DCBLegal

UncleThomasCobley

This looks like it may be a screw up by the court. If you filed your defence on time, the court should have reviewed the case and proceed with the next steps, which would normally include further case management or setting a hearing date.

I can't find anything in the CPR/PDs that gives an actual time limit after filing the defence for the claimant to respond and "proceed back to court", as you say. Normally, it's the court's responsibility to manage the case and ensure that it proceeds according to the applicable procedures and timelines.

UncleThomasCobley

FrequentOverstayer said:

I hope this doesn't restart as I have only just bounced my credit score back to an acceptable level.
Any advice on this matter is greatly appreciated

Even if it did end back up at a hearing and you lost, as long as you paid the CCJ within 30 days, it would be expunged and no record of it would be in your credit file.

FrequentOverstayer

Thanks @UncleThomasCobley I thought this was the case. I know the vultures don’t particularly like attending court hearings which is why I stated that should they wish to proceed they will be liable for charges. Hoping that my willingness to attend will scare them off once and for all. 

Thanks for all your help today

Coupon-mad

You don't think your local court have been using your old address from the original claim form, do you?

Seems you've missed the written Order from a year ago and a recent letter sending you a DQ.

FrequentOverstayer

So the journey continues.
The case has been transferred to Lincoln County Court but they sent a letter today saying that during the transfer of this case, the defense has been lost.

Now I am keen to bring them up to speed on matters, how much will they have on file.
I hope they have the history on file! 

Coupon-mad

FrequentOverstayer said:

Background - CCJ set aside
Oct 2022:

Remote hearing today and thanks to your help we have conquered the default judgement and it is now set aside. 

£275 + £95 costs approved to be paid to me within 14 days, however I have to fire back a defence for a hearing... 



Update, 2024:

So the journey continues.
The case has been transferred to Lincoln County Court but they sent a letter today saying that during the transfer of this case, the defense has been lost.

Now I am keen to bring them up to speed on matters, how much will they have on file.
I hope they have the history on file! 

Send the court (and DCB Legal) an email attaching the actual defence (the exact same signed version you submitted in 2022 to the other court) and attach a skeleton argument attaching CEL v Chan and all the strike-out judgments (gathered by @Le_Kirk and you will find that merged PDF linked in the NEWBIES thread a-f list of suggested exhibits).

In the covering email, say what is attached and why, and ask for the Claim to be struck out after all this time because it failed to meet the CPRs.  If the allocating Judge - having read the attached series of similar 2023/24 judgments - is not minded to follow suit and strike the Claim out based on the persuasive authority of HHJ Murch, then you respectfully ask the court for witness statement & evidence Directions.

This is now required (if the improper claim is not now struck out) because you have never been afforded the opportunity to file & serve any evidence against the Parking Charge, since the CCJ was set aside almost 18 months ago after the claim was deliberately sent to a known old address and the Claimant was ordered to pay all costs.  

FrequentOverstayer

Guys,

I have given this Skeleton Argument a go based on some forum reading.

I wanted to cite the CEL v Chan as it is an almost identical case to mine, I also wanted to lean on the 4 Month ruling as a secondary argument

Your feedback is most welcomed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Claim No.:xxxxxxxx

Between: - 

 
Highview Parking Limited (Claimant) 

AND 

xxxxxxxx (Defendant) 

 
_________________ 
SKELETON ARGUMENT 

 
  
1 Defendant asks that this claim be struck out in line with HHJ Murch who cast judgment on an almost identical case at Luton County Court in August 2023. Please see CEL v Chan (attached Judgments.PDF) 

 

2 This claim was previously Set Aside on xxxxxx, The Claimant's representative refused an invitation to attend and ordered to pay all costs, since then Defendant has met every deadline in relation to this claim

 
2.1 Defendant would also like to raise that more than 4 months has passed since issue of proceedings and service of the claim was defective (i.e., it was never served) the Defendant submits that this claim is dead and the period for service cannot be extended by this application process.  If the Claimant believes there is a cause of action, then the correct procedure would be to file a claim afresh and to the right address, after furnishing the Defendant with the information required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, issued this time to the correct address for service for this Defendant, which is xxxxxxxxxxx (Date provided to Claimant via SAR on xxxxxxx) 

 
2.2 There are several authorities for this, including the judgment in Boxwood [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC) (please see attached Boxwood.pdf)  , which is a reminder of the strictness of the requirements of CPR 7.6 and how difficult it is to use other parts of the Civil Procedure Rules to rectify a failure to serve the claim form within the requisite period: “A claimant is not entitled to rely on the wide, general powers under CPR 3.10 or CPR 3.9 to circumvent the specific conditions set out in CPR 7.6(3) for extending the period for service of a claim form. 

