CCJ issued by Excel at my place of work!, options for getting it set aside?

aardll

Hello all. Update on this.

So in summary:

- The defence was served to court and claimant back in September
- Nothing heard for months until yesterday when I receive a “Notice of Debt Recovery” from some company called “DCBL”. The notice has the previous CCJ number on it which was set aside
- Rang the court to ask what was going on with the case as I’d had nothing from Excel or the Court, court confirmed that Excel haven’t submitted any paperwork to them regarding a hearing, court have confirmed they’ve received my defence etc and I have the proof of postage and the proof that the defence was served to the claimant (signed for proof via the royal mail special delivery website)
- Rang the DCBL company and asked why I they were chasing me for a debt referring to a CCJ which had already been set aside no real explanation from them as they’re just doing what they’re told apparently, it will be put on “hold” (whatever the hell that means)

Few questions here, why have Excel instructed a debt recovery company to chase this when it’s been set aside and is now moving through the courts? Are they just being chancers and trying to harass me into paying knowing full well they’ve not requested a hearing based on my defence?

Options now?

Coupon-mad

Few questions here, why have Excel instructed a debt recovery company to chase this when it’s been set aside and is now moving through the courts?

Because parking firms are scammers.

Are they just being chancers and trying to harass me into paying knowing full well they’ve not requested a hearing based on my defence?

Yes.

Raise all this in your WS and evidence, and submit a costs schedule and add about 20 hours at £19 per hour LiP rate as per this example:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76445468#Comment_76445468

...only yours will be higher, due to two hearings and a set aside court fee.

Le_Kirk

aardll wrote: »

Few questions here, why have Excel instructed a debt recovery company to chase this when it’s been set aside and is now moving through the courts? Are they just being chancers and trying to harass me into paying knowing full well they’ve not requested a hearing based on my defence.

Seems not to be an isolated instance, see this article and comments posted earlier today: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6065869/guardian-article

aardll

Thanks for the responses people. Much appreciated.

I can't actually complete a WS until they proceed to take it to court though yes? this is the bit I'm slightly confused about... the person I spoke to from court the other day said she'd forward me the questionnaire to complete but as excel haven't contacted the court about arranging a trial etc how can they do that?

Should I respond to the DCBL letter and show a copy of the set aside for the CCJ they're quoting?

aardll

Hi all,
Need some guidance on whether or not I need to send a letter to DBCL to say stop chasing me for a CCJ which doesn’t exist?
I recall that the woman on the phone asked me to provide a proof from the court that the CCJ has been set aside – is this a tactic excel are using for something?
Advice on the suggested next move would be great. Thanks for the replies so far.

Coupon-mad

I think write to the named Judge, attach a copy of that DCBL letter, attach your costs schedule NOW (costs so far including travel, loss of leave/salary and the court fees you paid for the two set asides, plus 25(?) hours at £19 per hour LiP rate, for your extensive research, taking advice from the CAB, then reading of all the documents and the applicable laws and Code of Practice, and dealing with these two matters from set aside - the N244 alone took a week to understand - right through to defending the claims).

Attach proof that you served your defence in time as per the 25th July Order, in the form of a copy or scan of the signed-for signature.

Tell the Judge in this letter now, that you suffer from 3 diagnosed psychiatric disorders and this is causing significant distress given the later DCBL letter demanding payment as if the CCJs had not been set aside.

Say that:

Surely the conduct of the Claimant through this process now meets the high bar of unreasonable conduct, given:

