Civil Enforcement Limited - CCJ Obtained - Wrong adress on letter

Coupon-mad

the 4 claims have been amalgamated into a single set aside hearing they are all printed on the court docs. I quoted Henderson v Henderson in the draft order so is there any need to mention again?

Yes, yes and more yes and at the hearing, when the Judge concludes.  Ask for your costs to be reserved because you believe the Claimant will discontinue at least one claim and ask for one final hearing to be ordered, not four.

Have you had to shell out 4 x £255 for one set aside hearing?

henrik777

Coupon-mad said:

the 4 claims have been amalgamated into a single set aside hearing they are all printed on the court docs. I quoted Henderson v Henderson in the draft order so is there any need to mention again?

Yes, yes and more yes and at the hearing, when the Judge concludes.  Ask for your costs to be reserved because you believe the Claimant will discontinue at least one claim and ask for one final hearing to be ordered, not four.

Have you had to shell out 4 x £255 for one set aside hearing?

Think it was fee remission ?

I'd still be asking for other costs up front for an application based on defective service AND where the claimant has  been wholly unreasonable and lodged 4 claims. Sure if the judge appears to be not in favour ask for reserved with the stipulation that they are due in the event of a discontinuance. IMO.

RINCO

Ok, Shall I do a separate costs schedule or just add the costs on the end of the defence 

Re Fees; Help with fees was applied for to get this far I assume its been granted.. had no confirmation apart from the notification of the set aside hearing. 

nosferatu1001

Ne page costs assessment would be easy to do.  Five minutes. 

Don't assume! Find out! 

RINCO

In the draft order for the hearing I've written this regarding Costs surely that will suffice>>?. I will raise this to the just at the hearing verbally also. As you mentioned. 

IT IS ORDERED that
The 4 default judgments dated:

xx2016 (Claim No: xx

xx  2017 (Claim No: xx)

xx2017 (Claim No: xx)

xx 2017 (Claim No: xx)

Are

A.Collated into one single hearing

B. Costs to be reserved.

C. All enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.

2. Should the Claimant discontinue one or more of the claims after the CCJ is set aside, the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £255 plus the Defendant's costs for attending the hearing.

--------------------------------------------------

I now have the tenancy agreement for my friends current address. For context; 

Moved into current address April 2018 

PCN's all from 2015-2017 date range. Letter of CCJ settlement from CEL sent in Sept 2020 to old address. 

What if the judge asks why the numerous letters were all ignored from the 2015 to 2017 period. No shared mail or postbox etc.. Personally think they were just ignored as my friend felt threatened at the time but I can't really speak for her on that. I jut don't want to be caught out on that. Everything else I'm pretty confident about 

nosferatu1001 - Will ring county court just to triple check but surely a hearing wouldn't have been raised without payment / acquirement of funds first 

Coupon-mad

Did you actually pay £255 then?  You can't put it in your costs schedule if it wasn't paid, due to fee remission. 

What if the judge asks why the numerous letters were all ignored from the 2015 to 2017 period?

You CONFIDENTLY state that the multi-coloured letters with aggressive, bold font, demanding ever-fluctuating sums of money, bore all the hallmarks of a scam.  A law-abiding consumer cannot be criticised for not responding to these 'threatograms' and had no obligation whatsoever to reply to a private parking firm.  This is an industry with reported links with organised crime, according to MPs in Parliament in 2018.  Further, during the debates in February, July and November of 2018, Hansard records show that the House of Commons unanimously condemned private parking 'fines' as ''an outrageous scam'' and exposed the appeals services run by the self-serving traded bodies as a sham.  Many constituents were being advised by MPs only to respond to a court claim because the Trade Bodies and their kangaroo courts of appeals procedures were described as ''like leaving Dracula in charge at the Blood Bank'' with no fair or independent ADR on offer.

nosferatu1001

If an application for fee remission is pit in them, to my knowledge, the court goes ahead with ach3duling. This is because an outcome can take a while, and it's unfair to deny speedy justice while that is taking place. 

RINCO

Coupon-mad said:

Did you actually pay £255 then?  You can't put it in your costs schedule if it wasn't paid, due to fee remission. 

What if the judge asks why the numerous letters were all ignored from the 2015 to 2017 period?

You CONFIDENTLY state that the multi-coloured letters with aggressive, bold font, demanding ever-fluctuating sums of money, bore all the hallmarks of a scam.  A law-abiding consumer cannot be criticised for not responding to these 'threatograms' and had no obligation whatsoever to reply to a private parking firm.  This is an industry with reported links with organised crime, according to MPs in Parliament in 2018.  Further, during the debates in February, July and November of 2018, Hansard records show that the House of Commons unanimously condemned private parking 'fines' as ''an outrageous scam'' and exposed the appeals services run by the self-serving traded bodies as a sham.  Many constituents were being advised by MPs only to respond to a court claim because the Trade Bodies and their kangaroo courts of appeals procedures were described as ''like leaving Dracula in charge at the Blood Bank'' with no fair or independent ADR on offer.

No payment has been asked for. nosferatu1001I'll confirm with the court whether the HWF has gone through and remove the reclaim of the 255 if such is the case 

I agree with what you've said CM and will rely on that. But how about the court documents that followed after? would they be classed as threatening or possible scam if they were issued by HM courts. 

Coupon-mad

Are you saying the D ignored four court claims sent to the right address? 

We have no time to read back each time and handle hundreds of cases, so we work on the assumption that the claim went to the wrong address as per usual.  If that's not true here, then the D would need to explain what space their head was in, if they actually chose to ignore court claims.

RINCO

Coupon-mad said:

Are you saying the D ignored four court claims sent to the right address? 

We have no time to read back each time and handle hundreds of cases, so we work on the assumption that the claim went to the wrong address as per usual.  If that's not true here, then the D would need to explain what space their head was in, if they actually chose to ignore court claims.

Yes this is the case. This why I'm concerned on this sticking point. My friend said they have no recollection but to a judge that's not good enough.. Was thinking of suggesting to go down the route of - Lack of legal representation / Knowledge / Money concerns. Ropey at best. 

The only letter that went to the wrong address was the CCJ reduced settlement letters from CEL dated 09/2020. Obviously the judgement has defaulted long before. This was when my friend came to me as they knew I'd had issues in the past with PCN's.