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

Coupon-mad

Donowl1981 wrote: »

Yes it does seem extremely underhand and I will definitely be taking a copy of the email to court with me.
Also the fact that they say I failed to deal with the parking fine at the time is a lie, I wrote to them asking to send me proof of the driver (as this was law at the time-2012).

But the NEWBIES thread explains the two types of set aside;

- with consent (which is what they are trying to push you into)

and

- without consent (which is what we see people do, usually).

All they've done is written to say they will contest the latter ''on grounds that you failed to deal with the Parking Charge Notice when it was first issued.''.

Big deal. Scaremongering; they are annoyed you want it set aside. That's not a reason to contest the set aside of CCJ.

Please read about set asides in the NEWBIES thread as you appear surprised by their response as if it's something new. Nothing they say should throw you off track with your SET ASIDE WITHOUT CONSENT application to the court.

You say you have a set aside hearing:

What I received from the court was titled: Notice of set aside judgement and seems to be basically telling me where and when to go.

All Excel have said is they will contest it, so you need to be VERY prepared for the hearing, as to why the CCJ should be set aside in case it's something of a battle. You need to know from reading other set aside threads, why you are in a position to get it set aside, and what your defence will be, should Excel pursue the claim again once set aside.

Don't be diverted by Excel throwing their toys out of the pram and trying to get you to go the 'consent route'. NO.

System

Also the fact that they say I failed to deal with the parking fine at the time is a lie, I wrote to them asking to send me proof of the driver (as this was law at the time-2012).

If this was the case you would have had a rejection from Excel and a POPLA code to use for the next stage.

Leaving aside the debate about the legalities of this, look at the practical issues.

1. Excel say pay £125 (full and final) and then a further £100 for the "with consent" set aside. Or £225 to get the matter resolved and off the credit file.

2. Fight as suggested here and have two days in court plus a £255 fee. One day for the set aside and one day for the hearing - without the certainty of the matter being resolved in your favour.

Weigh up the risk, costs, time and make a decision. Sometimes the wrong way is the right way.

Donowl1981

TWO DAYS!! Surely not? I think the court have set aside 30 minutes for the set aside, and from the advice that I’ve been given on here there’s a fairly good chance That will be the end of it due to the parking charge being from 2012, before the rule changes.
Also didn’t realise that there would be another £100 on top of the £125, this would make my total costs nearly £500!!
Looks like I need to do some work on my defence!!

System

Just to clarify

1. Two days. - You will have to attend for 15 minutes on the first hearing of the set aside. Then there is a rehearing of about 1 hour on another day. Two separate hearings on two separate days.

2. Costs. With consent is £100 plus the £125 you have to pay Excel OR pay £255 for a "without consent" set aside. So costs are either £225 OR £255

If Excel did send you a POPLA code and you didn't use it, I can't see a judge refunding you the £255 for the "without consent" set aside fee. Getting these £255 fees back is problematic.

Just a heads up on the practicalities of staying in the court system / having your day in court.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Donowl1981

So, I have already paid £255 for the without consent hearing, would I get this back if I changed to a with consent hearing?
Definitely never received a POPLA code.

[Deleted User]

Ok, so as I understand it:

1. Parking event c. 2012
2. O/p moves house c. 2014
3. C issues proceedings in 2017 on the basis of a last known address from 2012.

If that is all correct, then:

The argument is that this amounts to casual application of the court rules. The CPR provisions of last known address relate to defendants that have 'gone to ground.' You were on the electoral roll, there to be found and indeed (conveniently) were found post CCJ by C's agents.

An electoral roll search costs about £1 from a desktop enquiry service such as 192.com. it is very difficult to see how C thought it was appropriate to defer proceedings 5 years without making any enquiry as to the correct address for service.

