CCJ Set Aside Guidance

rbceurope

1. Evidence has already been submitted as part of N244, showcasing that we were not present at the address (previous) where the claim form was sent.

2. What defence should be prepared for the 20mins gap in between 2 parking tickets purchased.
On AA website: https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/council-parking-grace-period

Coupon-mad

Council grace periods are fairly irrelevant.  I don't think I'd draw attention to any gap.  Let the Claimant prove that.  Just talk about paying for the stay them topping up in good faith, and use the rest of the Template Defence to cover the rest.

rbceurope

ok many thanks @Coupon-mad, I am thinking of going back to CEL as a response to their "WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS"

==============

Legal Team

Civil Enforcement Limited

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

Claim No : XXXXX

PCN : YYYYYY

I am in receipt of your letter dated xx/04/202x.

Your letter states that my grounds for setting aside Judgement was “had moved address before the violation occurred.”, this is not true and I request you to refer to my witness statements number 5 through 10.

Please note that

1. The PCN was issued on xx/08/201x
2. An appeal was made by me online on xx/09/201x @ yy:xx and I have given my Phone number XXXXXXX & mail id  xyz@xyz.com
   
3. Your response to the appeal was sent by post to my old address with a date of 1x/09/201x, which we didn’t receive as we moved away.
   
4. You have sent multiple follow up by post to my old address and haven’t received any communication from me, this should have made a reason to believe that I did not live at the address for service. I would urge you to rely upon the
   
1. Wards Solicitors v Hendawi [2018] EWHC 1907 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews.
   
1. The current sub rule (r 6.9(2)) is made subject to sub-rules (3)-(6) of rule 6.9. Sub rule (3) provides that, where a claimant has “reason to believe” that the last known residence is an address at which the defendant no longer resides, he must take reasonable steps to ascertain the defendant’s current residence.
   
2. In Marshall and Rankine -v- Maggs [2006] EWCA Civ 20
   
1. When considering an address at which the individual to be served did actually live at some time the court is not concerned with “belief” but with knowledge: - knowledge, in this context refers to the serving party’s actual knowledge or what might be called his constructive knowledge, i.e. knowledge which he could have acquired exercising reasonable diligence
3. HHJ Richard Roberts in Sajid -v- Nuur
   
1. CPR 6.9 (4) applied and the claimant landlord could have made an application to serve at an alternative address or by an alternative method.
5. As per point 2 above you did have alternative method of contacting me since 201x, when you weren’t getting any responses from me for numerous letters sent to my old address. You carried on using the old address even for serving the Claim Form which was in Dec 202x, where you could have shown due diligence of contacting me with alternative method which you didn’t do and I’ve ended up with a CCJ due to default judgement.

Due to the CCJ our credit score has adverse effect, we weren’t able to re-mortgage and was forced to do a product transfer where by we have incurred an additional cost of £xxx.y more. We have also paid £275 for N244 set aside CCJ. Having a CCJ without my knowledge as created so much of despair to me and my family.

I do not intend to pay you any money as we have already incurred so much financial cost due to your negligence to serve the Claim Form at the correct address as per CPR 6.9 (3) and CPR 6.9(4) by using the alternative method. Along with the other points raised in my defence, this claim has no realistic prospect of success and invite you to withdraw the claim with no order for costs. This is a "drop hands" offer to settle with each party bearing their own costs. The offer is available for acceptance for a period of 14 days from the date of this letter. 

Be advised that should if you continue to pursue this; I shall seek to claim the costs of my defence + additional costs for unreasonable conduct pursuant to CPR Part 27 + financial losses due to CCJ. 

Thanks & Regards,

<<xxx>>

==============

Coupon-mad

Why would you make a 'drop hands offer' (no costs) when you are so badly out of pocket by hundreds?

I wouldn't.  They'll come back with a consent order and if you sign it, the Judge might not even agree to set aside the CCJ because there would be no grounds (because CEL's Consent Orders are pants).  You'd have followed the wrong path, agreed to no costs and still not got the CCJ set aside.

Your application and WS are far more compelling for a Judge to see the argument why the CCJ must be set aside, especially when they hear you in person, and you have the chance to get your costs back for unreasonable conduct.

1505grandad

A heads-up:-

"Your letter states that my grounds for setting aside Judg(e)ment......"

No middle "e" in this context (Google CCJ)  -  also in para 5

Johnersh

No one can say whether a court would award unreasonable behaviour costs with any degree of certainty, but it can be said:

1. The claimant failed to comply with the pre action protocol insofar as they persisted with an address to which they had no response and where at no additional cost they could have telephoned or emailed.

2. The gap between the PCN and the issue of proceedings was 4 years. That is now the UK average for a tenancy. Put simply, wait that long and its quite likely the driver won't still be resident.

There's a decent basis to try and recover your costs of the application as a minimum. 

If the judgment is set aside, the claim should be struck out inmho. However, if it is not, do make a careful note of any judicial comment on conduct or failure to serve should you wish to counter claim. 

rbceurope

Coupon-mad said:

Why would you make a 'drop hands offer' (no costs) when you are so badly out of pocket by hundreds?

I wouldn't.  They'll come back with a consent order and if you sign it, the Judge might not even agree to set aside the CCJ because there would be no grounds (because CEL's Consent Orders are pants).  You'd have followed the wrong path, agreed to no costs and still not got the CCJ set aside.

Your application and WS are far more compelling for a Judge to see the argument why the CCJ must be set aside, especially when they hear you in person, and you have the chance to get your costs back for unreasonable conduct.

Hi @Coupon-mad

For me setting aside the CCJ is priority as its impacting my job currently as I need to have clean credit history to be in the current role where a check is made every quarter. I have been browsing all week end and still not sure how to end that response, these are my 2 options

==============

Civil Enforcement Limited

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

Claim No : XXXXX

PCN : YYYYYY

I am in receipt of your letter dated xx/04/202x.

