Surprise CCJ - Flora St Sheffield Restricted Area - VCS / Elms Legal

Umkomaas

Should I include these letters in my E-Bundle to prove that my delay in contacting the claimant was the fault of the courts clerk?

Can't do any harm. 

Supraman15

Thanks all, I've just crafted an E-bundle and sent to VCS

Lets hope that they reply by weekend or else I don't know what phone number to give to the judge for him/her to contact them - it seems silly to me that I have to provide this rather than them

henrik777

Whoever initiates the action needs to be proactive. Claimants or applicants.

However this does not mean defendants and respondents can just get away with being difficult. If you asl the respondent for information such as their phone number and they fail to provide, tell the court and let them apportion blame accordingly.

nosferatu1001

They should also have the order and should provide a number to the court directly. They are expected to cooperate; providing a phone number should take seconds, and if they dont do it before the deadline, tell the court and prove that you tried. 

Supraman15

Thanks all.
The amended Notice of Hearing reads:
1. The Defendant shall by 4pm 3 Days before the Hearing Email to the Court a (direct dial) Telephone number for Each Person wishing to be present on the Telephone Hearing. The Telephone Numbers will be used by the Court to set up the Telephone Hearing using BTMeetMe (or such other Telephone Hearing method as may be Utilised by the Court in Future).

I have a pdf copy of this which actually contains 3 identical copies, 1 with a blank address field, 1 with my address and 1 with Elms Legal address. I'm wondering whether this has been over-amended and the one addressed to Elms Legal should have had different wording, instructing them to provide their own number rather than "the defendant"

nosferatu1001

Potentially, but do whatever you can to make this easy. 
For example you dont know if they want to be present at the hearing. Second line. If they dont tell you then you cant just guess..

Supraman15

I'm now in contact with the solicitors (Elms) and they claim to have sent me a consent order which they will be using as their bundle. At first I thought they were making this up but after confirming the Email address it was sent from I found it in my spam folder.

Upon the parties having consented and agreed to the terms set out below: -
1. The judgement dated XXXX be set aside
2. The claim be allocated to the small claims track
3. No order as to costs.

This is probably a bit of a stupid question but am I right in thinking that I should refuse to consent to this order?
After all I want the judge to reward me the £255 N244 fee and potentially dismiss the original claim if there is a small chance that he may do so?

The date at the bottom of the order also says Jan 2020 rather than 2021   

nosferatu1001

When did they send this order ? Before you filed? Give us some ideas!
Indeed, IF it was sent after you filed, you would say it is unreasonable to state no order as to costs, as they unreasonable delayed (whatever you need to say here)

Supraman15

Sorry it was around 2 weeks ago they sent the consent order (I applied for the set aside 5 months ago at the end of August)
The first notice of hearing was received by both parties at the beginning of October

I have told them that I do not consent to the order anyway as I am entitled to my £255 back.
They filed to an address which I had not lived at in over 2 years, I am also confident that the original claim is an abuse of process due to the inflation of the 'PCN' and will eventually be dismissed.

The alleged contravention took place in December 2016 - parking in a restricted area. (there are no markings to suggest that this area is restricted). Looking at the SAR the last 'PCN' they sent to my old address was in Feb 2017, then a load of cases were bulk transferred to elms legal in may 2019

nosferatu1001

So you applied 5 months ago, but they only sent the consent order 2 weeks ago? So they knew you had applied, knew you had incurred the fee, and are DESPERATELY trying to avoid any chance of having to pay it. 
The inflation is not a defence to the underlying claim. It never has been and never will be. WHile double recovery can be an abuse of process, it is not in itself evidenc that teh whole claim must or should be struck out, thats the judges choice.