CCJ from a parking fine

Egf

Hi. I received a parking fine in December 2015 from Vehicle Control Services Ltd. as I had a valid ticket on display in my vehicle, I appealed this fine online. I received no response. I resubmitted the appeal. I then heard from a debt recovery agent in June 2016, I advised them of my appeal and lack of response to which no action was taken.
The car was registered at my home address for the duration that I owned the vehicle. I have requested confirmation of this from DVLA.
I own a property which I rent out. I visited this property yesterday and my tenants handed me some letters. This was unusual as I have never had mail to this property. The letters were dated June/July/August 2019. I received them on 25 September 2019.
They were from a solicitors advising that if I didn’t pay the fine it would be taken to court. One was from the court inviting me to a judgment hearing in July 2019.
I rang the solicitors who advised a CCJ was issued to me in my absence.
The credit referencing agencies have said they can not remove this CCJ from my record. I would like to request it is removed on the following grounds:
1. The parking ticket was wrongly issued
2. If for any reason it was not wrongly issued, I was not informed following my appeal or later
3. The car was never registered to the address the letters were sent to so I was not aware of the legal proceedings
4. The property is occupied by tenants who only just gave me the mail.

The lendercourt . Com website Have a service at £499 for the removal plus court fees.
Is this my best option?

waamo

If you do it yourself it's £255. Personally I wouldn't trust someone else to do it for me as you get one shot only at a set aside. They have nothing invested in it so if it goes wrong they can pocket the money and leave you with a ccj.

At the top of this board is a thread that tells Newbies to read it first. Post 2 of that thread deals with the court process and obtaining a set aside. Study it very carefully

The_Deep

This is not a fine. It is an invoice for alleged harm the company claim you inflicted on them. Get your MP on side as nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams.

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

henrik777

On the face of it you have a cast iron MANDATORY set aside.

Why have they used that address though ? Have you EVER lived there ? Check the v5 address (although for such a long gap between incident and court it might not matter)

Always, always, always ask the opponent to consent to a set aside. 1. It's cheaper 2. Shows the court who is behaving badly which can help with costs (and possibly the set aside itself)

The_Deep

Always, always, always ask the opponent to consent to a set aside. 1. It's cheaper

I thought that it was more expensive.

https://www.masonbullock.co.uk/can-a-default-judgment-be-set-aside-by-consent/

henrik777

The_Deep wrote: »

Always, always, always ask the opponent to consent to a set aside. 1. It's cheaper

I thought that it was more expensive.

https://www.masonbullock.co.uk/can-a-default-judgment-be-set-aside-by-consent/

Link comes up 404 for me but an application is always cheaper by consent (without a hearing)

The_Deep

Link works for me.

I was under the impression that, in order to get a by consent set aside, you usually had to pay the claimant the often inflated amount of the award,

With a non consensual set aside you can often end up not only with the refund of the £255 fee, but your costs for the hearing.

Have I misunderstood?

henrik777

The_Deep wrote: »

Link works for me.

I was under the impression that, in order to get a by consent set aside, you usually had to pay the claimant the often inflated amount of the award,

With a non consensual set aside you can often end up not only with the refund of the £255 fee, but your costs for the hearing.

Have I misunderstood?

Yes.

Whilst that is one way, it would not be prudent for a claimant to refuse consent for a set aside that is bound to succeed as they will be open to cost on an indemnity basis for such behaviour.

Umkomaas

Surely the consensual v mandatory set aside options have to be weighed up before deciding the best way forward. On a hypothetical £250 judgment in default the following permutations should be considered.

Set aside with consent:

£250 to the claimant
£100 to the court
Total £350, no prospect of recovering a penny, but everything done and dusted, no further case to answer.

But, small health warning, some Judges dislike 'credit repair' set asides and refuse to authorise (I'm not sure what happens to your £100 fee in such a case).

Mandatory set aside

£255 court fee. That's it for the set aside to be authorised.

The Judge will give Directions that could require the Defendant to produce a defence to answer the original charge. If they then lose at the new hearing, they will need to pay the £250 original judgment and may not (quite possibly won't) get the £255 set aside fee refunded by the Claimant. Total potential cost £505.

Alternatively, the Judge may require the Claimant to issue a new claim (with all its attendant paperwork), which they may or may not do. If they do and win, the figures above will apply. If the Defendant wins, £250 saved and the possibility of a set aside fee refund comes into play.

There's a possibility (CEL cases in particular) the Claimant can't be bothered to reissue a claim, in which case £250 saved, but the Defendant would need to get their ducks in order in their submission to the court, that in the event of a Claimant failing to reissue proceedings, they by default refund the set aside fee.

Lots to consider.

The_Deep

There is another aspect to consider, most ASTs require the tenant to forward mail to the landlord. In this case it would appear that the tenant may have broken the terms of the AST.

I do not know to which address the vehicle was registered but if it was to the rental property, imo the papers might well have been properly served. If this were to be the case OP might well stuggle with a non concensual set aside.

henrik777

Surely the consensual v mandatory set aside options have to be weighed up before deciding the best way forward.

Always. Including presenting both options.

Set aside with consent:

£250 to the claimant
£100 to the court
Total £350, no prospect of recovering a penny, but everything done and dusted, no further case to answer.

Not all consented applications will necessarily have no cost awards. It is prudent, for example, for a claimant to concede that they actually did not use the correct address, where they are pointed to such an error. The over riding objective is still in play and adverse costs orders can be made if claimants try to play the system just because they feel like it and not because they had any prospects of defending the application.

The Judge will give Directions that could require the Defendant to produce a defence to answer the original charge. If they then lose at the new hearing, they will need to pay the £250 original judgment and may not (quite possibly won't) get the £255 set aside fee refunded by the Claimant.

If you're after a mandatory set aside it's because of the failures of the claimant. You should be pursuing costs at the application stage and failing that at every stage afterwards. If it's not your fault, why should you pay ?