Forum Home» Motoring» Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking

CCJ - Unsure If I can fight it! - Page 9

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

CCJ - Unsure If I can fight it!

103 replies 1.4K views
1567911

Replies

  • BangeF2BangeF2 Forumite
    57 posts
    10 Posts Name Dropper
    You give some details about the background. Thats it. Youre not giving new defence arguments unless you have them. The template defence already has a fair number of points in there for you. 
    How will you word the Ntk being sent to the "wrong" address? Didnt they go to the RIGHT address, based on the V5?
    yes youre right. They did go to the right address that was on the V5 and Im worried because the yellow ticket is shown on my car screen and I really dont remember receiving this. either it wasnt there to be found or im experiencing early onset dementia! :neutral:
    anyway,  I was beginning to word it in the sense that that the claimant who issued the NTK (before it went to G ) didnt ensure it went to the right address when I was there to be found even if the details on my V5 werent accurate at the time, and/or G, who took over after there was no response to the claimant didnt chase up correctly and continue to send letters to the old add, and/or when they did they did their search thru tracing, they didnt send it to the correct address and continued to use the old add, according to CPR 6?

    Heres what I've got so far. 
    1. The particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago. The particulars of the claim suggest the following days for the tickets, 12/11/2017, 07/10/2017, 07/10/2017,07/10/2017. The last two tickets appear to be identical and or issued on the same day. This either impossible and ridiculous, given that the ticketer employee would have been the same person each time, or if  the ticketer (or residents) have removed PCNs issued minutes before the tickets being issued. If the particulars are wrong then there should be no relief from sanctions and the claim should be reissued at the expense of the Claimant, if not struck out by the court for abuse of process (adding false sums to the parking charge). It is not established thus far, whether this was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention.  
    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served to the defendant with ‘reasonable diligence’ from the claimant as their evidence from the SAR suggest letters in relation to these Park Charge Notice(s) were sent to an old address when my current address was publicly available and trivial in sourcing, and this is in accordance to CPR6 and in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA. 

  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad Forumite
    91.5K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    07/10/2017, 07/10/2017,07/10/2017. The last two tickets appear to be identical and or issued on the same day. 
    errrm...the last three.  

    The rest is fine.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • nosferatu1001nosferatu1001 Forumite
    11.2K posts
    10,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    They're not allowed to send the ntk anywhere other than your v5 address. 

    Get that idea out your head. 

    Their obligation, on getting NO response for years, is to check the address they have is actually correct. 
  • edited 26 July 2020 at 9:58AM
    BangeF2BangeF2 Forumite
    57 posts
    10 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 26 July 2020 at 9:58AM
    They're not allowed to send the ntk anywhere other than your v5 address. 

    Get that idea out your head. 

    Their obligation, on getting NO response for years, is to check the address they have is actually correct. 
    Please be kind when you type your replies. I am very grateful for your support and I am learning. It's not helpful when Im spoken to like a child or to feel like i'm being ridiculed every time I don't understand something t. I guess that's why Im here right?
    Their obligation, on getting NO response for years, is to check the address they have is actually correct. 
    This makes sense. I will focus on emphasising on this. Thank you 



  • BangeF2BangeF2 Forumite
    57 posts
    10 Posts Name Dropper
    07/10/2017, 07/10/2017,07/10/2017. The last two tickets appear to be identical and or issued on the same day. 
    errrm...the last three.  

    The rest is fine.
    Silly mistake. Thank you Coupon-mad. I actually feel like i'm getting somewhere now 
  • henrik777henrik777 Forumite
    2.8K posts
    Ninth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    BangeF2 said:
    They're not allowed to send the ntk anywhere other than your v5 address. 

    Get that idea out your head. 