Your letter states that my grounds for setting aside Judgment was “had moved address before the violation occurred.”, this is not true and I request you to refer to my witness statements number 5 through 10.

Please note that

1. The PCN was issued on xx/08/201x
2. An appeal was made by me online on xx/09/201x @ yy:xx and I have given my Phone number XXXXXXX & mail id  xyz@xyz.com
   
3. Your response to the appeal was sent by post to my old address with a date of 1x/09/201x, which we didn’t receive as we moved away.
   
4. You have sent multiple follow up by post to my old address and haven’t received any communication from me, this should have made a reason to believe that I did not live at the address for service. I would urge you to rely upon the
   
1. Wards Solicitors v Hendawi [2018] EWHC 1907 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews.
   
1. The current sub rule (r 6.9(2)) is made subject to sub-rules (3)-(6) of rule 6.9. Sub rule (3) provides that, where a claimant has “reason to believe” that the last known residence is an address at which the defendant no longer resides, he must take reasonable steps to ascertain the defendant’s current residence.
   
2. In Marshall and Rankine -v- Maggs [2006] EWCA Civ 20
   
1. When considering an address at which the individual to be served did actually live at some time the court is not concerned with “belief” but with knowledge: - knowledge, in this context refers to the serving party’s actual knowledge or what might be called his constructive knowledge, i.e. knowledge which he could have acquired exercising reasonable diligence
3. HHJ Richard Roberts in Sajid -v- Nuur
   
1. CPR 6.9 (4) applied and the claimant landlord could have made an application to serve at an alternative address or by an alternative method.
5. As per point 2 above you did have alternative method of contacting me since 2018, when you weren’t getting any responses from me for numerous letters sent to my old address. You carried on using the old address even for serving the Claim Form which was in Dec 202x where you could have shown due diligence of contacting me with alternative method which you didn’t do and I’ve ended up with a CCJ due to default judgement. there by failing to comply with the pre action protocol insofar as you persisted with an address to which you had no response and where at no additional cost you could have telephoned or emailed and I’ve ended up with a CCJ due to default Judgment.

Due to the CCJ our credit score has had adverse effect, we weren’t able to re-mortgage and was forced to do a product transfer where by we have incurred an additional cost of £xxx.y more. We have also paid £275 for N244 set aside CCJ. Having a CCJ without my knowledge as created so much of despair to me and my family.

I do not intend to pay you any money as we have already incurred so much financial cost due to your negligence to serve the Claim Form at the correct address as per CPR 6.9 (3) and CPR 6.9(4) by using the alternative method. Along with the other points raised in my defence, this claim has no realistic prospect of success and invite you to withdraw the claim with no order for costs. This is a "drop hands" offer to settle with each party bearing their own costs. The offer is available for acceptance for a period of 14 days from the date of this letter. 

Be advised that should if you continue to pursue this; I shall seek to claim the costs of my defence + additional costs for unreasonable conduct pursuant to CPR Part 27 + financial losses due to CCJ. 

[[[[[[[

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Closing statement should be this <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I do not intend to pay you any money or take your offer to pay £95, as we have already incurred so much financial cost due to your negligence to serve the Claim Form at the correct address as per CPR 6.9 (3) and CPR 6.9(4) by using the alternative method. Along with the other points raised in my defence, this claim has no realistic prospect of success and be advised that I shall seek to claim the costs of my defence + financial losses due to CCJ. 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OR <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I haven't done anything wrong to get a default Judgment or the CCJ on my credit records, it was due to your failure to comply with the pre action protocol insofar as you persisted with an address to which you had no response (for 39 months) and where at no additional cost you could have telephoned or emailed, along with the other points raised in my defence, this claim has no realistic prospect of success for you. As I do not have any confidence on your offer to "set aside with consent", I do not want to pay you or accept your current offer. I may consider to "set aside with consent at no cost to me" if you guarantee and give in writing to me that you will take the responsibility to remove the current CCJ off by credit records and all the cost to do so will be born by you and the cost of N244 reimbursed to me and any losses that I have incurred due to the CCJ on my credit records. 

]]]]]]]

Thanks & Regards,

<<xxx>>

==============

Hi @1505grandad have changed the spelling for judgment, thanks for your support.

Johnersh, many thanks for the pointers have included them in my response above.

Coupon-mad

As I said:

Setting aside 'with consent' is dangerous IMHO (we've seen it refused).  It may not be accepted by the courts because CEL will have their exaggerated money and won't care whether their useless Consent Order works for you or not.

A set aside application along the lines of the one by @Jack5656 is far more likely to work IMHO, because you will be heard and you certainly have grounds to set aside the CCJ, and have the claim dismissed AND your court fees awarded against the Claimant.

Also seen done and dusted in 8 weeks flat (CCJ set aside and claim dismissed too) in the recent thread by @Cyclegirl1968

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6337443/received-a-judgment-for-claimant-in-default-last-week-need-help/p1

rbceurope

Thanks @Coupon-mad, so should I respond to CEL or just ignore it.

I understand that if I have to respond to their "WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS" I should never agree for the "set aside with consent"

Coupon-mad

I'd respond:

No thanks. Your company is not one I wish to deal with, trust or pay an extortionate sum of money to.  Your reputation for repeatedly doing this for many years to people is so appalling, it is surprising you have not been sanctioned as vexatious litigants.  You failed to properly serve this claim and the charge is baseless and defendable, so I will apply without consent under CPR 13.2.

I will copy you in, for the sake of transparency and will be seeking my full costs to be ordered against your company for unreasonable conduct.