UK CPM - CCJ issued

hiphop99

Johnersh said:

Awesome.

Reissue, not serve. So the claim is dead and they have to file a new claim form all over again? Nice. The correct order inmho. And presumably with the fee which that entails.

The idiots. They've already spent more than the face value of a £100 ticket and for what?  There's a decent chance they won't reissue, but keep an eye out. 

Hi Johnersh - Thanks again for all your help.

Yes, I think I remember the judge saying reissue - Is there a way I can get this re-clarified? He has given them four weeks to submit a detailed particular of the claim.

What would the alternative be?

Johnersh

An order will be sent out to both parties. It's all on them to do at present. 

If they only have to file particulars, then this is being treated as a 'live claim' but they're very nearly back to square 1.  A decent set of particulars does at least mean they'll have to nail their colours to the mast, with no new arguments creeping in via witness statement. 

Coupon-mad

Well done!   A very nice costs award too.

I think we need to work into our Draft Orders for CCJ cases, the words that, following the CCJ being set aside and that service being found to have been defective, the claim form is deemed not filed and served within the required 4 month timeline.  The original claim is no longer a live claim.  A new claim may now be reissued by the Claimant but the Claimant is ordered to pay the Defendant's costs for the N244 application in any case, and the deadline for a new claim to be filed and served and for the Claimant to pay the D's costs is 21 days from the date of service of this Order.

Johnersh can you see what I am trying to say here and put it in better language?  I feel it is unfair on CCJ set aside 'winners' that they are routinely ordered after set asides, to put in a defence next.  Yet they've usually never seen a claim, and the way the courts are going with these cases denies the Ds a chance to put in a WS & evidence about the actual PCN...it's all wrong.

Johnersh

Not perfect, but something like this? 

UPON the application of D dated
AND UPON hearing from the agent for C and from D
AND UPON the court finding that the Claimant had failed to take the necessary steps required by CPR 6.9(3) and 6.9(4) before serving proceedings at a last known address
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The judgment dated x be set aside
2. Pursuant to CPR 7.5, the claim issued on [date] be struck out, the claimant having failed to validly serve proceedings within 4 months of issue.
3. The defendant do provide the claimant with an address for service within 7 days of this order, should the claimant wish to issue a new claim
4. The claimant do pay the defendant's costs of the application summarily assessed at xxx. 

Le_Kirk

3. The defendant do provide the claimant with an address for service within 7 days of this order, should the claimant wish to issue a new claim
4. The claimant do pay the claimants costs of the application summarily assessed at xxx. 

I know I have corrected these before, been shot down in flames and told it is standard practice but why don't the English courts use the English language?

hiphop99

Coupon-mad said:

Well done!   A very nice costs award too.

I think we need to work into our Draft Orders for CCJ cases, the words that, following the CCJ being set aside and that service being found to have been defective, the claim form is deemed not filed and served within the required 4 month timeline.  The original claim is no longer a live claim.  A new claim may now be reissued by the Claimant but the Claimant is order to pay the Defendant's costs for the N244 application in any case, and the deadline for a new claim to be filed and served and for the Claimant to pay the D's costs is 21 days from the date of service of this Order.

Johnersh can you see what I am trying to say here and put it in better language?  I feel it is unfair on CCJ set aside 'winners' that they are routinely ordered after set asides, to put in a defence next.  Yet they've usually never seen a claim, and the way the courts are going with these cases denies the Ds a chance to put in a WS & evidence about the actual PCN...it's all wrong.

Sorry if I was not clear enough - £255 for the Set Aside and £50 for the Teleconference.

I asked for more as I took the morning off work but Judge said that as I was the representative, it cannot be applied to me. The wife is not working currently so could not ask for her obviously.

Is the expectation that Gladstones/UK CPM re-file? Surely it makes more sense to just let it go given the costs involved for a £60 ticket.

KeithP

Johnersh said:

4. The claimant do pay the claimants costs of the application summarily assessed at xxx. 

Should that perhaps start... "4. The claimant do pay the defendant's costs..."?

Johnersh

@Le_Kirk consider it fortunate we've given up on the Latin.

@KeithP thanks for the spot. Now corrected. As a claimant lawyer it's unnatural to type that C pays D anything

@hiphop99 perfectly clear, it's just that many forum users fail to even recover the application fee (usually because they forget to ask and are so grateful the ccj is going). We can only tell you what gladstones are entitled to do. What they do once they depart from their cookie-cutter model is, frankly, anyone's guess. Their model is bulk claims cheaply and this has already proved costly.... 

hiphop99

Johnersh said:

@Le_Kirk consider it fortunate we've given up on the Latin.

@KeithP thanks for the spot. Now corrected. As a claimant lawyer it's unnatural to type that C pays D anything

@hiphop99 perfectly clear, it's just that many forum users fail to even recover the application fee (usually because they forget to ask and are so grateful the ccj is going). We can only tell you what gladstones are entitled to do. What they do once they depart from their cookie-cutter model is, frankly, anyone's guess. Their model is bulk claims cheaply and this has already proved costly.... 

 I think I had a really good judge - He was understanding, polite and clearly mind made up even before I had said a word. I can imagine that sometimes they may have their mind made up but test the temperature of the Defendants and that could maybe skew them? Who knows.

He raised costs himself - If my wife had been working, I am sure he would have approved whatever he could.

He also commented on the depth/detail of the submission in January, which I have you all to thank for. Hopefully it made it very easy for him.

Unfortunately I have a separate ongoing claim with Gladstones, where my pass was on show and they still ticketed me. Let's see where that heads.

Coupon-mad

Johnersh said:

Not perfect, but something like this? 

UPON the application of the Defendant dated xx/xx/xx
AND UPON hearing from the agent for the Claimant and from the Defendant in person
AND UPON the court finding that the Claimant had failed to take the necessary steps required by CPR 6.9(3) and 6.9(4) before serving proceedings at a last known address
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The judgment dated xx/xx/xxxx be set aside
2. Pursuant to CPR 7.5, the claim issued on xx/xx/xx be struck out, the Claimant having failed to validly serve proceedings within 4 months of issue
3. The Defendant do provide the Claimant with an address for service within 7 days of this order, should the claimant wish to issue a new claim
5. The Claimant do pay the Defendant's costs of the application summarily assessed at £xxx. 

That's great - I've converted C and D into the full words to stop people copying that.
I guess we don't need the words from the old six point order '6. All enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.' because this Order is for after the CCJ set aside hearing.