n244 application advice please - multiple CCJS

IloveElephants

Coupon-mad said:

We would be absolutely astonished if you don't get the set asides, given they've deliberately split the PCNs across five claims and caused you to pay out £1400 in fees up front (through no fault of yours) rather than a single £275 fee to set aside what should have been one claim (Henderson v Henderson applies).

Reference all the other claim numbers on each N244 and ask for a single hearing to save the court and all parties time, and ask for those fees to be refunded by the Claimant, whose unreasonable conduct also included the fundamental failure to spend just 29pence on a bulk soft search to check your last known address.

They can't just use DVLA data years later under a presumption it's still the correct address.  The Trade Body Codes of Practice say as much.

If you copy the example by Jack5656 you are also saying the claims are 'dead' for want of service within 4 months, so if the Judge is with you on that too, it nukes the lot of them and if the C thinks they have a case, they can serve a fresh single claim properly.

Thank you coupon-mad for the great info on this thread, I am in the same situation for those that dont know. Excel have 2 ccjs on my credit report from 2020 from the same carpark and issued on the same date. I unfortunately paid them for 1 ccj for a set aside and they had agreed to write to the court. I will apply the n244 form and ask the court to make excel pay me for my costs as they should have made both ccjs into 1 case. 

ginlover92

Hi All, I have received my hearing date at the end of July. They have sent through one hearing as requested following advice given above. I now need to file with the court and claimant the defence I will rely on 'if application is granted' 14 days before the hearing. Am I correct in thinking I can use the template defence set out in the pinned thread? Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes. But you are surely hoping no defence will be needed - you need to argue the '4 months dead' point very well, get the case dismissed entirely and your costs all awarded in full, due to their unreasonable conduct.

And - before the hearing - file a costs assessment and a skeleton argument with the Code of Practice (about the rule to check details before suing) and appending the 2 court transcripts that support the '4 months dead' argument.

See threads by:

@Jack5656
@eb23456
@msx999
@paulr23

The latter has the skeleton argument covered.

ginlover92

So I have just received an email that I have been copied into from CEL to the court.

"We have written to the Defendant and have confirmed that the Claimant agrees to deal with their formal application in accordance with the draft Order attached.

 

A copy of the draft Order has been sent to the Defendant and is attached for your reference.

 

Given that the Claimant has agreed to discontinue the Claim in light of the evidence provided in the Defendant’s application and in order to save costs, we will not be attending the hearing. The Court may consider that it is now appropriate to deal with the application without a hearing and we would not object to that course."

I have not agreed to this!!! I haven't had any contact with them except for them sending me paperwork from an SAR. What are they playing at? Has this happened before?

Please can you advise what my response should be to the court?

Thank you

Mouse007

What does the draft order say? It looks like they are giving up and agreeing to your defence application to me.

ginlover92

UPON the defendants application to set aside

AND UPON the Court considering correspondence between the Claimant and the Defendant 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:


1. Judgement for the Claimant in this matter be set aside forthwith.

2. The proceedings in the action are dismissed. 

3. Each party shall bear its own costs of the application and the claim in general. 

Mouse007

ginlover92 said:

3. Each party shall bear its own costs of the application and the claim in general. 

Absolutely NOT, that's not agreement. You wanted

3. The Claimant do pay the Defendants costs of this application of £275 on an indemnity basis.

Others will know better how to proceed but I suspect a complaint to the Court pointing out this slight of hand

ginlover92

Yes and I paid the £275 five times as they had 5 CCJs against me! I haven't agreed this at all I'm so shocked they have tried to do this

Coupon-mad

If you weren't expecting that misleading tactic, you haven't read the threads I advised you to read.

That's covered in the thread by @msx999 and I said how people MUST respond!

Email the court and CEL immediately and OBJECT.  Spell it out (EDIT: but not in capitals, this (below) was just me hitting CapsLock in error in a quick response for you, as this is soooo appalling):

YOU PAID FOR THE HEARING. THESE ARE DEFENDANT APPLICATIONS x 5 'WITHOUT CONSENT' AND 'WITH A HEARING'.