Read this explanation of the rules. It is important.
https://civillitigationbrief-wordpress-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/service-of-the-claim-form-service-at-last-known-address-more-dangerbepoints-to-watch/amp/?amp_js_v=a1&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAEYAQ%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fcivillitigationbrief.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F05%2F18%2Fservice-of-the-claim-form-service-at-last-known-address-more-dangerbepoints-to-watch%2F

Even a brief Google search brings up ONS statistics to show median time at a single address (2008/9) was 8 years. If the PPC is going to wait 5 years to issue a claim, there would it appears to me, to be a bl**Dy good chance you'll no longer be there, such that there cannot have been reasonable belief (a) that you still resided there or (b) that you could be located there. It follows that there was not, in fact, valid service and C was never entitled to a default judgment.

Sod costs reserved, I'd be saying I want my costs of the application. Since primary limitation has possibly now expired (assuming the 6th anniversary of the ticket has now passed) if the claim form was never validly served, this claim is dead and statute barred.

Castle

IamEmanresu wrote: »

If this was the case you would have had a rejection from Excel and a POPLA code to use for the next stage.

According to post 11 the PCN was issued on 30th April 2012; which was before POFA and before POPLA was set up.

waamo

Donowl1981 wrote: »

Right, seems like a daft rule. Hopefully should be pretty straight forward winning the set aside and making them out of pocket paying my court fees anyway.

Just to explain the Without Prejudice system is there to allow parties to have confidential negotiations to resolve their differences before getting to court. Their letter is merely an offer.

The idea is that if matters do reach court the judge isn't influenced by one parties thinking and comes to their own independent decision.

Coupon-mad

Why are you even dithering about 'changing to with consent' which is what Excel want you to do?

Please re-read my previous reply to you and continue as you were. No idea what's confused you here.

Carry on.

Pre-POFA, pre-POPLA, you can't be held liable. The important matters to bring home in your set aside hearing are:

- that you didn't receive the court claim; they used an old address which is exactly the sort of abuse that Sir Oliver Heald pledged to end, with CCJ reform

- that you acted as soon as you knew about the CCJ, quickly

- that you were never liable (pre-POFA, so no cause of action). Excel might try throwing CPS v AJH Films and Elliott v Loake at the case, so you need to search the forum for those to read how to rebut that daft argument.

- that you DID in fact reply to Excel at the time asking them for evidence of who was driving, and they never replied (and it was pre-POPLA so there was no independent appeal worth trying at the time).

- that the driver is the only person potentially liable, and there is no evidence nor can any presumption be made (search the forum for Launchbury and also Henry Greenslade understanding keeper liability as keyword searches).

- that the Claimant has acted wholly vexatiously and unreasonably by using an address they knew was several years old, and they should have known the claim very likely would not be properly served. And that the keeper did respond at the time, and they are aware that this was pre-POFA so never had any cause of action against you, and this is a speculative claim against a person who could never have been held liable at the time, or now.

- that Excel were BANNED by the DVLA in 2012, for saying that a keeper could be held liable in law, pre-POFA! So they have unreasonably laid low for a few years and are hoping people do not know they were banned for saying the very things about liability for a registered keeper, that they are trying to say now:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/excel_parking_ban_suspended

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/139931/response/342099/attach/html/2/FOIR3196%20Thorn.pdf.html

''DVLA received a number of complaints where members of the British Parking
Association's (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) were allegedly stating or implying
on their documentation/signage that the vehicle owner/keeper is liable for the payment of
charges imposed in respect of parking contraventions, or that the vehicle owner/keeper had
a legal responsibility to provide information as to who the driver was. This behaviour is a
significant breach of the AOS Code of Practice.''

- so ask the Judge to consider striking the case out as having no prospects of success and awarding your costs in full on the indemnity basis, including your £255 and your travel/parking and loss of salary or loss of leave, for attending.

- failing that, before you leave the hearing, if the Judge allows your set aside but baulks at ordering a strike out or refund for you on the spot, ask for your £255 and set aside hearing fees to be reserved, and that if the Claimant should now discontinue, they be ordered to pay those costs.