CCJ Sent to old address - Napier Parking, BW Legal

Coupon-mad

Looks like they are just trying to bully you.   Many, many people don't realise they have to update their V5C separately from their driving licence.   

If anything, I'd say the DVLA are at fault for not having a 'tell us once' system, because when they know a data subject has moved, I'd say they have a duty to update all data held about that person.  There is a school of thought that the DVLA are actively causing these CCJs by a failure to comply with the GDPR .

Do you fancy a complain about the DVL to the ICO (online, dead easy) recounting your experience and asking if the ICO agrees that the DVLA fail people by not updating records that they know relate to the same data subject?  People need to start doing this.  I believe the ICO already has concerns about the DVLA and keeper data.

The bottom line remains, even if a parking firm get a DVLA address that is not where their burden ends, to take ALL reasonable steps to locate an address for service, if they later want to sue that person.  If they get no reply to letters sent to a private address that they know the DVLA may well not have updated and may be many years old, then as we have told you, that silence is a 'reason to believe' you might not be living there.

The Government named and shamed parking firms for exactly this sharp practice:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/government-announce-ccj-review-due-to.html

nosferatu1001

The issue you have with making that claim is that the RK data is not the same as saying that person definitively lives at that address; all it denotes is an address at which they can be contacted
Just because you change your DL address there is no g'tee you want your V5 updated. Now, it might make sense for the DVLA to send a reminder out, saying "we see you chanyed your DL, fancy getting your V5 changed as well?" but the DVLA is not good at handling post. They even tell you its your job to remind t hem if you dont get a confirmation of RK transfer because they might have lost it internally, even though that is not in t he legislation...

ngwino88

Hi Thank you @Coupon-mad and @nosferatu1001 .
This all makes sense definitely. I guess I am wondering whether I should respond stating I have chosen to continue on with the hearing and acknowledge their correspondence however, will proceed to the hearing in March.

Or is it best to remain silent - or does that reflect negatively on me, if they inform the Judge on the hearing date that I ignored their correspondence. To be honest they were really hounding me initially until I submitted the application to set aside, and now it has calmed down a bit and more formal emails. However, just uncertain as whether to respond or leave it and wait.

nosferatu1001

Personally I would respond summarising your grounds for CPR13.2
You know full well that even if you had changed yoru V5 in between, their client was not able to get your updated address that way. It makes the DVLA issue moot
Their client had good reason to believe the address might not be correct, yet took = - from the evidence - no steps to confirm it before issuing the claim. You have every expectation that the court will find in your favour on this point. 

Redx

As mentioned above , the claimant can only access the DVLA database once within the first 6 months following the contravention , so they cannot Access that database a second time to check the keeper details even if the V5C had been updated , meaning that they have to use a tracing service to do so

It's a moot point , so do the reply above

Coupon-mad

I stand by what I say about the DVLA.  A person's name and address identifies them as an individual data subject.  Just because a different Department deals with driving licences than the team who deal with V5Cs, is not an excuse of what is very possibly a breach of GDPR.  By the DVLA, in my opinion. 

I've told the DVLA that.  It fell on deaf ears.  

What it needs, is a victim to report the DVLA to the the ICO (takes a few minutes online to raise a concern, and costs nothing) to find out whether the ICO thinks I am right or not.  Even if I am wrong and the ICO don't agree, I understand that the ICO are already concerned about the way DVLA handle registered keeper data and them asking these questions might at least make the DVLA make more of an effort to alert people to a danger so huge that it is causing credit-damaging CCJs.

And the DVLA know it is.

ngwino88

Thank you for your feedback and guidance everyone. Below is my draft email response, do you think this covers everything?:

Dear XXXXXXXXXX,

Thank you for your email and previous correspondence.

I would like to reiterate that the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where a Claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to 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. The Claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of my current residence or place of business despite having some 16 months to establish an address, therefore having good reason to believe they did not hold my current contact details.  Had I changed my V5C in between, your client would not be able to get my updated address that way anyway as they can only access the DVLA database once within the first 6 months following a contravention. This therefore, makes the DVLA issue moot.

Your client had good reason to believe the address might not be correct, yet took no steps to confirm it before issuing the claim. I have every expectation that the court will find in my favour on this point.

Even if your client obtained a DVLA address, that is not where their burden ends; but to take ALL reasonable steps to locate an address for service, if they later want to sue that person.  If they get no response to any notice or letters sent to a private address that they know the DVLA may well not have updated and may be many years old, then this is a 'reason to believe' that the address is incorrect and that the Defendant might not be living there. Your client had no indication this address was a good address for service, yet wrote a statement of truth to that effect when they filed the claim. 

I am confident that my case will fall under the Mandatory set aside of a default judgment, as one that is considered a case where the court must set aside judgment entered under Part 1213.2  The court must set aside(GL) a judgment entered under Part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered because–

(a) in the case of a judgment in default of an acknowledgment of service, any of the conditions in rule 12.3(1) and 12.3(3) was not satisfied;

(b) in the case of a judgment in default of a defence, any of the conditions in rule 12.3(2) and 12.3(3) was not satisfied; or

(c) the whole of the claim was satisfied before judgment was entered.

I am confident that the court will not dismiss the claim and will award me the £255 filing fee, including my costs of attending the hearing. 

I would be open to an alternative option however, whereby your clients consent to the set aside, paying me the cost of the filing, and agreeing to drop the claim, as I am confident that your clients chance of success against me in a court hearing is low. I believe this offer will reduce your costs.

I acknowledge your correspondence, however, I stand by my decision to continue on with the hearing in March, save for the option offered above being agreed to.

Kind regards,

XXXXXXXXXXX

nosferatu1001

You've repeated yourself a few times.
The more you say, the more they can argue
Three lines, max. 

Coupon-mad

Yes, make it short and snappy!  Don't expect them to agree.

Umkomaas

Kind regards,

XXXXXXXXXXX

'Kind regards' .... are you joking. This is a firm trying to sue you.  Don't tell me those are kisses below? 🥴

Business letters should be 'Dear Sir(s)/Yours faithfully' (or are schools no longer covering these, assuming we are all now living in a warm, fluffy and cuddly world?).