CCJ - Unsure If I can fight it!

BangeF2

D_P_Dance said:

IMO, people who seek judgements by default should be extra careful to ensure that they have the correct addrss for the person.  A JBD can be extremely time consuming for someone to have set aside. 

yes as this has been for me. 

KeithP

BangeF2 said:

also any want to answer this Question : this CCj is not currently showing on my actual credit file. I wonder if i poke and prod at it, it will actually end up showing or if its best to leave it alone...?

The commercial credit reference agencies only get the official data in batches - maybe even in monthly intervals.

The official records of CCJs are updated instantly (well, almost instantly) - www.trustonline.org.uk - but you have to pay a small fee to access it.

BangeF2

KeithP said:

BangeF2 said:

also any want to answer this Question : this CCj is not currently showing on my actual credit file. I wonder if i poke and prod at it, it will actually end up showing or if its best to leave it alone...?

The commercial credit reference agencies only get the official data in batches - maybe even in monthly intervals.

The official records of CCJs are updated instantly (well, almost instantly) - www.trustonline.org.uk - but you have to pay a small fee to access it.

so does that mean it should show on my file by now? 

BangeF2

KeithP said:

BangeF2 said:

also any want to answer this Question : this CCj is not currently showing on my actual credit file. I wonder if i poke and prod at it, it will actually end up showing or if its best to leave it alone...?

The commercial credit reference agencies only get the official data in batches - maybe even in monthly intervals.

The official records of CCJs are updated instantly (well, almost instantly) - www.trustonline.org.uk - but you have to pay a small fee to access it.

Just did it and everything from the last ten years at 5 different addresses is showing green with no details of judgements or defaults.  

Coupon-mad

I also asked him about my prospects for appealing and he said 'well they went to the DVLA ' and i explained how it was an honest mistake due to a testing year which is why i didnt update my records and it feels unreasonable for all of this to have happened over CCJ claim form costs of £200ish quid. 
SO - the point i plan to make with my CCJ appeal is how this will impact me and my human right in terms of a right of a family (article 8) and how it will stop me from living an independent life as i will be unable to get finance or a mortgage or anything else of tht nature with a ccj. 

Wrong approach; instead you must show that the Judge erred in law, or you will not win and will waste your appeal fee.  What you describe there is NOT a reason to set aside a CCJ, it's an argument and admission that your application was mainly for credit cleansing.  AVOID that argument!

You had TWO CLAIMS and it was the later one that was rejected for set aside, yes?

I can't guarantee a win but you must concentrate on the error in law.

- Two claims offends against the trite law doctrine of cause of action estoppel.  The Judge erred by not considering that the claims before him related to duplicate facts and matters that should always have been advanced as a single claim

Secondly,

- their conduct in not checking for the right address for service offends against the Civil Procedure Rules about filing claims (look them up to find the right CPR) AND it offends specifically against their Trade body CoP (look it up and quote what it says about checking addresses before court action).  Even if you'd changed your DVLA address before the claims were filed, the PPC can only ask the DVLA once so would not have been able to rely in that notoriously unreliable database and HAD TO do a trace before filing any claim.

And thirdly,

- CPR1 is the overriding objective, to deal with cases justly and at minimal cost.  The Claimant failed to do this by filing one claim.  Filing two is an abuse of process, was clearly unjust and caused two sets of costs and the learned Judge erred by not considering this and applying CPR1 to his own decision, whereby it would have been just and not have caused any more costs, for the upcoming PCN defence hearing to have been used to hear both claims.

fourthly, 

- to file two claims by splitting exact match PCNs up is clearly unfair and it is conduct that may offend against the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which covers consumer contracts and the overarching requirement of fairness and open dealing.  This is not legislation that a consumer, or any party, has to raise in their submissions  (at all) because s71 sets a duty upon the courts to consider the fairness, transparency and open dealing tests of the CRA 2015 whether a party raises it or not.

