Civil Enforcement CCJ set aside. Wording help please.

Le_Kirk

14.       On 16 May 2022 I phoned the Claimant, Civil Enforcement Ltd, to advise I will ask the court to set aside this default judgment as they sent all notifications to a previous address. The Claimant advised they were given my previous address, xxxxxxxxxx by the DVLA on xxxx

Good trick, it's only 14th May today!

Coupon-mad

14.       On x May 2022 I phoned the Claimant, Civil Enforcement Ltd, to advise I will ask the court to set aside this default judgment as they sent all notifications to a previous address. The Claimant glibly replied that they bought my previous address, xxxxxxxxxx from the DVLA for £2.50 on xxxx, which was over a year before they filed the claim.  As is reportedly the case in tens of thousands of claims deliberately or negligently sent to old addresses every year by Civil Enforcement Ltd, as usual, it is believed that they made no attempt to check that DVLA held address was still good for service in 2022.  The Claimant would have paid just 29 pence for a bulk 'soft trace' and given that omission puts them in clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice and the CPRs, as well as the pre-action protocol for debt claims, they are put to strict proof that any checks were made before ploughing ahead with this roboclaim.


I didn't see you quote the BPA CoP and new statutory CoP on the obligation to carry out checks?  As Jack5656 is doing today on his thread.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

14.       On x May 2022 I phoned the Claimant, Civil Enforcement Ltd, to advise I will ask the court to set aside this default judgment as they sent all notifications to a previous address. The Claimant glibly replied that they bought my previous address, xxxxxxxxxx from the DVLA for £2.50 on xxxx, which was over a year before they filed the claim.  As is reportedly the case in tens of thousands of claims deliberately or negligently sent to old addresses every year by Civil Enforcement Ltd, as usual, it is believed that they made no attempt to check that DVLA held address was still good for service in 2022.  The Claimant would have paid just 29 pence for a bulk 'soft trace' and given that omission puts them in clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice and the CPRs, as well as the pre-action protocol for debt claims, they are put to strict proof that any checks were made before ploughing ahead with this roboclaim.


I didn't see you quote the BPA CoP and new statutory CoP on the obligation to carry out checks?  As Jack5656 is doing today on his thread.

Hi I'm trying to do this now but I can't find a working phone number for them. Seems they have may have removed the number for their advice line from their website.

vincentvega27

Could this work?

On x May 2022 I attempted to phone the Claimant, Civil Enforcement Ltd, to advise I will ask the court to set aside this default judgment as they sent all notifications to a previous address. The claimant however has no contact number available other than an automated payment line.  As is reportedly the case in tens of thousands of claims deliberately or negligently sent to old addresses every year by Civil Enforcement Ltd, as usual, it is believed that they made no attempt to check that DVLA held address was still good for service in 2022.  The Claimant would have paid just 29 pence for a bulk 'soft trace' and given that omission puts them in clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice and the CPRs, as well as the pre-action protocol for debt claims, they are put to strict proof that any checks were made before ploughing ahead with this roboclaim.

vincentvega27

On x May 2022 I attempted to phone the Claimant, Civil Enforcement Ltd, to advise I will ask the court to set aside this default judgment as they sent all notifications to a previous address and to ask when they last obtained my address. The claimant however has no contact number available other than an automated payment line.  As is reportedly the case in tens of thousands of claims deliberately or negligently sent to old addresses every year by Civil Enforcement Ltd, as usual, it is believed that they made no attempt to check that DVLA held address was still good for service in 2022.  The Claimant would have paid just 29 pence for a bulk 'soft trace' and given that omission puts them in clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice and the CPRs, as well as the pre-action protocol for debt claims, they are put to strict proof that any checks were made before ploughing ahead with this roboclaim.


This is probably better actually

vincentvega27

Also can someone explain annex A B C for me please? Google not being super helpful

Umkomaas

vincentvega27 said:

Also can someone explain annex A B C for me please? Google not being super helpful

But you wrote those into your draft WS.  What were you trying to cover?

vincentvega27

Umkomaas said:

vincentvega27 said:

Also can someone explain annex A B C for me please? Google not being super helpful

But you wrote those into your draft WS.  What were you trying to cover?

I copied and amended this from another DO on here. I have no idea what this part means.

Coupon-mad

Nor do I, without the context. Please repeat the section you mean?

Also, I don't understand why your reply to my advice said you tried to phone an advice line?  Whose and why?  I didn't say to phone anyone do I am confused by your reply to me:

Hi I'm trying to do this now but I can't find a working phone number for them. Seems they have may have removed the number for their advice line from their website.

If you mean CEL, I believe they are ex-clampers with a Wonga-esque money-grabbing 'scam' mentality.  They don't have any consumer customer service ethic and certainly not a genuine 'advice line'.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

Nor do I, without the context. Please repeat the section you mean?

Also, I don't understand why your reply to my advice said you tried to phone an advice line?  Whose and why?  I didn't say to phone anyone do I am confused by your reply to me:

Hi I'm trying to do this now but I can't find a working phone number for them. Seems they have may have removed the number for their advice line from their website.

If you mean CEL, I believe they are ex-clampers with a Wonga-esque money-grabbing 'scam' mentality.  They don't have any consumer customer service ethic and certainly not a genuine 'advice line'.

Because the point in the DO /  WS we were discussing talks about phoning CEL to ask when they last checked my address. I couldn't use this point as is if there's no way of phoning them. The only phone number they have public is an automated payment line.

The part which was confusing my was that jack5656 added 3 annexes to his DO / WS. I've now figured out what an annex is, but am still unsure if I need to add any of these. Is it for supporting docs etc?

Thanks!