Satisfied CCJ - HELP!

Coupon-mad

The first paragraphs are not relevant. This application is not about the PCN at all, it's about the CCJ and that the claim was not served.

I think you are getting distracted by reading WS about court claims, which start like that.

This is not the sort of WS you need. Read a few other CCJ threads from this week. Copy their WS style.

As I said before:

I think your WS looks far too much like one about defending the PCN.  But you can't do that because you've paid the claim. 

A WS in support of an application to set aside a CCJ should only be about evidencing that the claim was not properly served, due to no reasonable steps being taken by the C to check the old DVLA car reg address was still/ever good for service of court papers.  You should be evidencing that you'd moved but were 'there to be found' for the sake of a 29 pence soft trace, and that under CPR 13.2 (and 13.3 as a fallback) the CCJ must be set aside.

Nothing about the PCN, signage or arguments against the claim itself.  

eb23456

Coupon-mad said:

The first paragraphs are not relevant. This application is not about the PCN at all, it's about the CCJ and that the claim was not served.

I think you are getting distracted by reading WS about court claims, which start like that.

This is not the sort of WS you need. Read a few other CCJ threads from this week. Copy their WS style.

As I said before:

I think your WS looks far too much like one about defending the PCN.  But you can't do that because you've paid the claim. 

A WS in support of an application to set aside a CCJ should only be about evidencing that the claim was not properly served, due to no reasonable steps being taken by the C to check the old DVLA car reg address was still/ever good for service of court papers.  You should be evidencing that you'd moved but were 'there to be found' for the sake of a 29 pence soft trace, and that under CPR 13.2 (and 13.3 as a fallback) the CCJ must be set aside.

Nothing about the PCN, signage or arguments against the claim itself.  

Been having a look through some and just have a few questions:

- What is a draft order? Do I need to send this to the court too? 

- I noticed someone said they sent it to their local county court - not Northampton? Is that correct in my case too? 

- Should I request a reimbursement of the £275 from the claimant or not? Does it look any better if I just accept to pay it? 

Thanks! Hoping to get this sent off today if all is okay with a new version of my WS.

Trainerman

Didn't you show a draft order on the 23rd? Which, btw included no order as to costs. Don't you want your £275 back?

eb23456

Trainerman said:

Didn't you show a draft order on the 23rd? Which, btw included no order as to costs. Don't you want your £275 back?

Hi, that was a consent order I sent to BW Legal. Had no response from that but am now getting ready to send a draft order to the court. I have two points so far in the draft order but unsure if that’s enough? Because it’s already satisfied I’m not really sure what else to say. I’ll send it here in a moment. And yes preferably I would want it back but not sure if it will look any better to the court if I ask to not have the money back? Obviously, I would love the money back for the court fee but if the court is more likely to rule in my favourite if I just leave it be then I’ll do that 🤣 Or will it not matter?

Coupon-mad

If they used an old address it is entirely reasonable to say that they failed to check the service address properly and DEFINITELY ask for your £275 fee.

Especially if they have refused to supply a consent order despite knowing from you, that this was an improperly served claim (old address). Did you tell them, did you ask for consent to set aside the CCJ?

Did you try that first, I can't recall.

If they refused to provide a consent order then it's extremely unreasonable to expect you to shoulder the £275 and it should certainly be ordered back against them.

eb23456

Coupon-mad said:

If they used an old address it is entirely reasonable to say that they failed to check the service address properly and DEFINITELY ask for your £275 fee.

Especially if they have refused to supply a consent order despite knowing from you, that this was an improperly served claim (old address). Did you tell them, did you ask for consent to set aside the CCJ?

Did you try that first, I can't recall.

If they refused to provide a consent order then it's extremely unreasonable to expect you to shoulder the £275 and it should certainly be ordered back against them.

Okay thank you! Yeah I wrote a consent order and sent it to them a week ago and asked for a response in seven days (by today) and haven’t heard anything back. I did state in that consent order that it was sent to the wrong address and asked them to agree that it was served incorrectly but haven’t heard anything back. So technically they haven’t refused but they haven’t replied either. I think I’ll order it back

eb23456

Okay so here's my Draft order and witness statement:


DRAFT ORDER

Upon reading the defendant’s application dated 30/06/2022.

It is ordered that:

1.     The judgment dated 28/09/2021 be set aside.

 

2.     The claim be struck out as the claim form has not been served within 4 months of issue.

 

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

WITNESS STATEMENT

I am XXXX and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated 30/06/2022 requesting to:

 

a)     Set aside the default judgment dated XXXX as it was not properly served at my current address.

b)    Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

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

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

1.2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on XXXXX. I am aware that the Claimant is Civil Enforcement Ltd, and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from May 2020 at XXXXX. 

 

1.3. The claim form was not served at my current address and thus I was not aware of the Default Judgment until 15th June 2022 when a vetting officer from the Metropolitan Police emailed me to ask if I was aware of the judgment. I have applied for a graduate position there and after applying for the role in August 2021 I have eventually reached the vetting stage which is the final stage before a formal offer of employment is given. Evidence of this is supplied as exhibit 01.

