CCJ without my knowledge

Sebastian83

Coupon-mad said:

I agree you do not need that #3 in the defence, because that comes into play AFTER having the CCJ set aside.

Instead, in #3, state that:

The Defendant has reason to believe that the images show two separate visits and the PCN was issued in error and that the Claimant failed to carry out the manual checks needed to find 'orphan images' in cases where a vehicle visits a retail park twice in two days. This is a well known flaw and inherent failure of ANPR systems because these systems default to 'first in, last out' images within 24 or 48 hours.  ANPR is so unreliable in this respect, that Local Authorities were banned in the Deregulation Act 2015 from using it for parking enforcement and the Government refused to reconsider this in 2020 when the British Parking Association and ParkingEye lobbied for it again.  The fact that private firms use the systems knowing the flaws, is abhorrent, and the fact that ParkingEye obtained the registered keeper DVLA data due to their own failure to check that the car had not left on the Saturday and returned on the Monday, is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice, the DVLA KADOE licence and the DPA 2018 because there was no reasonable cause to obtain, process and share the data, at all.  The PCN and CCJ flowed from an illegal act.

Thank you, that helps me a lot!
So, just to be clear, the draft defence which I have now adapted I will not need before having the judgment set aside, right?
And the facts I tried to bring in under paragraph 3 I could just mention during my phone call next week?

Coupon-mad

So, just to be clear, the draft defence which I have now adapted I will not need before having the judgment set aside, right?

Well if it were me I'd be bringing the double visit issue to the Judge's attention and asking for the entire claim to be struck out.

You could show the Judge what you have seen about the dates on the photos, and the case law below and ask the Judge to declare the claim dead (because it was filed more than 4 months ago but never properly served) and if the C thinks they have a cause of action, they can issue the claim afresh to the right address after showing you their evidence in pre-action comms, first (i.e. this is the route suggested by @Johnersh, a solicitor poster here who said this to me on the subject).  Call it a defective claim:

I know I continue to 'bang the drum' but back on the point of defendants who were
1. never served with a claim form;
2. have a judgment set aside on that basis
3. When it is more than 4 months from issue of proceedings
There is yet further authority that the claim is stuffed. Both the case linked and those it refers to are of interest. 
In the below example the claimant was then out of time (totally). In most parking cases the claimant will just be able to issue afresh.

My point is that a DJ can't simply keep a defective claim in play if we can point to rules that restrict that. Further, it should make it easier for the defendant to ask for costs since the instant claim is then at an end (no reserving and rolling them over). 
https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2021/04/19/another-actions-fails-because-of-late-service-of-the-claim-form-neither-cpr-3-9-or-3-10-can-dig-the-claimant-out-of-this-hole/

Johnersh

I'm tagged in at the end of 16 pages I've not read recently but.

* if a claim has never been correctly served, a set aside is mandatory
* C will often rely upon a last known address, but that is dangerous and essentially a provision to prevent defendants ducking service. There is an obligation to make enquiries to locate D. Typical examples are claims issued 3+ years after dvla provided the address details. 
* In my view if the claim form was served to an incorrect address and the court accepts that, after 4 months the claim has expired since it has never been served within the validity period.
* In most cases C will simply be able to issue new proceedings, but that's fine as the DJ has the comfort of knowing no rights are prejudiced. It does however follow that D gets his costs of the hearing.
* Generally at a set aside it's helpful to have a defence ready to go if the court wants evidence that the claim is defensible. That is to address the discretionary point where a judge is giving the benefit of the doubt and chooses to allow the claim to be defended. In this scenario, the court has likely as not kept the claim in play. 

Sebastian83

I will try to bring that in on the telephone appointment tomorrow.
I am pretty nervous and hope that I don't mess it up. I will let you know what the judge said after the appointment.

Sebastian83

I have just had my telephone appointment with the judge.
Civil Enforcement Ltd have sent an email today to the judge where they said that they will not attend the hearing and that they have offered to agree to remove the judgment if I pay £125.
The judge asked me if I want to accept this offer or if I want to try to persuade him that he sets aside the judgment. I said I can not accept this "offer" and have explained that Civil Enforcement had 13 months time to serve the PCN, but instead they carried on to sent letters to the wrong address without even attempting to obtain my correct address, so I feel CPR 13.2 applies.
If the Judge disagrees with me here I said, I feel CPR 13.3 applies as I have a real prospect to defend the claim as a) I know that I have never parked in this car park and that my wife who goes to this supermarket regularly has never parked there longer than an hour maximum and b) Civil Enforcement has already admitted about 6 months ago that they can not provide any ANPR photos.
The judge then said, he will now set the judgment aside and will send an order out in the next couple of days and I will then have 14 days to send a defence in.

I want to thank everyone who took their time to help me in this forum! Without you I would never have come that far!

Le_Kirk

Well done indeed!  You stood your ground.  Time now to hone that defence.

Sebastian83

I just received the court letter. 
It's dated 18th June and says I got 14 days to file a defence.
However it doesn't say if I have to send it by post or email? 

I would have both ready. 

Le_Kirk

These days it is more likely to be e-mail.  Was there not a special e-mail address for sending documents to on the letter?

Sebastian83

Le_Kirk said:

These days it is more likely to be e-mail.  Was there not a special e-mail address for sending documents to on the letter?

No, there wasn't, but in the letter before they said I have to confirm my attendance and my phone number 3 days prior to the hearing and there was an email address where I've should reply to. 
Would you recommend to send my signed defence as a pdf to the same email address? 

Le_Kirk

Sebastian83 said:

Le_Kirk said:

These days it is more likely to be e-mail.  Was there not a special e-mail address for sending documents to on the letter?

No, there wasn't, but in the letter before they said I have to confirm my attendance and my phone number 3 days prior to the hearing and there was an email address where I've should reply to. 
Would you recommend to send my signed defence as a pdf to the same email address? 

I would use that e-mail address.