Screwed by BW Legal....

jkracing

As I had understood it from my research, the two things were not connected. Clearly the judge disagreed!

nosferatu1001

For the "OR" - There needs to be a compelling reason to set aside the claim, and a good defence is such a reason.

++ on the strict time limits. Leave to appeal MUST BE MADE NOW if you want it to have a chance, and you will have to arrange for the transcript in parallel. You have very little chance of getting the transcript before your dealdine to appeal is up

The_Deep

For the "OR" - There needs to be a compelling reason to set aside the claim, and a good defence is such a reason.

That begs the question. Surly a far more compelling reason is that the motorist did not know about the claim as all the paperwork went to the wrong address.

Why is he/she compelled to defend a claim? Why can he not just pay it?

jkracing

If the above is true, then it's no surprise that these companies use these tactics - They are getting £700 for a parking ticket by deliberately misleading the courts, but nobody is going to do anything about it.

Coupon-mad

Was she unable to say anything about the basis of defending the claim?

Even if not then I gave you two things to appeal on - one was not granting the set aside, and the other (a separate matter) was about disproportionate quantum.

jkracing

Thanks all - I have filled out the appeal forms this evening and they will be sent to the Court in the morning.

Coupon-Mad, I have included the three points which you mentioned, along with the prior cases cited as my basis for appeal.

Coupon-mad

Her basis for appeal, not yours. She (the Defendant) signed the form? Not you...

I feel this has to be worth challenging as the address used was flagged NOT likely to be a home address and the POFA says the address of a keeper must be supplied by the DVLA (only, no option, no alternative). If they later trace a different address for service it has to be a true one and sending scam-looking debt chasing texts is not good service!

As they traced a 'bad' address, this was bad service IMHO.

I strongly feel this CCJ should have been overturned and surely it's worth getting a fresh pair of eyes to consider leave to appeal that decision, and failing that, to appeal on the quantum at least which was ludicrous and draconian punishment for a person trying for a set aside.

Remember, as Johnersh mentioned, if she gets leave to appeal she will need to pay for the transcript of the hearing, which should be eye-watering to read.

jkracing

Thanks Coupon. All noted.

We have enlisted the help of a local solicitor as well to get some advice on the matter. Free 30 minutes scheduled for tomorrow, so we can get some additional support.

I'm confident that we should get this overturned. The additional fees seem to have been added to punish her for attempting the set aside, and the court have supported it.

[Deleted User]

Also Woodward & Anor v Phoenix - No duty to correct another's mistake.

Nothing obliges a defendant to respond to protocol letters, nor calls. There is no duty to provide a service address (and why would you, when the DVLA address they had was good - being both the authorised address at which the vehicle was registered and a place at which you had resided and had safe access to post).

Coupon-mad

Good one, Johnersh, never heard of that one.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/985.html

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/solicitor-under-no-duty-to-flag-up-opponents-mistake-rules-coa/5070589.article

https://hardwicke.co.uk/courting-disaster-and-the-indulgence-of-the-courts-woodward-anor-v-phoenix-healthcare-distribution-ltd-2019-ewca-civ-985/

The same documents were also sent by email to a partner at M&R, at 10.37 am on 17 October 2017. A “read receipt” was received by CB at 10.43 am that day, acknowledging receipt of the email and confirming that it had been read. The partner, however, having satisfied himself that the purported service was ineffective, neither considered that he was obliged to notify CB of this.

Similar to this case in that respect, too. A text or email is not service of a claim.