YOU WANT ALL YOUR COSTS. EDIT: £275 x 5 plus attendance costs, and now seek an uplift of such indemnity sum as the court sees fit, to show the court's displeasure with this Claimant.

THE CLAIMANT HAS ACTED WHOLLY UNREASONABLY THROUGHOUT AND THIS PURPORTED CONSENT ORDER IS NOTHING OF THE SORT AND IS THE LATEST 'DAMAGE LIMITATION' TACTIC SEEN FROM THIS SERIAL VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, WHEN FACED WITH COSTS FOR CCJ SET ASIDES FOR FAILING TO BOTHER TO CHECK ADDRESSES BEFORE SERVICE.

THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT CONSENTED TO THIS AND HAS NEVER SEEN THIS DRAFT PSEUDO 'CONSENT' ORDER BEFORE.  THE DEFENDANT CATEGORICALLY OBJECTS TO THIS THINLY-VEILED ATTEMPT TO AVOID COSTS IN FULL (CLAIMABLE ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS, DUE TO UNREASONABLENESS BY THIS CLAIMANT THROUGHOUT).

YOU FORMALLY ASK THE COURT TO CONSIDER REQUIRING THE BARRISTER IN CHARGE OF THE LEGAL DEPT AT CEL (EX-WONGA, SCOTT WILSON) TO ATTEND THE HEARING IN PERSON TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF AND BE CROSS-EXAMINED ON HOW OFTEN THEY'VE DONE THIS TO CONSUMERS AND HOW MANY DEFAULT CCJs THEY HAVE CAUSED IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, BY NOT CHECKING ADDRESSES AS REQUIRED BY THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE.
 
YOU FORMALLY AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE JUDGE CONSIDERS WHETHER THIS CONDUCT BY THE CLAIMANT FROM PRE-ACTION ONWARDS - AND ESPECIALLY THIS LATEST MISLEADING EMAIL - MAY BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND THAT THEY MAY BE DECLARED VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS.

ginlover92

thank you coupon mad I have responded to their email.

I am just compiling my defence to file now. 

Do I also include a skeleton argument within this? I have put one together if so. 

I have used the template and put this as points 2 and 3 (and so on) and using the rest of the template provided.

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

2. The Defendant used XXX car park regularly to access their place of work which began in May 2017.

3. It is disputed that the claimant is entitled to claim 'monies outstanding' from the Defendant, as registered keeper in relation to Parking Charges issued on 17/05/2017, 26/05/2017, 09/06/2017, 24/05/2018, 06/04/2018, for parking on private land in breach of terms and conditions. It is disputed that the Claimant has any contract with the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that the Defendant entered into any contract or agreement with the Claimant. The sum of £100 is disputed. The Claimant should provide a complete breakdown of how they have arrived at this figure. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove their losses in this case.

4. It is denied that signage was clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the carpark. At the time of the alleged breach of contract it did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The claimant was and is also a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract could have been formed with driver to pay the £100 charge. The Defendant refers the court to Excel Parking Services Ltd v Cutts that the content relied on by the Claimant could not be read by a driver entering the car park. It is denied that a sign was the offer and the driver of the vehicle entering the carpark was acceptance of any terms and conditions. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that at the time of the alleged contravention that the signage was clear and visible and not obstructed.

Here is my breakdown of costs -

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXX

Between

XXX

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXX

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENDANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS

 

 

(a) Ordinary Costs

 

Court fee for N244 application for set-aside (five applications):	£ 1375.00
Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court	£ 90
Sub-total	£ 1465

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

(b) Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

There is no reasonable justification or lawful explanation for the Claimant's conduct

The following additional costs are sought on the indemnity basis for the Claimant's unreasonable conduct based on the facts of this case.

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (8 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19.00 per hour)	£152.00
Sub-total	£ 152.00

 

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

(£1465) + (£152) = £ 1617 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED

 

I then plan to send the whole bundle including my WS and application again following the instructions on the sticky thread.

Thank you