(a) they issued two claims against me for very similar and spurious charges
(b) both charges had no reasonable cause to obtain my DVLA data, because
(c) I have an allocated parking bay at work but sometimes for whatever reason I can’t always get into the car park (full) so end up parking in the retail area, moving after 2 hours then returning, where nothing on the sign says you can’t do that, so no contravention (the Claimant's ANPR flaw caused these charges)
(d) the retailer wanted the charges cancelled, but Excel ignored this
(e) thus, there is no legitimate interest or commercial justification to sue
(f) they used an old address and made no attempt to trace my correct one despite having access to tracing services from DCBL and others
(g) both claims therefore suffered from defective service and were set aside
(h) the Claimant tried to pretend that they did not know the claims had been consolidated, and misled the Judge at the set aside hearing despite it being proved that they had been informed that both claims were being considered, and then
(i) despite me filing a defence, the Claimants have not informed the court that they wish to proceed, or paid a hearing fee, and instead
(j) they have passed the data to DCBL (unlawfully, given the stage the matters are at) and instructed them to send the attached letter demanding monies and referring to the old CCJ number of one of the claims, as if the set asides had never happened, and
(k) In blatant disregard for the Practice Direction, the Claimant has made no attempts to enter into a meaningful dialogue with me or at least narrow the issues, and has continued to demand monies despite the mandatory set sides granted by the Court in July;
(l) I remain £xxx out of pocket for attending a hearing and for the applications to set aside these CCJs - the costs were reserved - and all the Claimant has done is allowed the matter to remain dormant, ignored the court process and then sent a bailiff letter, which must be a abuse of process.

In summary and in support of there being a want of a cause of action or justification for the continued conduct of this Claimant:

In the Practice direction, Para 13-16, sanctions: compliance with the PD is not voluntary, nor is it a 'guide' to best practice. It is part of the CPR and is binding. Parties are expected to comply with it. The court may punish those who do not. Inter alia, the court's powers include a costs order, and this may be on the indemnity basis (16(a) and (b)).

The Claimant's unreasonable conduct extends well beyond the pre-action phase and has continued during these proceedings - no attempt to answer the Defendant's reasonable requests for documents, its Particulars of Claim were incoherent and incomprehensible, the issuing of a knowingly inflated claim by adding 'damages' already covered by a parking charge (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 confirms this) and the issuing of two claims with substantially identical particulars.

This amounts to an abuse of process, attempting to waste the Court’s time and making the Defendant liable to two instances of costs an indeed two set aside fees costing over £500 alone. This runs contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1 - the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost.

In considering the reasonableness of the Claimant's conduct the court should take into account its position as a professional parking company and member of the IPC trade Body, and that it is a seasoned litigant which should be fully conversant with the court rules and its obligations.

In comparison, the Defendant is a litigant in person, an ordinary person with no experience of the court (yet has managed to comply with all of obligations, deadlines and the court rules despite the huge costs thus far and the research and work involved taking many hours and causing loss of personal family time and peace of mind, impacting on most of this year).

Point out that you have already paid for two N244 applications and as such, this is a without notice request relating to those existing paid N244 applications, now updating the Court with the latest conduct of the Claimant.

Finish by saying, you now respectfully ask for the Judge to revisit the conduct of the Claimant and exercise the court's own case management powers, to finally strike out these two claims and to Order that the Claimant do pay all of your costs including the LiP rate of £19 per hour for the huge amount of wasted time and worry spent on the matter, granting the costs fully and on the indemnity basis due to their vexatious and wholly unreasonable conduct in the case.


Costs schedule example here, do it like this (to be clear, the set aside costs are part of ORDINARY COSTS) and attach a copy of your wage slip as proof:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76445468#Comment_76445468

aardll

many thanks for this reply Coup, I've started writing this letter today.


I'm not sure about point (H) though, they didn't even bother turning up for the set aside?

Coupon-mad

I wasn't sure and I read and re-read your account about the set aside!

Re-word 'h' to say they didn't bother to turn up. They didn't HAVE to, for a set aside hearing, but hey it all paints a picture of playing fast & loose with the court process.

aardll

Thanks Coup


I posted a letter to DCBL yesterday and informed them the CCJ they were quoting didn't exist as it was set aside and also pointed them in the direction of the FCA handbook (whom they are regulated by)


https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CONC/7/14.html


"A firm must suspend any steps it takes or its agent takes in the recovery of a debt from a customer where the customer disputes the debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds."


Received this from the court yesterday on the back of the phone call I had with them on Friday:

https://imgur.com/a/CX1BFvr


Time to submit the evidence and costs schedule with the questionnaire now I'm assuming? Should I just take the letter you've kindly helped put together and use it as my evidence/statement?

aardll

Hi all, just checking the process here - I'm going to fill in the N180 questionnaire form and send it this week - do I just send it to the court or the court and the claimant?


Thanks