii just to pay, sadly.

jkdd77

Further to my previous post, I now understand that the definition of "second appeal" in the CPR is such that a refusal of leave to appeal does not qualify as a "decision which was itself made on appeal".

Unfortunately, section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 states:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/22/section/54

No appeal may be made against a decision of a court under this section to give or refuse permission (but this subsection does not affect any right under rules of court to make a further application for permission to the same or another court).

This means that there appears to be no remedy in English law when a circuit judge errs (and it appears that he clearly erred here) in refusing a meritorious oral application for leave to appeal.

Arguably, this raises significant human rights issues (as indeed also does the enforcement by the State and through State processes of a default judgment which the OP had no real opportunity to defend), but there is no prospect of a UK court striking down primary legislation, and going to the ECHR is not feasible in practice for a litigant in person.

I repeat my previous suggestion that the OP should him/ herself instruct HCEOs in relation to the money owed to him/ her in the other thread, combined with an offer to Gladstone's to "drop hands".

The_Deep

This means that there appears to be no remedy in English law when a circuit judge errs (and it appears that he clearly erred here) in refusing a meritorious oral application for leave to appeal

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (via MP)?

[Deleted User]

On the set aside application I'd have liked to see it set aside.

The judge on appeal can only address the arguments put to him. Therein lies the problem here.

Coupon-mad

eyetoeye wrote: »

From re-reading this thread it would appear...

Reading your other threads it would appear

It would appear that your posts are from someone with some knowledge, spotted by other posters.

I'm certainly reading them with interest.