DVLA screw up = CCJ

[Deleted User]

What EXACTLY does their proposed consent order say?

The_Deep

I assume my emphasis is that when the parking company took it to court 2 years later they should have re-checked the address?

Indeed, they should have, but often they do not. That is why set asides are easy to obtain in these circumstances and PPCs have to pay the £255.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Ginger16

I thought that between an individual/layman and business a hearing with a judge is always done to ensure the law is followed. And that only business to business set asides can be done by a clerk without a judge/proper hearing.

Or does their consent literally mean the matter is settled?

There is a cover letter, which is 3 lines. Saying sign and date the attached consent order and send it to the CCBC. CCBC will need £100 application fee. Their consent does not gaurentee the judges decision.
______________
In the county court business centre. Claim no.XXXX

Between
Them. Claimant
V
Me. Defendant

Draft consent order

By consent it is ordered that:
a) The judgement in this matter be set aside;
b) The proceedings in this matter to be dismissed; and
c) No order for costs to be made.

Dated:

Signed by them in pen. Space for me to sign
_________

Is it a trick?

[Deleted User]

No hearing needed. I don't think the judge will set that aside because it doesn't say why it's needed.

My proposed wording was superior inmho, recording the rationale for the set aside and the settlement. I don't see why they should have a beef with the preamble, but the numbered paras (the operative part of the order) need to be carefully thought through to ensure they reflect what you agree.

You should discuss the terms of the order after all you're paying the PCN as I recall as part of the agreement. Don't just sign it if uncertain.

Ginger16

Is the supporting WS not used to explain the reasoning? I will go back to them to get the rationale included. I do feel yours hit it on the head, but I'll skip the settlement part as they appear not to demand it.

I had no idea their consent meant no hearing, I've not seen it in anything I have read, I just assumed it was generally a shorter hearing.

I agreed to settlement strictly pending my review of the provision of the evidence. I'm not paying a penny to the PPC unless I know what it is for and that it is valid. But they have still failed to provide the evidence and they have since provided this new draft order which does not address any settlement. So there is no payment due from me other than the CCBC fee.

[Deleted User]

If they're willing to dismiss the claim and set aside judgment with no payment to them (I worried you'd paid them up front), that's a decent result.

That order doesn't provide for any payment to the PPC so youd be completely done if the court agree the set aside

Ginger16

I was about to put it in the post, but am going to go with the present one. I worry that asking for the preamble to be added runs the risk they could backtrack on the operatives, which presently seem almost the best possible outcome I could have expected.



Certainly in an ideal world having the rationale makes the whole thing solid (especially if there was a settlement), but at risk of losing what they have agreed to I feel the WS will provide an equally clear context for a mandatory set aside. I assume the judge must read all the statements before making their decision.

On the next order I will go in with that format to begin with.