CCJ from BW Legal. Please help.

rachity

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Rachity is wrong about a set aside with consent

Me & Zenith Chambers, it would appear.

Try to obtain the claimant’s consent – quickly. Give the other side an outline of a Defence with real prospect of success, and request immediate written consent to setting aside (to limit the length and costs of the witness statement in support of the application): but chase a prompt response, and do not let the hope of obtaining consent add to your delay in applying to the court.

https://zenithpi.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/setting-aside-default-judgment-some-hints-for-defendants-and-for-claimants/

AnthonyAB

So do you think the most I would have to pay is £255 twice?

Coupon-mad

rachity wrote: »

Me & Zenith Chambers, it would appear.




https://zenithpi.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/setting-aside-default-judgment-some-hints-for-defendants-and-for-claimants/

No chance whatsoever with a parking firm, without paying them. We've seen it!

ParkingEye for example, will play ball with a set aside with consent, but ONLY if the victim pays them off. So it costs the person £100 and then they have to pay P/Eye some £175, so in those cases it's an option, especially if it's an overstay in a retail park where the signs & facts are like the Beavis case.

Other PPCs are simply not trusted/trustworthy to play ball fairly, and would also certainly never agree unless their ludicrous £250 or more was paid. And even then we've seen OP's have to beg for proof of payment and the consent order, to get the CCJ set aside, rather than just marked 'satisfied' (helps no-one).

Coupon-mad

AnthonyAB wrote: »

So do you think the most I would have to pay is £255 twice?

Twice?

Do you have two CCJs?

KeithP

rachity wrote: »

Me & Zenith Chambers, it would appear.


https://zenithpi.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/setting-aside-default-judgment-some-hints-for-defendants-and-for-claimants/

OK, Rachity, please tell us your secret.

How would you go about persuading a parking company to agree to a set aside with consent without having to pay them the initial judgment amount?

Looks like you may need to consult Zenith Chambers again.

onlyfoolsandparking

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Oh it's worth it - MUCH better to apply for a £255 set aside, than 'with consent'.

BW Legal will want about £250 or more, and then there would be £100 court fee to get a set aside 'with consent' and no chance to defend the claim. Horrible option, nonono.

Hang on a sec here, you know me CM I'm not an expert with Court blah blah so I'm always careful what I 'advise' BUT is it say BW lying legal wanting £250 to 'cancel' CCJ entry and that's then the end of it OR pay £255 set aside but then have to defend original claim, am I correct in my thinking or have I missed something? because for me and putting it in simple terms this is what it looks like:


A, pay BW scumbags £250 (approx. I guess) end of grief
B, pay Court £255 for set aside, still have to defend with no guarantee


It looks a no brainer UNLESS your gonna say you can claim the £255 set aside back from scumbags but again (as I understand it) that's no guarantee either.


Feel free to correct my stupidity:D

rachity

KeithP wrote: »

Looks like you may need to consult Zenith Chambers again.

Not at all.


Ask Britannia for consent....give them 7 days to reply.


If they refuse, or want the CCJ payment before consenting, then pay the £255. (For set aside without consent.)


& cite unreasonable behaviour.



After all, they knew (or ought to have known) the correct current address all along.

Britannia Parking sent all of there little threats in the beginning to my correct address so I have no idea why.

waamo

rachity wrote: »

Not at all.


Ask Britannia for consent....give them 7 days to reply.


If they refuse, or want the CCJ payment before consenting, then pay the £255. (For set aside without consent.)


& cite unreasonable behaviour.



After all, they knew (or ought to have known) the correct current address all along.

They are only allowed to ask the DVLA once for a keepers details. Unless the keeper tells them they have moved then the ppc will not go looking for them. They will use the last known address as that is what the law says they must do.

Trying to persuade a judge that folllowing the method prescribed in law is being unreasonable will be something of an uphill task.

rachity

waamo wrote: »

They are only allowed to ask the DVLA once for a keepe.rs details Unless the keeper tells them they have moved then the ppc will not go looking for them. They will use the last known address as that is what the law says they must do.

Trying to persuade a judge that folllowing the method prescribed in law is being unreasonable will be something of an uphill task.

They did so years ago.

(3) Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).

CPR 6.9(3)
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.9

waamo

rachity wrote: »

They did so years ago.





CPR 6.9(3)
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.9

And why would they have reason to believe someone has moved? Unless they are told (returning letters and marking them as moved would do) they won't know.

In the absence of any evidence someone has moved it's not unreasonable to continue chasing the last known address.