    Their obligation, on getting NO response for years, is to check the address they have is actually correct. 
    Please be kind when you type your replies. I am very grateful for your support and I am learning. It's not helpful when Im spoken to like a child or to feel like i'm being ridiculed every time I don't understand something t. I guess that's why Im here right?
    Their obligation, on getting NO response for years, is to check the address they have is actually correct. 
    This makes sense. I will focus on emphasising on this. Thank you 



    There isn't really an obligation. It's a very complex set of rules with regards to service. There are m.

    any many legal blogs on the subject by people who are better educated and informed than myself.

    However let's look at the rules for service.

    Methods of service

    http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.3

    Usually in these matters it's by post.

    So http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.9

    Service of the claim form where the defendant does not give an address at which the defendant may be served




    1. Individual                   Usual or last known residence.



    Nothing controversial so far.



    (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’).



    So in looking to dispute valid service you need to convince the court they had "reason to believe" you never lived there and they should have at least suspected so.

    If you fail to convince the court, service will no doubt be held to be valid and a mandatory set aside under 13.2 will likely fail. However, i'd submit not receiving a claim form is a good reason to set aside using the courts discretion under cpr 13.3.


    If the claimant had " reason to believe" then

    (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.

    (5) If, under paragraph (4)(b), there is such a place where or a method by which service may be effected, the claimant must make an application under rule 6.15.

    (6) Where paragraph (3) applies, the claimant may serve on the defendant’s usual or last known address in accordance with the table in paragraph (2) where the claimant –

    (a) cannot ascertain the defendant’s current residence or place of business; and

    (b) cannot ascertain an alternative place or an alternative method under paragraph (4)(b).


    Step (4) is mandatory (case law).







    So it all boils down to "reason to believe" and that's the hard part as each case turns on it's own facts (and perhaps whatever judge you're in front of). This is why there isn't a whole bunch of case law on it.


    LJ Dyson said (Obiter but very persuasive)

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/20.html

    "What is the position where the address is one at which the individual to be served has resided at some time? The point does not arise for decision in the present case. But in view of the uncertainty that exists as to the meaning of "last known residence", we think that it may be helpful if we express our view in particular on the interesting suggestion made by Mr Zuckerman. What state of mind in the server is connoted by the words "last known"? In our judgment, Mr Zuckerman's interpretation goes too far. As we have said, there is an important distinction between belief and knowledge. It is a distinction particularly well understood in the criminal law, but elsewhere too. The draftsman of the rules deliberately chose the word "known". In our view, knowledge in this context refers to the serving party's actual knowledge or what might be called his constructive knowledge, ie knowledge which he could have acquired exercising reasonable diligence. We arrive at this conclusion on the basis of what we understand the words to mean. We do not believe that there are any policy reasons which require us to give the words a strained or unusual meaning. The risk of satellite litigation is inherent in whatever interpretation is adopted. It is true that a defendant who has not in fact received the claim form should have no difficulty in setting aside a default judgment. But it is not desirable that defendants should be put to the trouble and expense of making applications to set aside default judgments."


    Given the nature of DVLA information, that is, that it only gives information, as held, on a specific day, a logical thinking person would check if the address was current at some point in the future, even if that check was not allowed via the same source. Plainly 1/2 days maybe even weeks is arguably irrelevant to that but certainly years, if not months, is stretching it.



     HHJ Hacon put it in MB Garden Buildings Ltd v Mark Burton Construction Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 431 (IPEC) (28 February 2014)
    "However I am in any event not persuaded by Ms Michaels on this point. The logic of her submission is that a claimant must conduct his inquiries into a defendant's whereabouts on the very date on which the step required for service within the meaning of CPR 7.5(1) is carried out, e.g. posting the documents. That seems to me to be an unnecessary burden and I doubt that it is what the Court of Appeal had in mind in Collier v Williams. I take the view that if a claimant has carried out inquiries with reasonable diligence as to the defendant's last known residence before that date and on that date it was objectively reasonable for the claimant to believe that the defendant's residence remained unchanged, then on that date it is still the defendant's last known residence for the purposes of service by that claimant. Of course the longer the delay between the inquiries and the date of the step required for service the harder it will be for a claimant to establish that there was good service.
    In the present case MBGB's inquiries were sufficient to give it actual knowledge on 8 November 2012 that Mr Burton lived at 23 Irvine Place (which he did). No reason has been advanced as to why MBGB should not reasonably have believed on 12 November 2012 that he still lived there. In my view his last known residence on that date was still 23 Irvine Place so far as MBGB were concerned.