On any reasonable interpretation when viewed by an average person, it cannot be fair for a parking firm to raise two separate claims for duplicate fact matters under contract law (where the only difference is the date of PCNs) AND to rely on a known unreliable database AND not to comply with their own Code of Practice, which caused two CCJs and TWO lots of £255 court fees instead of one. The learned Judge made no reference to fairness and erred in law by not considering (properly, or at all) the court's duty in s71 CRA 2015.

- it is clear that the learned Judge did not consider the CRA 2015 because the claims both include additional false costs which are well known to the courts in parking cases and almost invariably disallowed, so it cannot be fair or just to let the second enhanced CCJ stand.  There are more points of defence against the core parking charges but the fact that part of the claims were abusive and unfair, yet one CCJ was allowed to remain unchallenged, demonstrates a failure to apply s71 of the CRA 2015 to the 'contractual' alleged claim itself.

fifthly;

- even if the court is not satisfied that CPR 13.2 was met, then 13.3 applied and there was clearly good reason to set aside both CCJs and allow both cases to be heard, especially as a hearing is to be listed to hear the first claim.  The Defendant has more than a reasonable prospect of defending these PCNs, is preparing to do so in the next hearing for the (set aside) first case and should have been given the opportunity to defend all of them.  As these PCNs should have been a matter that with any due diligence should have been advanced as one claim it would have met CPR1 to have consolidated the claims, if not strike the second abusive claim out.


thus your application needs to continue to conclude:

- the learned Judge erred in law and both CCJs should have been set aside and the second claim should have been struck out due to cause of action estoppel and the Claimant's own conduct.  It was never enough for the Claimant to rely on old, unreliable DVLA data and this is precisely why their Code of Practice covers that fact.

- the Judge also erred by not ordering that the Claimant do pay your set aside court fees (£255 x 2) given that the major failure was the trader's (failure to comply with their own Code of Practice yet proclaiming that they had, breaches the CPUTRs which is a criminal offence) and caused the CCJs and directly caused double court fees for a litigant in person.

- Further and in the alternative, there was only one hearing and the court took fee payment for two, and the Defendant has been left to shoulder both fee costs.  Even if the court is not persuaded that the Claimant improperly filed these claims and should cover the set aside application costs, the court should have refunded one, in part or in whole. 

(Call the first Judge 'the learned Judge' throughout your statement to support your application.  Obviously end with the statement of truth, signature and date as per any WS).

BangeF2

Coupon-mad said:

I also asked him about my prospects for appealing and he said 'well they went to the DVLA ' and i explained how it was an honest mistake due to a testing year which is why i didnt update my records and it feels unreasonable for all of this to have happened over CCJ claim form costs of £200ish quid. 
SO - the point i plan to make with my CCJ appeal is how this will impact me and my human right in terms of a right of a family (article 8) and how it will stop me from living an independent life as i will be unable to get finance or a mortgage or anything else of tht nature with a ccj. 

Wrong approach, as I said you MUST show that the Judge erred in law or you will not win and will waste your appeal fee.  What you describe there is NOT a reason to set aside a CCJ, it's an argument and admission that your application was mainly for credit cleansing.  AVOID that argument!

You had TWO CLAIMS and it was the later one that was rejected for set aside, yes?

I can't guarantee a win but you MUST concentrate on the error in law.

- Two claims offends against the trite law doctrine of cause of action estoppel.  The Judge erred by not considering that the claims before him related to duplicate facts and matters that should always have been advanced as a single claim

Secondly,

- their conduct in not checking for the right address for service offends against the Civil Procedure Rules about filing claims (look them up to find the right CPR) AND it offends specifically against their Trade body CoP (look it up and quote what it says about checking addresses before court action).  Even if you'd changed your DVLA address before the claims were filed, the PPC can only ask the DVLA once so would not have been able to rely in that notoriously unreliable database and HAD TO do a trace before filing any claim.

