Satisfied CCJ - HELP!

Coupon-mad

Why is it being printed?

This is all done by email with a PDF attachment (the WS and evidence of your address and the fact you were there to be found, plus the exhibit of the relevant Code of Practice section about AOS members having to check address details before filing claims) and a word doc (the draft Order, because you want the Judge to edit and use that) along with the completed N244.

Then you phone up and pay on Monday.

You can either send if all to the CCBCAQ email, or to your local court (some will stupidly send it on to the CCBC to go full circle, but some local courts will keep it and will handle it themselves, which is quicker).

Only email during a working day - tomorrow morning ideally.

Make sure you get an acknowledgement back, if choosing to submit it to the black hold that is the CCBC.  Personally, I'd email it all to your local county court and deal with them if they will.

eb23456

Oh I called my County Court and they said I could either print it off and post it to them or drop it in their letter box. I live near so I will just drop it in. Northampton wanted it printed and mailed in too if I was to send it to them - that's what it said in the email I received with instructions anyway. I could email it as well? Is what I've written okay though?

Coupon-mad

eb23456 said:

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.

Looks like a great example of a set aside WS, except for 'offence'.  Say 'alleged parking event'.

As this CCJ put your job at jeopardy you must absolutely go for them paying your costs.

HOW DARE THEY BREACH THE BPA CoP AND NOT BOTHER WITH A 29 PENCE TRACE!

Do not email as well if you are posting it.  

eb23456

Coupon-mad said:

eb23456 said:

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.

Looks like a great example of a set aside WS, except for 'offence'.  Say 'alleged parking event'.

As this CCJ put your job at jeopardy you must absolutely go for them paying your costs.

HOW DARE THEY BREACH THE BPA CoP AND NOT BOTHER WITH A 29 PENCE TRACE!

Do not email as well if you are posting it.  

Thank you so so much for all your help. I couldn't have done it without you!! I really can't tell you how appreciative I am. I'll get it in to them in the morning and will let you know when I hear back

Coupon-mad

No worries, it's what we do.

MAKE SURE YOU STICK AROUND FOR THE UPCOMING FINAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION TO END THE GRAVY TRAIN.

You need to be heard. We all do!

eb23456

Coupon-mad said:

No worries, it's what we do.

MAKE SURE YOU STICK AROUND FOR THE UPCOMING FINAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION TO END THE GRAVY TRAIN.

You need to be heard. We all do!

Agreed!! Just to double check - do i need to send copies of everything i’m sending to the court to BW Legal? (N244, Draft Order, WS and Exhibits)?

Coupon-mad

Not for a set aside application, no.  Later on, you will need to include them but it is up to the court to inform them about an application.

More about the upcoming Consultation here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6345732/secure-parking-solutions-ntk/p6

 

eb23456

Afternoon all!

Still no word from the court regarding a hearing but I have received all letters from BW Legal after a subject access request I submitted at the start of all this. It may not be any use anymore as I have already submitted everything discussed previously to the court. But I can see on the letters (copies of the ones supposedly sent to my previous address) that the fine started at £100 but they added £60 as a “debt recovery cost”. I remember reading something about them not being allowed to do that but not sure if it’s relevant now I’ve paid the CCJ off anyway? 

First letter was sent on 7 August 2020; another on 7 Sept asking for the same amount (£160); and again on 6 Oct (£160 again).

16 Feb 2021 - “letter of claim” stating that if I don’t make a payment or respond to them by 23 March 2021 that court proceedings would be issued. 

4 June 2021 - stated that legal proceedings have been issued in the from of a County Court claim and the balance was now £252.28.

5 July 2021 - another letter reminding me of the County Court claim and asking me to pay.

9 August 2021 - Another one saying a CCJ may soon be entered if they don’t receive a response from me.

13 September 2021 - “Notice of pending CCJ” saying it has been entered. Saying if I don’t respond by 26 Sept then the CCJ will be entered (bit contradicting??)

29 September 2022 - CCJ has been entered, total amount “owed” is now £274.28 (this is the sum I ended up paying after finding out about it). Letter also states that the court has issued a payment plan of £40 a month.

3 November 2021 - £40 in arrears as I made no payment. 

Nothing else following this date. Is any of this relevant or shall I just dismiss it all now and wait for the court to decide based on what I’ve already given them?

Coupon-mad

None of that seems relevant to me, in your case.

eb23456

Coupon-mad said:

None of that seems relevant to me, in your case.

Ideal. thanks for the response!!