UK CPM - CCJ issued

henrik777

Johnersh said:

hiphop99
I was anxious before but my stress levels are way higher - How can I possibly fight this?

By unpacking exactly what they did (and didn't do).

But first, let's have some fun and consider how likely it was that you were actually still resident and disregarding their post, statistically.

SOURCE: Office for National Statistics (ONS) Social Trends 41 (ST41), published 2011

In 2009, 37 per cent of households in Great Britain were buying their homes with a mortgage (Table 3). Almost a third (32 per cent) owned their home outright and 31 per cent rented their homes either from the social sector (18 per cent) or privately (13 per cent). 
Private renters were much more mobile with an average length of residence of around one year; 36.5 per cent had lived in their home for less than a year and a further 17.5 per cent for more than a year but less than two years. Only one in ten (10.7 per cent) private renters had lived in their home 10 years or more. 

So, imagine you work for a parking company.  You start correspondence in 2018 in connection with a PCN at a block of flats.  The driver engages in correspondence and then after a break of a few months, you resume writing but the correspondence is no longer responded to - despite exhortations that you will litigate. 

Is it not distinctly possible you have moved? YES.  In fact, it is more likely than not that you have.  So much so, that the PPC then go to efforts to locate the individual concerned.  They fail.  They do a credit check.  How nice. Could they do more?

* They could have used an enquiry agent.  It's cheap to do - https://www.vilcol.com/uk-tracing-services  Indeed, if they had thrown a bit more money at it, they probably would find you.  Indeed, an enquiry agent probably could find you through the car, if the address had been changed with the DVLA. The PPC did the minimum.  

Did they do the obvious?
* Did they ever check whether they issued a new permit to a new resident at that address?  Potentially they had (corporately) ACTUAL knowledge that you were no longer there or were wilfully blind to the probability that you weren't. 
* Did they even check with the managing agent (who employ them) as to whether there was a forwarding address? Even if they couldn't give the details, they could have sent on a letter for the PPC. 
* Did they check the electoral roll - 192.com lists persons resident in the same household
* Did they check for an email address on file to contact you at?

So now we've established what the obvious information they should have had/lines of enquiry, let's look at the rules...

CPR 6.9

(3) Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).

(4) Where, having taken the reasonable steps required by paragraph (3), the claimant –
(a) ascertains the defendant’s current address, the claim form must be served at that address; or
(b) is unable to ascertain the defendant’s current address, the claimant must consider whether there is –
(i) an alternative place where; or
(ii) an alternative method by which,
service may be effected.

Alternative means of service - say what?
Could they have found either of you via social media.  Something like LinkedIn or Facebook?  Both are alternative methods which can (and have in other cases), on application to the court, been permissible methods of service.  At the very least, they could have reengaged in correspondence to get a new address. 

It would be my suggestion that ALL of the alternatives to just using the "dead" address need to be considered before they actually do.  It is only if they can demonstrably show there were no alternatives that the service can safely be regarded as effective. 

It would be my suggestion that the real reason that they simply dispatched the documents to the old address is because the searches are expensive.  But the CPR says reasonable steps - when they are chasing down a £200+ debt (once we add their bolt-on costs) it's not unreasonable to ask that they make a few phone calls or spend less than £50 on an enhanced search.

https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2019/02/13/back-to-basics-31-service-of-the-claim-form-at-the-last-known-address-five-key-points/

6.9(4) is a MANDATORY step and the fact they have admitted to using a trace means they can't argue they did not have "reason to believe" (well they can but how can they possibly be successful ?)

henrik777

         .

D_P_Dance

I was anxious before but my stress levels are way higher - How can I possibly fight this?

Glqadstones are a very down market solicitors who concentrate on work from fraudulent and dishonest parking companies.  IIMU that they are being investigated and if the SRA carry out an imartial and thorough investigation, hopefully they will be struck off before too long.  

hiphop99

Thanks for the efforts above - I am putting everything together.

Really hopeful that the judge will see sense, in that we had moved. What's more galling is that we had exchanged letters with them previously so shows that a communication channel had been opened. So when there was no reply, there was likely a compelling reason for it.

Coupon-mad

Did you read the authority posted by henrik777?  You should use that transcript and learn from the reasoning so that your Judge agrees that the set aside is mandatory.

Johnersh

Note it's an appeal judgment from a circuit judge, so whilst not a binding precedent, it is nevertheless authoritative. 

hiphop99

Coupon-mad said:

Did you read the authority posted by henrik777?  You should use that transcript and learn from the reasoning so that your Judge agrees that the set aside is mandatory.

As in the Nuur vs Sajjad pdf? I am reading through it and making notes.

hiphop99

Also - Looking through Gladstones document - they mentioned this.

12. The Defendant’s address was obtained from DVLA as an address by which documentation
concerning the vehicle could be sent for the parking charge notice.

This is absolutely false. The wife is not the registered keeper so her address is not with the DVLA - How can I weaponise this?

hiphop99

Also if someone wants to, I can share Gladstone's PDF via email? If they want to help me take it apart?

DoaM

I'm not reading back through 13 pages .... if your wife is not the registered keeper (hence the DVLA have no data on her), has she previously already been "outed" as the driver? (I assume the answer is Yes otherwise UKCPM would have no claim against her at all). Therefore you (she) can categorically state that the claimant's statement that they got the last known address (for the defendant) via DVLA is patently false.