And thirdly,

- CPR1 is the overriding objective, to deal with cases justly and at minimal cost.  The Claimant failed to do this by filing one claim.  Filing two is an abuse of process, was clearly unjust and caused two sets of costs and the learned Judge erred by not considering this and applying CPR1 to his own decision, whereby it would have been just and not have caused any more costs, for the upcoming PCN defence hearing to have been used to hear both claims.

fourthly, 

- to file two claims by splitting exact match PCNs up is clearly unfair and it is conduct that may offend against the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which covers consumer contracts and the overarching requirement of fairness and open dealing.  This is not legislation that a consumer, or any party, has to raise in their submissions  (at all) because s71 sets a duty upon the courts to consider the fairness, transparency and open dealing tests of the CRA 2015 whether a party raises it or not.

On any reasonable interpretation when viewed by an average person, it cannot be fair for a parking firm to raise two separate claims for duplicate fact matters under contract law (where the only difference is the date of PCNs) AND to rely on a known unreliable database AND not to comply with their own Code of Practice, which caused two CCJs and TWO lots of £255 court fees instead of one. The learned Judge made no reference to fairness and erred in law by not considering (properly, or at all) the court's duty in s71 CRA 2015.

- it is clear that the learned Judge did not consider the CRA 2015 because the claims both include additional false costs which are well known to the courts in parking cases and almost invariably disallowed, so it cannot be fair or just to let the second enhanced CCJ stand.  There are more points of defence against the core parking charges but the fact that part of the claims were abusive and unfair, yet one CCJ was allowed to remain unchallenged, demonstrates a failure to apply s71 of the CRA 2015 to the 'contractual' alleged claim itself.

fifthly;

- even if the court is not satisfied that CPR 13.2 was met, then 13.3 applied and there was clearly good reason to set aside both CCJs and allow both cases to be heard, especially as a hearing is to be listed to hear the first claim.  The Defendant has more than a reasonable prospect of defending these PCNs, is preparing to do so in the next hearing for the (set aside) first case and should have been given the opportunity to defend all of them.  As these PCNs should have been a matter that with any due diligence should have been advanced as one claim it would have met CPR1 to have consolidated the claims, if not strike the second abusive claim out.


thus your application needs to continue to conclude:

- the learned Judge erred in law and both CCJs should have been set aside and the second claim should have been struck out due to cause of action estoppel and the Claimant's own conduct.  It was never enough for the Claimant to rely on old, unreliable DVLA data and this is precisely why their Code of Practice covers that fact.

- the Judge also erred by not ordering that the Claimant do pay your set aside court fees (£255 x 2) given that the major failure was the trader's (failure to comply with their own Code of Practice yet proclaiming that they had, breaches the CPUTRs which is a criminal offence) and caused the CCJs and directly caused double court fees for a litigant in person.

- Further and in the alternative, there was only one hearing and the court took fee payment for two, and the Defendant has been left to shoulder both fee costs.  Even if the court is not persuaded that the Claimant improperly filed these claims and should cover the set aside application costs, the court should have refunded one, in part or in whole. 

(Call the first Judge 'the learned Judge' throughout your statement to support your application.  Obviously end with the statement of truth, signature and date as per any WS).

this is extremely helpful! I would never had been able to put this together because i am a novice at all of this! Thank you. I will draw upon these points when filling out my form and will get back to you about how i do! i will need to create a crib sheet with these points so i can defend my case fairly!

BangeF2

Does anyone happen to know the number to call to pay for your form fee? i cant remember who i called to pay the initial N244 form fees 

KeithP

BangeF2 said:

Does anyone happen to know the number to call to pay for your form fee? i cant remember who i called to pay the initial N244 form fees 

The phone number is on the court's website.

Coupon-mad

You would be doing this at your local court.  Not the business centre.  

BangeF2

@Coupon-mad
 Section 9: What you are asking the appeal court to do? Indicate by ticking the relevant box whether you are asking the appeal court to set aside or vary the order you are appealing or whether you would like it to order a new trial.

Which of these is most appropriate for my appeal? Is it that i just want them to read and set aside the judgment or do I need to order a new trial to have my points heard/discussed?