1.4.1. The address on the claim is XXXXX. I moved from this address in September 2018 and have since lived at four different addresses in XXX. I moved to XXX in September 2018; in September 2019 I moved to XXXX; in September 2020 I moved to XXXXX; and in August 2021 I moved in to my current address with my partner. In support of this, I have attached copies of the relevant pages of all tenancy agreements as exhibits 02, 03, 04 and 05. I am able to provide the full agreements if necessary.

 

1.5.1. In addition to the above, it should be highlighted that the integrity and law-abiding intention of the Defendant should be taken into consideration on the basis that;

1.5.2. I discovered a County Court Judgement (CCJ) was lodged onto my credit file on the 15th June 2022.

1.5.3. I then immediately contacted the County Court Business Centre via telephone (again on 15/06/2022) to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgment.

1.5.4. I paid the judgment in full to BW Legal (the legal representatives of the Claimant) on 16/06/2022 via telephone. This was after receiving legal advice as I was informed that my vetting for the Metropolitan Police would be denied if I had any outstanding CCJ’s. Due to not being informed of this judgment prior to this, I did not have the time available to attempt to get the judgment set aside before settling it without running the risk of having my application withdrawn.

1.5.5. On 30/06/2022 I have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.

 

1.5.6. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s correct contact details at the time of the claim.

 

1.5.7. The BPA Approved Operator Code of Practice - Version 7, January 2018 states that 'Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the person being written to is the correct party.’  This vaguely-worded requirement is better explained by the Government in the new Code of Practice which is currently temporarily delayed but says ‘If a driver, keeper or hire company does not respond to a notice of parking charge or subsequent correspondence, or a parking charge has not been paid in full, reasonable endeavours - including contacting credit reference agencies to undertake a ‘soft trace’ - must be undertaken by the parking operator and/or its appointed debt recovery agent to establish the correct correspondence details of the driver, keeper or hire company before commencing enforcement action. Where a new address is discovered the notice of parking charge should be re-issued at the original rate but with a further 28 days from service for a response (payment or appeal).’.

 

1.6.1. On that basis, I believe the Claimant has not adhered to Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address that the Defendant no longer resides. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain and use the address of my current residence. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an old address and an irregular judgment.

 

1.6.2. Under CPR 13.2 The court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered.  Given that CPR 6.9 (3) was not met, CPR 13.2 applies and the CCJ should be set aside.

 

1.6.3. The Defendant registered to vote in XXXX in September 2018 and changed the address on their driving license when they moved to XXXXX; XXXXX; and XXXXX. Therefore, the Defendant was 'there to be found' for the sake of a 29 pence bulk Experian trace or similar very inexpensive and immediate credit reference agency address check.

 

1.7. Given that more than 4 months has passed from issue of proceedings and service of the claim was defective (i.e. it was never served) the Defendant submits that this particular claim is dead and the period for service cannot be extended by this application process. The Defendant has no details of this claim, therefore, if the Claimant believes there is a cause of action then the correct procedure would be to file a claim afresh and to the right address, after furnishing the Defendant with the information required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, issued this time to the correct address for service for this Defendant, which is XXXXXX.

1.8. There are several authorities for this, including the judgment in Boxwood [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC), which is a reminder of the strictness of the requirements of CPR 7.6 and how difficult it is to use other parts of the Civil Procedure Rules to rectify a failure to serve the claim form within the requisite period: “A claimant is not entitled to rely on the wide, general powers under CPR 3.10 or CPR 3.9 to circumvent the specific conditions set out in CPR 7.6(3) for extending the period for service of a claim form.

 

1.9 In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 the Court of Appeal considered whether any extension of time should be granted under CPR 7.6 in circumstances where the defendant had been notified of the issue of a claim form but the claim form had not been served within four months as required by CPR 7.5 and the application was made after expiry of that period. The court refused to grant relief on the basis that it did not have power to do so.

2.0 According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results in an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald on 23 December 2016 "announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses."
  
The Minister added "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. That in the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.” Furtherance to points raised in 1.3 above.

2.1 Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgment against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £275 from the claimant and any associated costs should this request be successful.

eb23456

Sorry forgot to add a statement of truth at the bottom:

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

eb23456

Got an hour before the print shop shuts so any last minute advice would be great!!!

eb23456

Trainerman said:

Didn't you show a draft order on the 23rd? Which, btw included no order as to costs. Don't you want your £275 back?

Coupon-mad said:

If they used an old address it is entirely reasonable to say that they failed to check the service address properly and DEFINITELY ask for your £275 fee.

Especially if they have refused to supply a consent order despite knowing from you, that this was an improperly served claim (old address). Did you tell them, did you ask for consent to set aside the CCJ?

Did you try that first, I can't recall.

If they refused to provide a consent order then it's extremely unreasonable to expect you to shoulder the £275 and it should certainly be ordered back against them.

Sorry to bother you both but if you wouldn't mind having a quick look at this I'd be very very grateful!!!