Screwed by BW Legal....

Coupon-mad

Yes I agree.

Be good if this OP could get a free barrister though.

jkracing

Thanks again everyone for your help - I'd happily enough pay for legal representation if it means her not having to do that again, it really wasn't a pleasant experience.

I'll read through everything in detail tonight and make the necessary applications to the court. I'll keep everyone informed of progress as we go!

Thank you

Coupon-mad

I really think she needs to appeal this, because what you have described is shocking.

[Deleted User]

I'm not playing with this esp in light of the suggestion that bankruptcy applications were made. If the o/p wishes to pursue it, professional advice should be taken.

There would be merit in obtaining a copy of the transcript. Barton v Wright Hassell is authority for the fact that you don't need to cooperate re service of proceedings, provided that you were not avoiding service.

The obvious concern is that it appears that C correctly identified the DVLA address was wrong, got a new address and then assumed the newer one was better. Remember the obligation is service at last known address if a current one cannot be located. The obvious thing to do would be to serve a claim form at both addresses. But that'd be sensible.

You went down for all the parking charges because there was no defence which could have challenged the crazy bolt on fees. Once the DJ found valid service then s/he was obliged to apply the unchallenged fees.

Coupon-mad

But how did he/she find valid service?

That was never a last known address for the D.

[Deleted User]

Hence the transcript. If the last known address from the credit report was indeed endorsed "unlikely to live here" then the point is obviously how can that realistically be an active address as the knowledge was no longer current. I'll need to dig through my research to give you the authority on that...

jkracing

Thanks Johnersh - For the avoidance of doubt here, the address situation is as follows:

Oxted is her parent's address. She has lived there for the last 20 years and her car, Insurance and driving license have always been registered at that address. She is also on the electoral role there and every indication on her credit file points toward this being her primary address.

My old rented house was in Crawley. I was there for 4 years, but she has never lived at that address. We made a joint application for car finance 2 years ago, so there is a small, insignificant trace of my address on her Equifax report (but this was long before several more recent traces that confirm the correct address) and it specifically states that this is unlikely to be her address. I also moved out of this address 6 months prior to the Court hearing as the landlord sold the property - hence not receiving any mail.

NCP originally used the correct, Oxted address. BW Legal then decided to run a credit check and decided to choose the least strong of the addresses listed and sent the documentation to that address alone.

The only conclusion that can be drawn here is that this was done intentionally to ensure we did not receive the paperwork.

Coupon-mad

Agreed. What the heck was wrong with the Judge?

[Deleted User]

H/T to Gordon Exall. Read this:
https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2018/07/28/service-of-the-claim-form-defendants-last-known-address-claimants-reason-to-believe-a-few-points-to-watch/
And this:
https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2019/04/15/another-claim-form-case-service-at-last-known-address-fails-service-based-on-companies-act-succeeds/

A core requirement of CPR 13 is to show that the case is defensible if judgment is set aside. I suspect the absence of that evidence weighted the DJ against.

Certainly the transcript will clarify that. Note well: Applications to appeal have strict time limits.

The_Deep

A core requirement of CPR 13 is to show that the case is defensible if judgment is set aside. I suspect the absence of that evidence weighted the DJ against.

Surely not so, there is an "or" after 13.3.(1)(a). .

But does not the motorist have the option to pay the charge, arguably at the lower rate? I see no connection between a petition to set aside a wrongfully obtained CCJ and being forced to contest correctly issued PCN.

This is the fourth or fifth time I have asked this question but no-one has addressed it.