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

Jack5656

Time for some advice again please.

I have finally received an update on my court case. I was hoping that the Judge would see sense and just strike the claim based on claim 4 months dead arguement, but as I suspected we’re now going to a 2nd hearing following the Set Aside judgment. The letter from court is brief - it says:

It Is Ordered That – This matter is listed for hearing on…at…by way of Microsoft Teams. The hearing is to consider strike out on the basis that the claim, found by Deputy District Judge…on…not to have been validly served.

The above is all I know – I assume I attend although this is not stated? I still have not had anything in writing from CEL i.e. no photos or detailed particulars of the claim - only the SAR with the original PCN, debt / claim letters etc.

I do not know how best to prepare for this hearing. I have already sent in an objection (see entries on this thread on 30/06/22), so is there anything else I should now be doing to prepare? Anything else I can send to Judge before the upcoming hearing?

What can I expect from this type of hearing – will it just be looking at strike yes or no, or if they don’t strike out will the Judge then make a ruling on a fine for the original PCN?

Grizebeck

Please post up the order.

Coupon-mad

Fascinating - the Judge who looked at this is taking an interest and no doubt thought it was a novel argument worth hearing!

Yes, the hearing is JUST to consider the strike out '4 months dead' argument. And yes, you must attend (virtually) because it's your argument.  Unless CEL discontinue, which they might because this hearing doesn't assist them.

If it takes place, this will be about the legal authorities that support the view that this claim cannot be resurrected.

Re-read your authorities and add the ones gathered by @GlassRoof36 last week. He/she found a few and I'd just last month found Croke.

Their thread provides all the full citations so you can then Google them and find the transcripts on Casemine, Swarb or Civil Litigation Brief.

I'd say you need to file and serve a skeleton argument appending them all, which is a concise document posing the question 'Is the claim dead for want of service within 4 months?'

Then cover the fact the BPA CoP (and the new Govt CoP which expands on the rule in more detail) require a soft trace to be undertaken.

Explain that DVLA data is provided for a single (very limited) data reason, and that is so that an 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.

The system is called 'KADOE' (Keeper On Date of Event) because that's all 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 and the DVLA will not contact a parking operator again.

Even if a motorist later updated the logbook with a new address (or indeed if the DVLA was running behind and 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.

DVLA keeper data is a huge concern for Local Authorities and has been estimated to be wrong (i.e. the keeper cannot be reached at that address) in up to a third of cases. The parking industry know this, hence both Trade Bodies cover in their Codes of Practice that further checks MUST be made.

The KADOE address is not provided by the DVLA as a 'court claim service address' and cannot be relied upon, because it's just an address where the vehicle was kept at a historical point in time (which may not be where the keeper lives or indeed ever lived; it's where the car was reported 'kept' last time the DVLA heard. Could quite legitimately be an old work address or a relative's house at the time, such as if the keeper is studying elsewhere or moving around and the car is kept elsewhere).

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.  And especially where there is 'reason to believe' the letters are not being received. The UK has a transient population these days, due to work, study and family commitments, where renters move within a year or two on average, therefore 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.

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.

You'd them refer to the authorities and quote bits from them.

And append them and the BPA Code of Practice from the year when the claim was dated.

No need to sign a skeleton argument, no statement of truth as it is a summary, not a witness statement.

@Johnersh is the poster who championed the '4 months dead' argument so he might add something.

NB: The PAP for Debt Claims might be worth a read.  I haven't checked it for a while but suspect the PAP requires some sort of steps to be taken to ensure good service...?!

Jack5656

Thanks for the prompt reply Coupon.

I'd assumed the Judge would look at this independently to decide on striking out or not using all the CPR and case law referenced already. Thanks for highlighting the ones gathered by @GlassRoof3 as well.

Will this hearing cost CEL or me anything? I hope it costs CEL and if it delays their attempt to continue their claim then I hope this makes them pull out!

Coupon-mad

Well there's no fee for it but if you are having to take time off work, you can ask for your costs for attending yet another hearing be refunded by CEL.

Also append a costs assessment. Remind me...you got your £275 back already?  If not, the whole lot goes on your updated costs assessment.

Jack5656

Yes I have had the £275 back successfully. Just disappointed I now have to waste a lot more of my limited free time to prepare the arguement for another hearing.

I'm going to research skeleton arguments - I'm sure there are others on this forum that will be relevant? Do I need to include everything I have stated in my WS that shows the claim is dead again? Not sure how long/short this should be. 

Coupon-mad

Do I need to include everything I have stated in my WS that shows the claim is dead again?

No, but there may be overlap because a skelly is the legal argument.

As concise as you can make it, focussed by a question posed at the top, then numbered paragraphs explaining factually about KADOE and about the BPA CoP (and the DLUHC CoP which expands on the meaning of 'checks') and the pre-action protocol for debt claims (if you find something in it about a Claimant having to take reasonable steps to find a Defendant, which I suspect is in there).

And then the authorities with a short quote from each.  I already found a good quote from Croke which GlassRoof36 copied into their case I think.  Croke is from 2022 so very up to date!

Then date it.  No signature.  No opinions, no 'I' or 'me'.

The WS, by comparison, is your 'story' from your knowledge, written as 'I did this' and 'I think that'.

There are example skeleton arguments on the forum, someone did one recently.  Might have been @MSX999 or @paulr23 which are both CCJ set aside cases.

Jack5656

I already have a very long Skeleton Arguement - should I keep reference to the inflated parking charges or leave that out for this?

Coupon-mad

Leave that out for this one - the hearing is ONLY about the '4 months dead/strike out?' question.

I presume it's only half an hour or so?

Jack5656

OK thanks Coupon - there has been no info on the length of the hearing but the 1st only lasted 10-15 mins.

I will post the skeleton draft later if I can have some feedback please.

I don't want to go over the same ground too much but at the same time I want to hammer the point home that this is a dead claim and can't lawfully be resurrected.