CCJ Issued Missing Letters! PAS BW Legal - Blackpool Bond Street Parking Attendant Scam

jdplly

Thank you @Coupon-mad

If we do go ahead with the set aside, is there a way to do it without my father having to attend court?

If the CCJ does get set aside, does the case go back to the claim stage again?

Jenni_D

If the SA requires a hearing then the party making the SA is required to attend (unless they're represented by a lawyer with Rights of Audience in a court). So if it's your Dad's set aside and a hearing is required then he needs to attend. (You may be able to be his Lay Representative, but I'm not sure if that is a right for a SA hearing - it may be at the judge's discretion). Of course that doesn't stop you doing all the leg work and paperwork.

As to the latter question - I think it goes back to the stage as if the claim had not been raised, so the claimant must decide whether to raise the claim again.

Coupon-mad

jdplly said:

Thank you @Coupon-mad

If we do go ahead with the set aside, is there a way to do it without my father having to attend court?

If the CCJ does get set aside, does the case go back to the claim stage again?

No-one attends court, it’s done over the phone now.  You can join the call with him as his lay rep, and speak for him if that suits you both better, if you understand CPR 13 and what is needed better than he does.  But he MUST be on the call too. Best to be in the same house on one phone on loudspeaker so you can follow it together.

This hearing is not about the PCN although he does need a defence as well, and there is always a defence.

Yes it goes back to claim unless the Judge strikes out the claim as well, or if the PPC discontinue, both of which are fairly common outcomes.  But one step at a time. 

henrik777

Jenni_D said:

If the SA requires a hearing then the party making the SA is required to attend (unless they're represented by a lawyer with Rights of Audience in a court). So if it's your Dad's set aside and a hearing is required then he needs to attend. (You may be able to be his Lay Representative, but I'm not sure if that is a right for a SA hearing - it may be at the judge's discretion). Of course that doesn't stop you doing all the leg work and paperwork.

As to the latter question - I think it goes back to the stage as if the claim had not been raised, so the claimant must decide whether to raise the claim again.

It is not a right. The claim never reached allocation so is technically multi track iirc until it is allocated.

jdplly

It is not a right. The claim never reached allocation so is technically multi track iirc until it is allocated.

Hi @henrik777 thank you for your response, just to be clear are you saying I may not be able to speak on his behalf?

Does anyone think we actually have a case for getting the CCJ set aside and the fee back? I've read loads of posts where the letters went to an old address. But where do we stand with us not receiving 3 separate documents? Is a judge likely to accept that if CCBC just say 'yes we did post them'? How can we prove that we didn't get them? Or that CCBC just assumed they had been posted out to both parties when BW downloaded another DQ out of the blue? 

Coupon-mad

The court has discretion to allow a lay rep to speak, because the court can hear anyone if the Judge allows it and the overriding objective applies (read CPR1).  IMHO, you will be allowed to speak for him as long as he is on the call as well, it's just technically not a 'right' if a case isn't allocated to track, yet.

I think you suggest this most likely happened because you do receive post and yet no CCBC letters came to you, so it seems confusion reigned at the CCBC due to the inordinate delay:

Or that CCBC just assumed they had been posted out to both parties when BW downloaded another DQ out of the blue.

Either way, the court still has discretion to set aside a CCJ for compelling reasons and that would include whether the D intended to defend, which you clearly did,  whether you acted promptly when you discovered what had happened (crack on witht he application!!) and whether there are good prospects of successful defence.

And that the issue has in fact been caused by the C 'warehousing' (use that word) the claim for 2 years then downloading a DQ out of the blue without checking whether the D's address was still current, and the warehousing alone could be deemed unreasonable conduct in a low value case where there were no complicated issued and no reason to sit on the case then catch the D unawares and confuse the CCBC at a time when the courts were hard pressed and the CCBC has made a few mistakes.

Does the D not qualify for help with fees?  Just wondering.  If so then your concern about the fee being refunded or not aren't an issue.  We can't tell you if a Judge will decide that the C should pay the fees.  The warehousing issue of a legally-represented C delaying a claim for no reason then the CCBC thinking it has issued a DQ when it hadn't, as a result of BW just downloading one two years later, would be my argument as to why the fee (if the D pays fees) should be awarded against the C under all the circumstances because a LiP has been put to a cost that would not have arisen but for the inordinate delay and confusion at the CCBC.

henrik777

Hi @henrik777 thank you for your response, just to be clear are you saying I may not be able to speak on his behalf?

Ignore me i'm wrong. I didn't read the whole thread and realise this case HAD been allocated with a defence etc.

However still think there is no automatic right of audience at a hearing after the court decision.

Johnersh

Has the o/p clarified by the October order was made? A copy should be obtained.

I'm assuming that an unless order was made in the October on the basis that a DQ hadn't been filed.

However, since
(I) a DQ had been filed previously and
(II) the peremptory order was never received,

There would appear to be decent reasons to get this back in play.

Although I note the o/p's comments regarding payment, the ccj was secured in January if I've read that correctly. It will therefore ping a credit check even if discharged - which is precisely why many on here do like to fight them. Obviously your call...