CCJ issued after being misled by private parking firm - VCS

Rmc2018

@Coupon-mad I destroyed all documentation after I paid the fee as I thought it was finally over with but what I can remember it was a Judgement for Claimant (in default) that I received along with a letter from a bailiff company?

1505grandad

"DEFAULT (JUDGMENT)"

( ) is the correct spelling in this context  -  i.e. no middle "e"

All correctly spelt in your previous draft so disappointed that the latest contains the word a few times with the erroneous middle "e".

Rmc2018

I will go back through them today and correct thank you @1505grandad

nosferatu1001

A set aside with consent, and a consented set aside are the exact same thing
UNconsented, or more commonly a contested set aside, is what happens if VCS do not consent to the set aside. 
In either case, you must satisfy the court that you have grounds to set aside
These grounds are either
- automatic under CPR13.2
- any other good reason, discretionary (ie the court decides) under CPR13.3
No matter which route you go down, your WS must make it clear you have valid grounds to set aside. Fail to do so and the court may see this as just "credit washing", and they do not like that. 

Coupon-mad

And his valid grounds are fundamentally dishonest dealings with the PPC, plus that he has prospects of defending the claim. 

You WILL be defending the scam PCN, going forward, and not saying it's OK.   Part of the set aside is that you have good reason to wipe the CCJ and good prospects (more than 50/50) of succeeding in a defence. Having some signs up doesn't make the PCN itself OK and I am sure the driver didn't agree to pay £100 by their conduct, because they (no doubt) never knew about the t&cs which are never 'there to be seen' clearly in a VCS or Excel car park.  Show me one that's clear...!

Rmc2018

Sorry @Coupon-mad is this for another thread?

Coupon-mad

No, if you end up doing a £255 set aside and want the £185 back, you will be defending the claim as well.

nosferatu1001

Oh indeed, but I am making sure the OP is aware that their set aside application, under whichever route, must set out grounds for sert aside, and those grounds must meet the grounds under CPR13.3. They did not appear to be appreciating this. 

Rmc2018

I am yet to receive any kind of response from VCS, do I chase or leave it in their hands?

also I am going to update my WS this weekend to show more clearly how I have been misled, should I also include the fact that I have worked in a FI for 15 years hence I am aware of how detrimental the presence of a CCJ on your credit report is and how I have always kept a clean credit file due to this or will this be of no interest to the judge?

many thanks as always 

Coupon-mad

I would say that, yes, and add that your job also shows that you are not a financially naive person who could be blamed for some sort of misunderstanding.  Instead, this was a clear case of  a financially astute person being taken advantage of, either deliberately or by neglect.  VCS paid no regard to the dates and failed to explain the importance of when the payment should be made, and even suggested a date that was outside the 30 day deadline (which you had no idea mattered).   

As a serial litigator with their own in-house legal team, VCS did know, and that was inherently unfair. You could continue to say:

Clearly, when it is still within the first 30 days not to cause a CCJ and the Defendant phones up in shock at receiving a letter saying they are about to get a CCJ, the prioirity of an honest and fair trader with an experienced legal team who deal with the small claims process every day, would be to explain the implications and deadlines. Instead, the call handler completely misled you and prioritised the trader's interests (getting the money) and not your interests.  This is contrary to the fairness and transparency doctrines in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and must surely be a very good reason why the court should use its discretion to set aside the CCJ, order the rogue firm to pay back the £255 court fee and £185 paid under duress and false pretences, and allow the Defendant to defend the case, noting that the claim was inflated and on the face of the facts there are good prospects of successful defence.