DCBL: telling me I have a ccj I don’t have.?

KeithP

Apparently so.

You asked a question... I gave you my opinion.

Donowl1981

Sorry, your opinion is very much appreciated, just trying to convince myself I!!!8217;m on the right track.

Coupon-mad

Yes that is your main defence, as long as in that 'first appeal' they talk about from 2012, you did NOT talk about who parked the car.

Take the defence with you to the set aside hearing in case the Judge wants to hear more about your chances of success. Six parking firms/their debt collectors were BANNED by the DVLA in pre-POFA months of 2012 for misleading keepers about liability they never had and/or telling keepers they had some sort of obligation to name a driver. i.e. exactly like this PPC is pretending it is OK to state/blame you now...hoping no-one knows that their ilk were banned for saying that!

Look for that DVLA FOI about why parking firms were banned in 2012, and take it with you too.

You should be sending the Court (in advance, and a copy to the Claimant) a Draft Order stating that as no POC were ever properly served, the CCJ should be set aside and, if the Judge is not minded to strike out the entire claim due to the Claimant pursuing a keeper with no evidence as to the driver in a pre-POFA case, that your costs (£255 court fee and your costs and loss of salary or leave for attending the set aside hearing) be reserved.

You can also attach an interim costs schedule too, so (hopefully - if the Judge plays ball) you don't end up being at least £255 out of pocket when the PPC later just discontinue.

Search the forum for set aside six points costs reserved (or similar) to find an example.

Donowl1981

Thanks
I did not talk about who parked the car and excel have confirmed this with copies of the letter I wrote them.

What!!!8217;s POC ?

Coupon-mad

Particulars of Claim. If no POC were served, the CCJ must be set aside.

System

The Smith v Hughes [2003] is as follows:

Dyson LJ, giving the judgment of the court in Cranfield v Bridgegrove Ltd (also known as Smith v Hughes) [2003] 1 WLR 2441, where he said this at [102] about the requirements of CPR 6.5(6):


“102. In our judgment, the position is clear. There are two conditions precedent for the operation of the provisions of rule 6.5(6), namely that (a) no solicitor is acting for the party to be served, and (b) the party has not given an address for service. If those conditions are satisfied, then the rule states that the document to be sent must be sent or transmitted to, or left at, the place shown in the table. In the case of an individual, that means at his or her usual or last known residence. The rule is plain and unqualified. We see no basis for holding that, if the two conditions are satisfied, and the document is sent to that address, that does not amount to good service. The rule does not say that it is not good service if the defendant does not in fact receive the document. If that had been intended to be the position, the rule would have said so in terms. Nor can we see any basis for holding that, if the claimant knows or believes that the defendant is no longer living at his or her last known residence, service may not be effected by sending the claim form, or leaving it at, that address. That would be to fly in the face of the clear words of the rule. The rule is intended to provide a clear and straightforward mechanism for effecting service where the two conditions precedent to which we have referred are satisfied.”

Donowl1981

Evening all
Right so just had a closer look at the photos excel have provided of the car park signage. Have just noticed that they are from 22/8/2012, my case is from april 2012, would this be after the law change as the printed copies of these signs don't seem to say anything about keeper liability?
Thanks

Castle

Donowl1981 wrote: »

Evening all
Right so just had a closer look at the photos excel have provided of the car park signage. Have just noticed that they are from 22/8/2012, my case is from april 2012, would this be after the law change as the printed copies of these signs don't seem to say anything about keeper liability?
Thanks

The law changed on 1st October 2012.

Donowl1981

Hi all.
So, I have had the set aside hearing, it did not go well.
Apparently it was my responsibility to inform excel of my change of address as the last correspondence between us came from them in 2012.
The judge didn’t seem too fussed about how the ccj was served anyway, she said that she could only order a set aside if she believed I had a reasonable chance of winning another hearing.
She said that the Law Of Agency meant that I was responsible for whoever parked the car.
Excel sent a Paralegal who seemed to have done a lot of work on the case.
Don’t think I really ever stood a chance to be honest.

Coupon-mad

You should appeal that decision IMHO. Which court? Which Judge? She is wrong.

The law of agency doesn't apply and Excel v Smith was a case that the victim had to take to appeal, when his Judge also mucked it up.

It was not your responsibility to reply at all in a pre-POFA case. You were never liable.