2.3 In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 (please see attached Vinos.pdf)  the Court of Appeal considered whether any extension of time should be granted under CPR 7.6 in circumstances where the defendant had been notified of the issue of a claim form but the claim form had not been served within four months as required by CPR 7.5 and the application was made after expiry of that period. The court refused to grant relief on the basis that it did not have power to do so. 

 
2.4 In judgment of Deputy Master Marsh in Croke & Anor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch)  (please see attached Croke.pdf) the claimant was one day late in properly serving the Particulars of Claim to the Defendant and the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was refused. In section 65 of the transcript of the trial (which is attached) Deputy Master Marsh stated “The defendants were entitled to know within the four-month period specified in the CPR whether a claim had been made against them and to be able to understand that claim. [...] Unless an extension of time is granted, the claim will cease to have any validity and will be struck out."  

 
2.5 In Piepenbrock-v-Associated News Limited [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB) (please see attached Pipenbrock.pdf) the High Court refused the Claimant’s application for a retrospective extension of time to serve a Claim Form after the Claimant failed to demonstrate they took all reasonable steps to serve the Claim form in the period of its validity. 
“Ultimately, the problem was that the Claimant had made no attempt to serve in accordance with the rules…Although I sympathise with the Claimant that the consequences for him of the error of not validly serving the Claim Form will be serious, there is nothing that really separates his case from many others who have made similar mistakes when attempting to serve a Claim Form…I am afraid, in this case, the responsibility for the failure validly to serve the Claim Form rests solely with the Claimant’s side… 
In light of my conclusions above, having refused the applications made under CPR 7.6, 6.15 and 6.16, there is not a residual self-standing power available under CPR 3.9 to relieve the claimant of the “sanction” that, as a result of his failure to validly to serve the Claim Form during its period of validity, it has now lapsed. The term “sanction” is inapt because it would, in theory, be possible for the Claimant to issue and validly serve a fresh Claim Form. The obstacle standing in the way of a claim is not any sanction imposed by the Court but the fact that the limitation period for defamation and malicious falsehood has expired… 
Finally, the Claimant seeks an order under CPR 3.10 remedying his error in not validly serving the Claim Form. The Defendants submit that CPR 3.10 cannot rescue the Claimant. This general provision does not enable the Court to do what CPR 7.6(3) forbids: Vinos -v- Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784; [2001] CP Rep 12 [20].” 
Mr Justice Nicklin concluded, “The Claim Form was not served during its period of validity. In consequence, the Court has no jurisdiction over the Claimant’s claim. It follows that I should also formally dismiss the Claimant’s application for summary judgment.” 

 
3 DVLA address data may not be accurate. DVLA data is provided for a single (very limited) reason, so a parking operator can invite the keeper to name the driver or to pay, or to inform the keeper they will be liable if not, and about their right to appeal. 

 
3.1. The system is called 'KADOE' (Keeper On Date of Event) because it is a brief 'snapshot in time' address to enable a parking firm to send a Notice. Operators are only allowed to ask the DVLA once, hence the code of practice requires reasonable steps are taken to check address details are current before litigation. Even if a motorist later updated a VC5 logbook with a new address (or if the DVLA failed to note a change in a timely manner, which is reportedly common) a parking operator will not know, nor be able to find that out. 

 
4 The DVLA keeper data may be outdated (i.e. the keeper cannot be reached at that address) for millions of motorists as reported in Birmingham Live on 3 November 2021. The parking industry know this, hence Codes of Practice direct that further address checks must be made. This is further evidence that DVLA address data should not be solely relied upon, especially with DVLA processing delays. 

 
4.1  The KADOE address is not provided by the DVLA as a 'court claim service address' and cannot be relied upon, because it's an address where the vehicle was kept at a historical point in time (which may not be where the keeper lives; it's where the car was reported 'kept' last time the DVLA heard). 

 
4.2 There is no safe presumption that a DVLA vehicle address is or was a valid address where a Defendant can be served, especially months or years later, especially where there is reason to believe letters are not being received. Silence after sending a Notice to Keeper, a reminder and then a Letter before Claim is a clear indicator that the keeper may not live there. 

 
4.3 A claim sent to an old DVLA address with no soft trace checks (costing as low as 29 pence and offered free by debt collectors connected to the parking industry) fails to meet the BPA Code of Practice and fails to satisfy the specific 'pre-action Protocol for debt claims' and is in breach of the CPRs about the obligation to take 'reasonable steps' to check a Defendant's address so that service is effective. 

 
5.  The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald on 23 December 2016 "announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses." The Minister added "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. That in the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.” 

Coupon-mad

I'd remove that bottom paragraph as it's not legal argument.

FrequentOverstayer

Removed and sent, the clock ticks and we wait patiently for a victory. I will keep you all posted

FrequentOverstayer

Case has been transferred to Luton County Court, awaiting procedural judge and case management directions. Is this normal to be transferred around so much?