CCJ added on Nov 2020 that i dont recognise

ThisnotThat

taztheman said:

ThisnotThat said:

This is all largely irrelevant.

The cost of trying to get this set aside will be significant and you didn't respond to any of the letters they sent, and I bet they did send one or two.

i think you have missed few posts that i made above on the timelines.
There was no PCN received in the post between the date of offence (18/08/19) and date of leaving UK (06/12/19).
Moreover i can confirm there were no court letters issued in the said duration either. 

I didn't miss anything.  You are claiming there was nothing received.  That doesn't mean nothing was received and it doesn't mean it wasn't sent.  If they have evidence to show the letter was sent, the court will accept that as proof it was received.

You clearly didn't get the court papers as you'd upped and left for the Middle East, but that's not their problem.

taztheman

ThisnotThat said:

I didn't miss anything.  You are claiming there was nothing received.  That doesn't mean nothing was received and it doesn't mean it wasn't sent.  If they have evidence to show the letter was sent, the court will accept that as proof it was received.

You clearly didn't get the court papers as you'd upped and left for the Middle East, but that's not their problem.

so for all i know, this could be a matter of cloned registration plate in use but this is not the parking company's problem neither it is the court's problem? 

ThisnotThat

taztheman said:

ThisnotThat said:

I didn't miss anything.  You are claiming there was nothing received.  That doesn't mean nothing was received and it doesn't mean it wasn't sent.  If they have evidence to show the letter was sent, the court will accept that as proof it was received.

You clearly didn't get the court papers as you'd upped and left for the Middle East, but that's not their problem.

so for all i know, this could be a matter of cloned registration plate in use but this is not the parking company's problem neither it is the court's problem? 

No.  Because the issue of the debt being valid is secondary to you not responding to the court claim.  You need to have a valid reason for not responding first, and a defence against the debt second, in order to get it set aside.

As your reason for not responding to the court claim was that you had left the country, which isn't the claimants nor the court's problem, I can't see this being set aside.

phillw

ThisnotThat said:
As your reason for not responding to the court claim was that you had left the country, which isn't the claimants nor the court's problem, I can't see this being set aside.

Clearly being out of the country IS a valid reason for not responding. It wouldn't be the claimant or court's problem if you were in a coma either.

https://www.masonbullock.co.uk/applying-to-set-aside-a-default-judgment-dont-make-these-mistakes/

The judge may have some sympathy with you if you can show that you weren’t aware of the CCJ when it was issued. For example, you may have been out of the country or sick in hospital.

The CCJ is a punishment for you ignoring the debt, not because you chose to leave the country and were therefore unaware that the debt potentially even exists. It's not like you can check if someone will take you to court before you leave.

ThisnotThat

phillw said:

ThisnotThat said:
As your reason for not responding to the court claim was that you had left the country, which isn't the claimants nor the court's problem, I can't see this being set aside.

Clearly being out of the country IS a valid reason for not responding. It wouldn't be the claimant or court's problem if you were in a coma either.

https://www.masonbullock.co.uk/applying-to-set-aside-a-default-judgment-dont-make-these-mistakes/

The judge may have some sympathy with you if you can show that you weren’t aware of the CCJ when it was issued. For example, you may have been out of the country or sick in hospital.

Which is clearly in reference to people being outside the country temporarily.  Not permanently.

phillw

ThisnotThat said:
Which is clearly in reference to people being outside the country temporarily.  Not permanently.

Clearly how? How is it relevant whether it's temporary or permanent?

If you were on a day trip to France then that is no defense, you would need to be out of the country long enough for you to not have been aware of the debt. But whether you leave the country for 6 months or plan to leave permanently then it's irrelevant to the reason of why you didn't respond, which was because you were out of the country.

I've known people who leave permanently and then change their mind and are back within a year, are you saying the court are going to waste time trying to work out whether that counts as temporary or permanent ?

The judge might question how other mail was handled while you are not in the country, I do not know all the facts and would not give specific legal advice regardless.

The courts should be quite setup for remote hearings now after 15 months of covid restrictions, so there is no reason why you have to attend the court to give your defense.

ThisnotThat

phillw said:

ThisnotThat said:
Which is clearly in reference to people being outside the country temporarily.  Not permanently.

Clearly how? How is it relevant whether it's temporary or permanent?

If you were on a day trip to France then that is no defense, you would need to be out of the country long enough for you to not have been aware of the debt. But whether you leave the country for 6 months or plan to leave permanently then it's irrelevant to the reason of why you didn't respond, which was because you were out of the country.

I've known people who leave permanently and then change their mind and are back within a year, are you saying the court are going to waste time trying to work out whether that counts as temporary or permanent ?

The judge might question how other mail was handled while you are not in the country, I do not know all the facts and would not give specific legal advice regardless.

The courts should be quite setup for remote hearings now after 15 months of covid restrictions, so there is no reason why you have to attend the court to give your defense.

Because I understand English, and people don't say someone is "out of" wherever if it's permanent.

If someone phoned up your office and asked to speak to an employee who had moved to a different company, would you say they are "out of the office?"  If someone phoned up your home and asked to speak to someone who had moved out would you say they are "out of the house?"  Clearly, you wouldn't, even though it isn't incorrect to say they are out of the office or out of the house.  And you don't say someone who has moved abroad is "out of the country", you say they moved abroad.

Both of the scenarios you quoted are clearly where the claim has been sent to the correct address, the place they live, but that person is, not unreasonably, unable to respond to the papers.  And that is why the court is willing to give them some leeway.  That is not the same as someone who left the country, did not set up mail forwarding and ended up with a CCJ as a result.

phillw

ThisnotThat said:
Both of the scenarios you quoted are clearly where the claim has been sent to the correct address, the place they live, but that person is, not unreasonably, unable to respond to the papers.  And that is why the court is willing to give them some leeway.  That is not the same as someone who left the country, did not set up mail forwarding and ended up with a CCJ as a result.

I disagree, you are more likely to setup mail redirection if you are out of the country temporarily but there is no obligation on you to setup redirection, especially if you are not expecting any mail.

However as the OP is temporarily out of the country, it's academic as you have accepted that it would be a reasonable reason for not responding. However you are unable to respond to court papers if you are not in the UK to receive them whether you plan to return or not. Your word play does not change this.

brianposter

This argument is simply silly - there are many places in other countries where it is difficult or impossible to receive mail.

Any sensible court would automatically set aside a judgement for someone who has gone overseas.

[Deleted User]

phillw said:

ThisnotThat said:
Both of the scenarios you quoted are clearly where the claim has been sent to the correct address, the place they live, but that person is, not unreasonably, unable to respond to the papers.  And that is why the court is willing to give them some leeway.  That is not the same as someone who left the country, did not set up mail forwarding and ended up with a CCJ as a result.

I disagree, you are more likely to setup mail redirection if you are out of the country temporarily but there is no obligation on you to setup redirection, especially if you are not expecting any mail.

However as the OP is temporarily out of the country, it's academic as you have accepted that it would be a reasonable reason for not responding. However you are unable to respond to court papers if you are not in the UK to receive them whether you plan to return or not. Your word play does not change this.

The problem is that while the OP was out of the country, their family wasn't - they were 3 months when OP was in the Middle East but family were at the address yet somehow "knows" there was no letter received which is obviously not possible as it could have been and thrown away as junk. Now OP is bringing in this 50 mile away thing, again "knowing" his partner couldn't possibly have driven there and is trying to bring in the cloned plates stuff. Yes the CCJ was issued after they left but the paperwork that led up to that wasn't, so the CCJ is perfectly legitimate - a mail forward to their relatives or friends would have covered that.