Judgement for Claimant (in default)

valiant24

The strategy to employ varies dramatically depending upon WHERE the claim form was served and whether this was correct.
The notice of Judgement in Default was served correctly, to the correct address, so it defies belief that the Court Claim from the same people would have been sent to the wrong address.   So his argument would be that, for whatever reason, he never received it.  They don't sent reminders, there's just one chance to receive the Claim Form and defend, so I don't think it's wholly implausible to claim it wasn't received.

If it's a case that it's wrong that would be very different to spending £255 to avoid £288  (because the opponent isn't going to consent if you're fighting it).
I'm not sure I follow that.   Why would they not consent, if you're going to apply for a set aside and dispute the Claim anyway?   It's not in the Claimant's interests for costs, which there's always a chance they'll end up paying, to escalate unnecessarily.    

Le_Kirk

If we agree that the court managed to get the default judgment sent to the correct address, someone must have told either the court or CCBC of the correct address.  I believe it has been asked in this thread, have you/son-in-law contacted CCBC to try to find out where claim form was sent.  Also, has son-in-law address for service now been made clear to PPC/solicitor/court/CCBC?

nosferatu1001

Valiant - because unless the court orders it correctly, if they want they can discontinue and face *no* costs at all. 

valiant24

I believe it has been asked in this thread, have you/son-in-law contacted CCBC to try to find out where claim form was sent. 
Yes, he's emailed a PDF letter to the CCBC saying he did not receive the Claim Form, and requesting a copy of it.   Whether he'll get a reply or not is another matter.
Also, has son-in-law address for service now been made clear to PPC/solicitor/court/CCBC?
Given that the CCBC sent the Notice of Judgement for Claimant (Default) to his correct address, the Court at least must have his correct address.

valiant24

Valiant - because unless the court orders it correctly, if they want they can discontinue and face *no* costs at all. 
I'm so sorry, I still don't follow this, probably because of lack of experience and knowledge.
*If* the Court agrees to the set-aside, and *if* the PPC re-opens the Claim, and *if* the Court finds for the defendant, and *if* Costs are awarded to the Defendant and *if* in awarding those costs the Court gives regard to the Claimant's refusal to agree to an uncontested set-aside, it would cost them (255-100) = £155 more than if they'd agreed to it.
Lots of ifs, obvs, and thereby maybe only a 10% risk, but why wouldn't they agree to it?

Le_Kirk

valiant24 said:

Also, has son-in-law address for service now been made clear to PPC/solicitor/court/CCBC?
Given that the CCBC sent the Notice of Judgement for Claimant (Default) to his correct address, the Court at least must have his correct address.

In which case you'd think he would have received the original claim form.  How can it hurt to drop an e-mail to the dataprotection@oneparking.co.uk and inform them of his address for service and requiring them to inform all their agents and ERASE all his old data. 

valiant24

Thank you, Le Kirk, I'll tell him to do that and to issue an SAR while he's about it.

henrik777

The receipt of the default judgment can either mean the correct address was always used or has been changed to the correct address.  Further it doesn't mean much, with regards to service, whether it was ACTUALLY received. Everyone would claim they didn't get it and chaos would ensue.

Reasons they may not consent include, they did nothing wrong and it'd cost them money to deal with it, they just don't want to, they feel like it's just a delaying tactic .... Also applying for a set aside does not mean you'll get it, particularly if the application is weak, but also with a very strong application.

An email to the court is unlikely to get responded to quickly, in some cases up to 10 days. Pick up the phone.

Also note, that a successful application doesn't guarantee the winner gets costs. I'd be very surprised if an application based on " we're applying because the ccj is a pain but we may or may not have gotten the claim form. We did get the default ccj notification" is awarded costs when essentially that means the claimant had no fault.

valiant24

Also note, that a successful application doesn't guarantee the winner gets costs. I'd be very surprised if an application based on " we're applying because the ccj is a pain but we may or may not have gotten the claim form. We did get the default ccj notification" is awarded costs when essentially that means the claimant had no fault.

I raised this fairly early on in the thread.  What is the point of his spending £255 that he may well not get back to apply for a set-aside that may or may not be granted, then a defence that I think probably would, to save £288.  Much as I hate the slimeballs, the arithmetic is against it, and to be honest, I don't think we understand it all well enough to avoid the pratfalls.

henrik777

I'm inclined to agree but i'd definitely find out where the claim was sent to first. Quick call should find out the answer.