DCBL legal CCJ saga (case won)

D_P_Dance

I think that they will struggle to get their costs if they win, ignoring this scam is hardly unreasonable imo.  Did you  complain to your MP?

Jsalomonuk

I didn't ignore anything, and they will have screwed me over for 6 years if they win !

Jsalomonuk

I didn't ignore anything, and they will have screwed me over for 6 years if they win !

KeithP

Jsalomonuk said:

I didn't ignore anything, and they will have screwed me over for 6 years if they win !

I don't understand that.
If they win, you pay what the judge orders within the timescale allowed and that is the end of the matter.
Full stop.

Jsalomonuk

Ill have a CCJ on my credit file, I've spend the last 4 years working towards Getting ready for a mortgage, screwing me over,  I haven't been unreasonable.

Le_Kirk

Jsalomonuk said:

Ill have a CCJ on my credit file, I've spend the last 4 years working towards Getting ready for a mortgage, screwing me over,  I haven't been unreasonable.

Why do you think that?  You only get a CCJ IF and only IF you lose and fail to pay what the judge orders within the timescale set by the judge.  Pay up - no CCJ on credit file.

Jsalomonuk

Because this is a set aside case, so there's already a CCJ on there , so if I loose it stays on there and get more costs , it's only removed if I win sureyl

Le_Kirk

Jsalomonuk said:

Because this is a set aside case, so there's already a CCJ on there , so if I loose it stays on there and get more costs , it's only removed if I win sureyl

OK, hadn't read back through thread to see it was a set-aside.

Coupon-mad

Preliminary Issue

3. It is noted that this Claim was issued in the name of Capital Car Park Control Ltd, however this should

have been issued in the name of the sole trading company Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control.

 There has been no prejudice caused to the Defendant as they would be in the same position had the claim

commenced in the correct Claimant name.

4. “Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control” formed a limited company “Capital Car Park Control Ltd” on

24 August 2020, the intent being to assign all historic debts to the limited company. Owing to an error, a

batch of unassigned debt was pursued by the limited Company and therefore the Claimant seeks an Order

to amend the Claimant name to “Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control”.

 I think they'd have to make an application for £100 and you could object, because why should they be allowed to ruin someone's credit file then try to use some sort of non-existent 'slip rule' in their favour, when they have not only cocked up the name of their own client, but also used (presumably) an old address for you.

Seems a bit late, and a bit of an insult to you (who have paid for this hearing!) for them to seize this moment to beg in the WS for a CCJ set aside situation, that they want to change the Claimant.  If they want to do that, the 'least cost' and most just way forward is to start again with an LBC and evidence from the right Claimant, then if they still believe they have a case, file a new claim for a £25 court fee in the right company name.  By going back to LBC stage this would allow both correct parties to go through the pre-action protocol and receive each other's evidence and try to resolve the matter without court action.

You need to make sure you mention this when you get to speak at your hearing, after you've covered your MAIN point that the CCJ should be set aside under CPR13 (mandatory and/or discretionary set aside applies).

Also remember to ask the Judge for your costs (£255 and any attendance/loss of leave for half a day for the hearing phone call) to be ordered to be paid by this Claimant, who failed to carry out any checks or traces of the correct address for you (a breach of the BPA Code of Practice, which requires that) and also thought that they could just pass your DVLA data as keeper, around various companies this person had set up.  That's a breach of the DPA 2018 and there can be no excuse for this lax/negligent data abuse.  Their Trade Body the BPA fully informed its members and held webinars and workshops about the changes that happened as a result of the GDPR in 2018.  This Claimant had no right to your data, at all.  Their conduct must meet the high bar for unreasonable conduct in litigation and they are responsible for paying back your costs, to put you back in the position you should have been in.

Bluefeather

Hello
It's seems they are explaining to the court as response to the reasons that judgements be set aside where one the grounds is primacy of contract. Maybe not your strongest argument. 

As you have been advised the CPR13 is where you need the courts attention and try not to get led into an argument over the claimants title. A judge can substitute names at a hearing if it's obviously the same person with damages to be settled. 

This name changing is evidence of the incompetent administration that resulted in them not being to get notice to you. They couldn't even get their name right on a claim form so the court should not be surprised they didn't get the correct addresses for notice even though their contractors (DCBL) had it. 

Showing they are negligent and incompetent will sit well in any costs decisions. 

Please do not be combative over the claimants name. They will want to use up hearing time and goad you into appearing unreasonable. 

Good Luck