Help please - CCJ & Debt Recovery – from unknown Parking fine

1505grandad

"4. The Defendant did not receive a (Penalty) Charge Notice (PCN)........"

Should that be "(Parking)"?

Jack5656

1505grandad said:

"4. The Defendant did not receive a (Penalty) Charge Notice (PCN)........"

Should that be "(Parking)"?

Thank you - well spotted - sometimes you get certain terms incorrectly stuck in your mind!

Le_Kirk

Umkomaas said:

Coupon-mad said:

This is why I tagged those posters so they might comment.

I'm a bit concerned about @henrik777 as he's not been seen on MSE for over 7 months now. He has always previously been such a regular poster, especially on the set aside front. 

I agree (although I note he has now posted again) and there have been a few other regulars missing!

Jenni_D

Le_Kirk said:

Umkomaas said:

Coupon-mad said:

This is why I tagged those posters so they might comment.

I'm a bit concerned about @henrik777 as he's not been seen on MSE for over 7 months now. He has always previously been such a regular poster, especially on the set aside front. 

I agree (although I note he has now posted again) and there have been a few other regulars missing!

Some of the regulars are now permanently missing (unless they've resurfaced in another guise). Redx is permanently gone for example.  

Jack5656

This is interesting - I've had this letter emailed from CEL (below) - are they not attending as they know they have no case?

We refer to the above, and the hearing to set aside judgment scheduled to take place on xx/xx/2022 at xxxx PM.

We hereby give notice that we will not be in attendance at the hearing. We kindly request that the following points be taken into consideration at the hearing:

1. Please note that in keeping with the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), the Claimant made an offer to set aside the Judgment and settle the Claim (see attached), however, the Claimant has not received any response.
2. If the Judge believes it appropriate, the Claimant agrees to the removal of the Judgment and for the Claim to be restored or settled upon payment of £85 being made to the Claimant by the Defendant, and no order for costs against the Claimant being made as the application was of the Defendant’s own making. For the avoidance of doubt, this is because the correspondence and the claim form itself was sent to the last known address for service, as supplied to the Claimant by the DVLA.

Yours faithfully

I'd be grateful for an opinion on how this may affect the outcome of the hearing?

I hope to get my set aside application fee paid in costs so would not be happy with the judge failing to award costs against CEL.

Coupon-mad

They never attend set aside hearings.  They know they are stuffed.  You also know the '4 months dead' argument and case law that supports your application and in what way they were wholly unreasonable by not bothering to check the address (29 PENCE in bulk from Experian for a soft trace!).  How dare they keep ignoring their obligations to check, and keep doing this to people?

Jack5656

Let's hope the judge sees that as well and strikes it out completely - find out next week.

The amount of time put into this application and the stress it has caused, it is disguting that they are allowed to gain these default decisions against people just trying to get by in life.

Le_Kirk

Jenni_D said:

Le_Kirk said:

Umkomaas said:

Coupon-mad said:

This is why I tagged those posters so they might comment.

I'm a bit concerned about @henrik777 as he's not been seen on MSE for over 7 months now. He has always previously been such a regular poster, especially on the set aside front. 

I agree (although I note he has now posted again) and there have been a few other regulars missing!

Some of the regulars are now permanently missing (unless they've resurfaced in another guise). Redx is permanently gone for example.  

Some can be found on Pepipoo (RedX and Nosferatu for example).

Jack5656

Can I ask about the likely outcome of CEL's submission to the hearing namely:

1. Please note that in keeping with the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), the Claimant made an offer to set aside the Judgment and settle the Claim (see attached), however, the Claimant has not received any response.
2. If the Judge believes it appropriate, the Claimant agrees to the removal of the Judgment and for the Claim to be restored or settled upon payment of £85 being made to the Claimant by the Defendant, and no order for costs against the Claimant being made as the application was of the Defendant’s own making. For the avoidance of doubt, this is because the correspondence and the claim form itself was sent to the last known address for service, as supplied to the Claimant by the DVLA.

Will the Judge query why I chose to apply for the hearing rather than have a consent order as offered by CEL? My arguement to that is I would still have to pay £108 and the debt just to get the CCJ removed! In any case by the time CEL offered to lower the claim to £85 I had already had to apply to CCBC to have the claim set aside. I note  CEL never offered to reduce the £348 claim before I applied to court without their consent!

Is it possible the judge will order for my costs to be paid but also say claim to restart and claim settled by payment of £85 as CEL requested, and avoid the need for a defence hearing?

Coupon-mad

Your argument is correct.

CEL only scrabbled to try to hide this under the carpet and tried to avoid court, after you exposed their wholly unreasonable conduct with the little game they played with the address.

You had no obligation to offer CEL money to make it go away, why the heck should you, under these appalling circumstances.

It is possible the Judge might not dismiss the whole claim based on the '4 months dead' argument.  That's up to you to argue well that case law means the court has NO discretion to allow an unserved claim to go ahead.

As first explained to us last year by @Johnersh

Anyway, if the judge is not persuaded by that, they might set aside the CCJ and grant your costs (YOU MUST ASK AND COMPELLINGLY ARGUE UNREASONABLE CONDUCT) and might order that you can defend the claim but will encourage both parties to negotiate.

You don't have to.  You can defend.  CEL usually discontinue which is why you need to secure an order for costs at the first hearing.