  • BangeF2BangeF2 Forumite
    57 posts
    10 Posts Name Dropper
    'So in looking to dispute valid service you need to convince the court they had "reason to believe" you never lived there and they should have at least suspected so.'
    @henrik777 yesssss and his makes sense and there is evidence they had reason to believe I lived else where because their SAR shows they sent a LBC there! The end.
    Thank you for this. 
    I'll include this into the defence and finally I am able to submit with the n244 form.
    Is there anything else I would need to consider for the defence? I believe the above is the main reason for my defence. 
    btw - I still haven't received my SAR from CCBC and the SAR from claimant and solicitor does not have an actual Claim form copy attached. Only the judgement order sign off (if that makes sense) so Im unsure if claim forms were even ever served. 

    For the CCJ - Discretionary set aside. 
    Again no claim forms were sent by the claimant or solicitor to the old add at all,  just a judgement order slip which has Registry Trust at the top of it. 
    They also sent an LBC, all of which was sent to the previous add. Nothing was sent to the current london add.
    However, would it be possible to link this CCJ 2 case with CCJ 1 and explain for the same type of 'ticket' their evidence shows (which was issued in the same year 29/05/2017 - there's a five month ish gap), that they could trace and issued a LBC letter without difficulties in tracing for CCJ1 so why did they have trouble in doing this for CCJ2 (which was served before CCJ1, sorry to be confusing). and my credit file shows I've been on the electoral role for the London add since Nov 2016
    Also this CCJ 2 wasnt on my credit file and still isnt. Would i be able to use this in my defence as well in any way as it may show someones lack of informing the Registry trust which then means, my financial information which I am entitled to have access to was incorrect? I hope that makes sense.
    Let me know if I can explain further. 


  • nosferatu1001nosferatu1001 Forumite
    11.2K posts
    10,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Claim form - well they definitely filed a claim, but the claim form isnt their data. The CCBC issued it. They never even see a copy of it. 

    Claim form to old address - you dont know the were never sent. and theyre NEVER sent by the C. Theyre sent by the CCBC. All you could say is they werent received - but if you werent there how do you know that? 
    Of course you state that they traced an address for CCJ1, didnt actually use it, and didnt even bother using this info they already had when dealing with CCJ2
    Its not just electroal roll - show you were on utility bills etc. Everything was set up to show your real address was in use, current etc, and the claimant had no reason to believe it wasnt a good address. 

    As for the second CCJ not showing, this of course only benefits you...
  • BangeF2BangeF2 Forumite
    57 posts
    10 Posts Name Dropper
    sorry for the confusion 
    CCJ 2 was filled in 2017
    CCJ 1 was filed in 2019
    Found out about CCJ2 when I asked for a SAR for CCJ 1! They could have traced me for both as Ive been on the ER since 2016 at current add, however utility bills, Ive only been on my current add UB since 2018 before that i only contributed to bills that were on other family members names, or I lived else where as a lodger and bills included in rent fee (I recently got rid of the Copy of this contract when having a clear out at the start of the year. I don't think my lodger has an electronic one. she was around 70 years old at the time) . Perhaps I could find a phone bill but unsure if it would be on the london add as it dates back from 2016 which was taken out on the lancs add....

    As for the second CCJ not showing, this of course only benefits you..
    do I even put in to set aside this ?....wouldn't it still show up with creditors do their checks because the CCBC confirmed its there...
  • nosferatu1001nosferatu1001 Forumite
    11.2K posts
    10,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Youve been told to put in a set aside for them both. I've not said to alter that. Still do both set asides. 
    All im saying is if it fails to show on your credit report at least its not damaing your credit - at the moment. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support