NHS appointment ParkingEYE CCJ Default Judgement Address - Second Address

Redx

There were several set aside threads on the go at the same time as Ferrybird like frew198 for example , so read those threads too , especially any posts by henrik777 , to get the idea , most set asides seem to be granted when the address and tracing issues are brought into it , because the set aside judge isn't dealing with the original court case , so just a quick yes or no from them , usually a yes

It's the people who ignore court papers or leave it too long that don't get one

Read this one. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6220117/parking-eye-unknown-ccj-set-aside-help/p1

henrik777

Repost

What i would do,

1. Get as many free credit reports as i could to compare.

2. Ask them which one they used.

3. Check voters roll and other places they could easily check.

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

The claimant freely admits that they had "reason to believe"

(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’).

Is it reasonable to check 1 CRA when you have suspicion ?

(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.

(a) negates (b) but if it doesn't the (b) is mandatory.

http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Nuur-v-Sajid-2018-CLCC-on-appeal-to-HHJ-Roberts.pdf

I would submit that the claimant took no serious steps to find you. 1 cursory glance at a CRA report (and the accuracy/authenticity of the statement and report remains to be seen)

lostCCJ

Thanks all, so much, for the support with this.  I felt so alone and I really appreciate the time and energy that you guys demonstrate in pointing "Newbies" in the right direction with this.  What a valuable resource!  I have submitted my set aside request and will update this thread when I hear back

lostCCJ

Hey Guys,
I'm now at the stage where PE have responded to my n244 saying it's all nonsense and, I presume, we'll get a telephone hearing in due course.  They offered a Tomlin but based on feelings here I decided to push ahead with the set aside.

In that email they detailed:

"ParkingEye did not receive any response to 4 letters that were sent to the address held by the DVLA for the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. As a result, we obtained an alternative address from a Credit Reference Agency, to which a further 2 letters were sent. This was also the same address to which the County Court Claim Form was sent, to which you also failed to respond, resulting in a judgment in default being registered in favour of the Claimant.  We would stress that we have complied with the requirements of CPR 6.9 in seeking to obtain an alternative address and in issuing the claim using your last known address."

henrik777's argument above - that they served to a second address.  I can absolutely see how (4) requires them to look for a second address [and that they took one glance at a CRA report details of which haven't been forthcoming.  I now know that they then sent documents to a (that?) second address which I'd also left by the time they got round to it.  Is the argument simply that the same argument held as for the first address - they knew they had reason to believe that that address wansn't 'current' on both occasions and so just sending letters to a second address doesn't fulfil the mandatory bit of (4b)? 

Have I got the right end of the stick?

lostCCJ

Oh! I see, I think - it hinges on neither of these addresses being my 'current' address (at the time).  So even though they did find a second address it wasn't my current address and they didn't establish it as such and so they needed to do 4b)

henrik777

For the 2nd address i would argue, that they did not "ascertain"  [to make certain of something]
They found a possible address but did not confirm it and as such it cannot be a valid service address.

They got no reply and does a credit report guarantee you have the right person anyway ?

Johnersh

I think the o/p will struggle to establish that the ppc failed to serve.
1. They contacted the dvla registered address and got no response;
2. They obtained an alternative address and used that, but no response;
3. Presumably address 3 was yet to produce a credit history as it was new(ish) at the time they did the search
4. The claimant is not required to undertake multiple searches to track a party.
5. The court rules permit service at a last known address for a reason. 

Basically they used best endeavours and have corresponded with the last addresses they had. 

Given that there is a risk of good service, the o/p would perhaps be sensible to also address the other elements of CPR13 and to establish that the claim is defensible and beyond being false, fanciful or imaginary. 

henrik777

Johnersh said:

I think the o/p will struggle to establish that the ppc failed to serve.
1. They contacted the dvla registered address and got no response;
2. They obtained an alternative address and used that, but no response;
3. Presumably address 3 was yet to produce a credit history as it was new(ish) at the time they did the search
4. The claimant is not required to undertake multiple searches to track a party.
5. The court rules permit service at a last known address for a reason. 

Basically they used best endeavours and have corresponded with the last addresses they had. 

Given that there is a risk of good service, the o/p would perhaps be sensible to also address the other elements of CPR13 and to establish that the claim is defensible and beyond being false, fanciful or imaginary. 

There is always a risk a court allows it as last know address. Having said that the rules place a significant burden on claimants where "reason to believe" exists before allowing the "last known address"

http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Nuur-v-Sajid-2018-CLCC-on-appeal-to-HHJ-Roberts.pdf

I would say the burden of proof is on the applicant to introduce "reason to believe" which in this case is easy. The burden, IMO, then shifts to the respondents to show they have followed all steps of CPR that allow service to the last known address (especially one which they have very good reason to doubt residence.)

Johnersh

Ah Gordon's legendary blog - I continue to wonder how he finds the time.

I appreciate the requirements of good service, but there's a big difference between Nuur where there was *actual* knowledge the receiving party didn't live there (having been evicted) and the o/p's case.

Here, parkingeye identified the possibility of a change of address, located the new address only for unfortunate circumstances to mean that the o/p had moved a third time. Much may depend on how old their searches were.

Whether or not I disagree with Henrik, I think we are agreed that the o/p can and should argue both on the basis of failed service and on the basis that the claim can be defended. 

henrik777

Johnersh said:

Ah Gordon's legendary blog - I continue to wonder how he finds the time.

I appreciate the requirements of good service, but there's a big difference between Nuur where there was *actual* knowledge the receiving party didn't live there (having been evicted) and the o/p's case.

Here, parkingeye identified the possibility of a change of address, located the new address only for unfortunate circumstances to mean that the o/p had moved a third time. Much may depend on how old their searches were.

Whether or not I disagree with Henrik, I think we are agreed that the o/p can and should argue both on the basis of failed service and on the basis that the claim can be defended. 

Always say that and always say ask for consent.100%