CCJ Civil Enforcement ltd response to me following my set aside application

Le_Kirk

fanlanders wrote: »

Hi, We have had a very similar case to yours Dutch. Thank you so much for posting your experiences, it is really helping me to see what we need to do to get things going from our end.

Can I just ask forum members, should I start a new thread for my situation? What is the etiquette here? I don't want to fall foul of annoying key people who may be able to help or advise...….

Many thanks all, in advance.

Fan

It is OK to post comments such as "thank you for ….." etc. but if you want bespoke help you should indeed start your own thread, thanks.

Greenwich2019

Congratulations DTDutch! This stuff is inspirational...….!


Could I just ask you...…..you had quite a gap between learning of the CCJ and filing for it to be set aside. This allowed you to apply for your SAR and to engage with the company to a certain extent and obviously learn more about the actual supposed "offence".


That was obviously quite useful when you were putting together your excellent "Set Aside" document as you could completely catalogue the full chain of events and rebut the actual parking fine itself. If you haven't enagage with the company, as I haven't, and have just found out about the CCJ's should I be looking to get all the details of the claim against me prior to making an application to "Set Aside"? How can I make a case that I would win any defence when I do not even know the details of where the alleged offence took place?

nosferatu1001

You just have ot have any other good reason to set aside, so having a defence that has a chance of suceeding is all thats required

For a start *the judge knows no more about the claim than you do* so they cant exactly say you wont win!

Howveer, that is grounds under 13.3, and you have atime limit to make those grounds. As such, I would apply WELL WITHIN the max 3 weeks time limit, regardless of SAR info.

Greenwich2019

But in that instance how can you say what your defence is if you have absolutely no idea what the claim refers to, or where?

In Dutch case she knew exactly what the fine was, she had the photos, she knew the car park (in the end) and she could base a defence on most of the facts......if you don't have those facts how can you possibly state what your defence would be in the case of a set aside?

May be I'm being a bit dim on this but it could actually be (in my case) that my father was driving the car or my wife but I can't say that for sure without knowing where the alleged contravention took place or what photographs were taken by their camera. It may be that I had good reason to be in that car park at that time but how do i know that will be my defence if I do not know where the car park is?

This is something I am struggling with and in Dutch case she had quite a bit of detail in relation to the offence which enabled her to put together a robust argument as to why she felt she would have won her particular case if she'd had the opportunity to defend it.

nosferatu1001

Because, and this means you have NOT read the 17 defences already written, ANY claim they can make will have commonalities:
- the signage was poor and incapable of offering a contract
- they lack the authority of the landholder to offer contracts and pursue to court in their own name
- they lacked POFA compliance as no compliant NtK was correclty served
and so on. Some of this you know simply by READING threads where eg the template CEL NtK is ripped to shreds, some because *every* claim has this as underlying issues, such as the landholder.

And
again

The. Judge. Hasnt. Got. Any. More. Clue. Than. You. Theyre not wizards. They dont know what the claim is about. They just know its *something* to do with parking on private land. Nothing more. So how on earth are they going to go "well that clearly doesnt apply" when they know no more than you?

Yes, of course you can put together a FAR more detailed defence if you have more info, but I g'tee you can write A defence now.

Youre seeing problems. Not solutions. You can even put that YOU KNOW NOTHING about the actual events *as the CLAIMANT messed up and didnt serve you any documents* - after all, thats one of the resaosns you *need a set aside*!

Greenwich2019

Fair enough.
I have read a lot of them in actual fact. Yes, I agree, there are commonalities but I did not realise it was ok to not have to relate general reasons for defence to my specific claim.
That is why, in DTDutch case it seemed to be a lot more personalised and therefore I just wondered if that was beneficial.

Fair enough, I'll go generic.

nosferatu1001

Its not that it is "ok", its that you are being forced to *guess*, and thats *because* the claimant has erred.

Of course it is better if you can be specific. But not having the info does NOT mean you cannot write a defence.

Le_Kirk

Greenwich2019, this seems to be going on for some posts now. Might I suggest, if you have questions relating to a specific point concerning you, that you start your own thread as it gets confusing trying to deal with two different scenarios on one thread. If, however your questions are all about DTDutch's query then carry on here.

DTDutch

Hi Greenwich, think you misread my posts. I didnt and still do not know where the car park is, just the name of the street.. and I have still been unable to locate either. I also have no recollection of the day etc because I do not know where this happened. 

 If you send me the link to your thread (if you've started one), I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have about my experience.  
All the best with your case.