CCJ - Parking fine (DCBL)

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine, and yes when you put letters back in the postal service marked like that, they are returned to sender.

paulr23

Ok thanks,

Do you think the court will make me put a defence in for the original claim afterwards? Or as it would have been over 6 years since the PCN now its statute barred so cannot be enforced?

Umkomaas

paulr23 said:

Ok thanks,

Do you think the court will make me put a defence in for the original claim afterwards? Or as it would have been over 6 years since the PCN now its statute barred so cannot be enforced?

They might. Statute barring only kicks in if the original claim proceedings hadn't commenced within the 6 year window, once within that window, statute barring flies out of it. However if the claim is now older than 4 months, then Boxwood v Gleeson could well apply. Read about it here:

https://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/case-summary-of-boxwood-v-gleeson/

Coupon-mad

paulr23 said:

Ok thanks,

Do you think the court will make me put a defence in for the original claim afterwards?

Not if you succeed with the Boxwood 'dead claim if not served by 4 months' argument.

As per the example set aside WS written by @eb23456 - hope you have used that wording and supplied the court with the transcripts of the two authorities that support the argument?

paulr23

Umkomaas said:

paulr23 said:

Ok thanks,

Do you think the court will make me put a defence in for the original claim afterwards? Or as it would have been over 6 years since the PCN now its statute barred so cannot be enforced?

They might. Statute barring only kicks in if the original claim proceedings hadn't commenced within the 6 year window, once within that window, statute barring flies out of it. However if the claim is now older than 4 months, then Boxwood v Gleeson could well apply. Read about it here:

https://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/case-summary-of-boxwood-v-gleeson/

Coupon-mad said:

paulr23 said:

Ok thanks,

Do you think the court will make me put a defence in for the original claim afterwards?

 Ot if you succeed with the Boxwood 'dead claim if not served by 4 months' argument.

As per the example set aside WS written by @eb23456 - hope you have used that wording and supplied the court with the transcripts of the two authorities that support the argument?

This is what I wrote in my WS, do you think this is satisfactory?

1.7 Given that more than 4 months has passed from issue of proceedings and service of the claim was defective (i.e. it was never served) the Defendant submits that this particular claim is dead and the period for service cannot be extended by this application process.  The Defendant has no details of this claim, therefore, 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 (current address)

Coupon-mad

Nope. You need the two court transcripts and the wording about those two authorities, copied from the thread I gave you the link to (the username links to their posting profile and thread).

paulr23

Coupon-mad said:

Nope. You need the two court transcripts and the wording about those two authorities, copied from the thread I gave you the link to (the username links to their posting profile and thread).

Thanks I’ve found it. I don’t really know how I can include this however, will I just admend my witness statement and add these two sections underneath and then reforward to the court?

1.8. There are several authorities for this, including the judgment in Boxwood [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC), 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.

 

1.9 In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 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.

Coupon-mad

You just need to do a skeleton argument (see NEWBIES thread) and attach the 2 transcripts.

No need to sign it. This is not a new WS, it's just a document to explain to the Judge your '4 months dead claim' legal argument.

Assume the Judge might not know this argument so it's up to you to know it and take him/her to the authorities that support it.

Also expect the Judge to think that the DVLA address is good enough to use later as a service address. Lots of Judges wrongly think that, so your job is also to show why this is not the case (DVLA car reg data is NOT intended as a proven/checked service address) and other steps are required.

To your skelly, also attach the BPA Code of Practice  about checking data before litigation.  AND the new (temporarily withdrawn) proposed statutory Code of Practice which spells out the 'soft trace' requirement less vaguely.  Pretty sure eb23456 included words about that too, that you can copy.

paulr23

Coupon-mad said:

You just need to do a skeleton argument (see NEWBIES thread) and attach the 2 transcripts.

No need to sign it. This is not a new WS, it's just a document to explain to the Judge your '4 months dead claim' legal argument.

Assume the Judge might not know this argument so it os ip to you to know it and take him/her to the authorities that support it.

Also expect the Judge to think that the DVLA address is good enough to use later as a service address. Lots of Judge wrongly think that, so your job is also to show why this is not the case (DVLA car reg data is NOT intended as a proven/checked service address) and other steps are required.

To your skelly, also attach the BPA Code of Practice  about checking data before litigation.  AND the new (temporarily withdrawn) proposed statutory Code of Practice which spells out the 'soft trace' requirement less vaguely.  Pretty sure eb23456 included words about that too, that you can copy.

Thanks I’ll have a look. 

Mine is kind of the opposite, the DVLA address was correct whereas the address returned by the trace was incorrect albeit I would have sold the car the PCN was applied against about 5 years before this claim. I’ve got proof of me moving from the address it was served to anyhow, as I’ve got a email from the council where my ex partner has applied for single persons discount.

paulr23

Is this good do you think for a SA? I wanted to keep it quite short and sweet, I can potentially cut out things from this as I've regurgitated some of it from my WS and Defence docs. Let me know your thoughts. 

Once someone confirms I will send this to the CC, do I need to send this to the DCB Legal also or do I send this to UKPC? or both. I don't have an email for UKPC but I'm sure I can find one somewhere.

Thanks

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxx

Between

UK PARKING CONTROL LTD

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxx

 (Defendant)

_________________

SKELETON ARGUMENT

 

1 Under CPR 13.2 The court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered.  Given that CPR 6.9 (3) was not met, CPR 13.2 applies and the CCJ should be set aside. As I did not give an address to the claimant at which I could be served, primarily because I was not asked, CPR 6.9 applies. CPR 6.9 stipulates that an "Individual" should be served at their "Usual or last known residence."

1.2 The defendant was not aware of the CCJ applied following a credit check in March 2022, the letters regarding the claim was sent to an incorrect address in August 2021 which the defendant moved out from in April/May 2019 (see email from council re single persons discount for council tax at the served address), the defendants details with DVLA were correct at all times, the claimant had the correct address for the defendant but decided to do a trace against the defendant which returned an old address

1.3 Furthermore to this, see witness statement which mentions that any letters since the defendant moved from the address where the claim was sent to were marked as not known at this address and returned to sender, which the claimant would have been made aware of as they would have received returned mail, but still decided to take action instead of using the defendants last known residence, which would have been correct.

2. Given that more than 4 months has passed from issue of proceedings and service of the claim was defective (i.e. it was never served) the Defendant submits that this particular claim is dead and the period for service cannot be extended by this application process.  The Defendant has no details of this claim, therefore, 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 (current address)

2.2 There are several authorities for this, including the judgment in Boxwood [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC), 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 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.

3 Under British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme which UK PARKING CONTROL LTD are a part of their code of practice states 23.1.C “Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.” The claimant held more than one possible address and could and should have sent their LBC to both, to try to engage with me and not just rely on any old address that popped up in my credit history

4 Given that the claimant knew my last known address which they obtained from the DVLA, I would conclude that a set aside is mandatory under CPR 13.2 due to the claimants incorrect service to an inaccurate address which they would have been made aware of due to receiving returned mail