CCJ issued after being misled by private parking firm - VCS

Rmc2018

sorry @nosferatu1001 so shall I leave this bit in?

nosferatu1001

No, you take it out, because as you noted, there is no enforcement as you paid up.

Jenni_D

And as mentioned earlier, you should change point 2 - you don't want costs to be reserved if at all possible; you want them reimbursed by the Claimant. (Remember this is a draft order for what you wish to happen after the set aside is granted. If they're reserved and they decide not to raise the claim again then how do you get your money back?)

Rmc2018

This still only leaves me with 5 points and on reviewing many of the previous threads I can not see another point I could add that is relevant? Also the draft defence I have started in very repetitive of my WS, should this be? 

DRAFT ORDER
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM BUSINESS CENTRE 

 

BETWEEN 

 

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES (VCS) LTD (Claimant)

And

---

(Defendant)

District Judge

---

UPON THE APPLICATION of the Defendant dated 08 January 2021  and the annexed witness statement of xxxx dated 08 January 2021

---

IT IS ORDERED that:

 

1.     The default judgment dated 21st October 2020 be set aside.

2.     All costs to be reimbursed by Claimant.

3.     Unless the Claimant serves a copy of the Claim Form on the Defendant by 4 pm on [date] paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect and the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £255 plus the £185 paid by the defendant under duress and false pretences and the claim shall be struck out.

4.     If the Claimant serves the claim form as directed in paragraph 3 the Defendant shall file and serve a defence by 4pm on [date].

5.     Should the Claimant discontinue the Claim after the CCJ is set aside, paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect and the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £255 plus the £185 paid by the defendant under duress and false pretences plus the Defendant's costs for attending the hearing.

nosferatu1001

Jenni - thats handled, as ever, by the following para where para 2 ceases to apply

Jenni_D

nosferatu1001 said:

Jenni - thats handled, as ever, by the following para where para 2 ceases to apply

Good spot - which sort of nullifies the need for point 2 at all? Or am I missing something? I've got it now.

As to the OP's question ... I doubt that the order has to have 6 points, rather it's generally more-known as a 6-point-order because they usually do have 6 points?

nosferatu1001

Indeed, it does not need 6 points in this case, but the reason it is referred to that is because in a contested set aside there can still be a claim post set aside, and so the C has chance to DC. 
In this case, 6 points become 5

Coupon-mad

Looks fine but I noticed your WS has the wrong date of the default Judgment - it says 21st November.

Rmc2018

@henrik777 hi do you have any input before I submit me application, the more eyes the better, thank you, also is it worth me noting in the opening of my opening WS that I am not a lawyer and I have little knowledge in this sector etc? I believe you are an expert in set asides?! 

henrik777

I am the defendant in this matter.

Applicant. They are the respondent.

 On the date in question, I was returning to a pharmacy to retrieve my purse, I was in not in possession of any means of paying for a ticket and as the car park was empty, I was unable to advise this to a traffic warden. Due to covid guidelines and social distancing requirements I was unable to quickly retrieve my purse, I queued up for 5 minutes, retrieved my purse and returned back to my car which had been issued with a Notice to Keeper.

Telling a judge you had no means of paying upon entry and KNEW this might mean you lose as soon as the statement is read.

I appealed, they didn't respond is all that you need.

This poor advice was repeated up until the point of me receiving a Judgment for Claimant (in default) on 21/10/2020. 

When considering promptness the court will start from the point you knew about the CCJ at this point. You need to explain, to the satisfaction of the court, the delay in making your application.

Also there is no mention of the claim form. What happened to that ? Did you get it ?

wilfully

Google it.

 failed to explain the importance of when the payment should be made in order to avoid a CCJ.


Clearly, when it is still within the first 30 days to prevent a CCJ and the Defendant calls the Claimant in distress and shock at receiving a letter saying they are about to get a CCJ, the priority 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, I was completely misled by the call handler who prioritised the trader's interests of getting my money as opposed to my interests.  This is contrary to the fairness and transparency doctrines in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 

They are not duty bound to help you.  CRA doesn't apply to a CCJ as far as i know. The original parking matter, yes. Not an order of a court.

Most court documentation advises seeking help as far as i recall.

under duress and false pretences

Remove.


You'll find more solace in the court rules.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part01

The overriding objective

1.1

(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.

(2) Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable –

(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;

(b) saving expense;

(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –

(i) to the amount of money involved;

(ii) to the importance of the case;

(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and

(iv) to the financial position of each party;

(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;

(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; and

(f) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.

Duty of the parties

1.3

The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.