CCJ from BE Legal/Excel relating to incident in 2012

Coupon-mad

Just spotted this, hooray! Well done:

So he awarded costs! Court fee, work losses (£90) and travel.

So they coughed up over £350 - plus the cost/time of the BW Legal person wasted - chortle!

All to do a complete circle and clear your credit rating and get you back to where you were, and they paid for that, and are no further forward. Plus they've already spent money on the case and a court fee, even before deciding whether to take you on in court!

[Deleted User]

Congratulations on the set aside and getting the costs. That's important as it now creates less incentive for the claimant to press on with the claim and potentially to lose again.

The capitulation at the door of court shoes that the PPCs know full well that many of their defaults may be vulnerable because of a lack of even basic checks.

SET ASIDE
I think I posted Marshall Rankine v Maggs up here - probably on another thread. It would have killed the need for the hypothesising. Paras 95 to 105 are particularly helpful. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/20.html&query=marshall+and+rankine+and+maggs&method=boolean

Also, Google "adrian zuckerman service claim form". His quite lengthy explanation (pdf download) is old, but the explanations regarding the service process remain sound and it's surprisingly readable.

In most cases the address from the dvla will be sufficient to proceed. However, once a couple of years have passed and particularly if there has been no response to anything this his helpful authority that assumptions are unsafe. In Marshall there was, I believe, a 4 year period between meeting the defendant at the address and issue. Obviously that case was even better as the Defendant had never lived there, but the analysis is helpful.

Coupon-mad

Johnersh wrote: »

Congratulations on the set aside and getting the costs. That's important as it now creates less incentive for the claimant to press on with the claim and potentially to lose again.

The capitulation at the door of court shoes that the PPCs know full well that many of their defaults may be vulnerable because of a lack of even basic checks.

SET ASIDE
I think I posted Marshall Rankine v Maggs up here - probably on another thread. It would have killed the need for the hypothesising. Paras 95 to 105 are particularly helpful. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/20.html&query=marshall+and+rankine+and+maggs&method=boolean

Also, Google "adrian zuckerman service claim form". His quite lengthy explanation (pdf download) is old, but the explanations regarding the service process remain sound and it's surprisingly readable.

In most cases the address from the dvla will be sufficient to proceed. However, once a couple of years have passed and particularly if there has been no response to anything this his helpful authority that assumptions are unsafe. In Marshall there was, I believe, a 4 year period between meeting the defendant at the address and issue. Obviously that case was even better as the Defendant had never lived there, but the analysis is helpful.

That's very useful to know, an authority for Ds to argue that a PPC should have taken steps to find out with a simple trace/search, where the D lives after a gap of more than mere months.

Cheers Johnersh. I tried Googling for one like that case and couldn't spot one.

System

I tried Googling for one like that case and couldn't spot one.

http://adrianzuckerman.co.uk/files/File/cjq2009_1editorsnote_-_new_provisions_for_service.pdf

Top of page 6 reference to CPR r.6.9(3)

Try harder Coupon

PS Drop me a line.

Coupon-mad

I'll try harder IamEmanresu, and have dropped you a line.

TobyZ

Hi all,

Two letters from BW Legal this week. One had my cheque in it (for which, once again, thanks to all on here - couldn't have done it without you). The other, alas, contained their amended particulars of claim. I was kind of hoping they'd give up, so you've got to give them marks for persistence, if nothing else.

The claim's really weak - including three issues they've lost in court on, in particular clear signage - this is the infamous Chorlton Excel car park in 2012 and failure to purchase pay and display tickets (they've had cases thrown out for the machine in this exact car park breaking down. Very ropey digital pictures are attached which pretty much confirm that the signage was poor.

So, I could fight it, no doubt. But...I have some serious family issues to deal with in the next couple of months and don't really want this taking up my time. The cost's not really a massive issue for me now the CCJ's off my record - though I do find paying these sharks galling on principle. However, I have to put family first so I am considering just paying it to make it go away.

So my question for you guys is - what's the most effective way to do that? I assume I should make a without prejudice offer, in writing, without admitting liability? Should I try offering less than they've asked for (they've added on various spurious costs as usual?)

I know you would all much rather I fight it, and part of me is still tempted to, but I am not sure I can spare the time at the moment. Can you offer any advice on making this go away quickly, efficiently, and for good?

Coupon-mad

Hmmm...I wouldn't pay it and I appreciate your position - but I still wouldn't.

A defence based on the usual stuff should see it off, and if you are only busy with issues for the next 2 months, write to the court and say when you are unavailable (till Feb)?

TobyZ

Thanks CM. I know you guys would always fight to the end : )

I hadn't considered delaying to be honest. Are the courts open to such things? And could I get the two week deadline on preparing my defence extended? It will be a bit of a headache to sort that out in time to be honest.

Loadsofchildren123

You can extend your defence deadline by agreement with the PPC or if the court gives permission.


PPC unlikely to agree and you'd have to pay £100 for a paper application for permission (and you may not get those costs, unless you can show that the PPC unreasonably refused the extension request). With your application you'd have to explain your reasons.


I understand your predicament. Why not ask the PPC to agree to extend time and explain why and then review? The only downside of that is they will then think they have you on the run if you were to later offer to settle.


In terms of making an offer, historically PPCs will usually refuse any offer for anything other than the full amount. That's their business model: proceed regardless and the cases they lose are loss leaders because most people will pay, even those who start out defending, or not even turn up in court on the day. But here they can see you are willing to put up a fight and to devote time to defeating them so they may accept a lower offer of, say, the original ticket amount (which is probably the same as the fee you'd have to pay to extend time for your defence).

TobyZ

Thanks LoadsofChildren. That's very helpful. I've been leaning back towards carrying on to be honest. My wife pointed out that given how long it takes the court to allocate a hearing date (it was near on 2 months for the set aside), and the large number of business days lost over Christmas, its unlikely this will come to a hearing before the difficult period is out of the way for me (by end Jan things should be settled again).

I have therefore been looking again at the BW Legal documents. Am I right in thinking that they can only rely on the material they have submitted in this particulars document, and that they cannot use anything else that I haven't seen as it would prejudice the case against me? The case they've made is pretty thin, and with really weak evidence (some blurry photos). But I'm worried they might produce more material later - are they allowed to do so?