Satisfied CCJ - HELP!

Coupon-mad

Hmmm...up to you what to do now.

If you accept and sign that, then your £275 fee is down the drain albeit it should mean there will be no £108 fee (because you already paid £275 and have a 'live' N244 application in).

And it will all be over, as long as the Judge accepts that Order. Can't be sure but IMHO they probably will because it meets the overriding objective of resolving disputes justly and at minimal cost to the court and parties involved.

But I have two questions:

 Boxwood and M&S cases were included in the WS to support the 4 months dead argument.

1.  OK, the actual transcripts?

2.  Would they be correct that in 2020 an Equifax trace would have shown you as living at the old address? Or does that not ring true - if so you could email a SAR to Equifax to ask who did soft traces against you in the past 3 years and when, and exactly what address data was returned to the requester?

eb23456

Coupon-mad said:

Hmmm...up to you what to do now.

If you accept and sign that, then your £275 fee is down the drain albeit it should mean there will be no £108 fee (because you already paid £275 and have a 'live' N244 application in).

And it will all be over, as long as the Judge accepts that Order. Can't be sure but IMHO they probably will because it meets the overriding objective of resolving disputes justly and at minimal cost to the court and parties involved.

But I have two questions:

 Boxwood and M&S cases were included in the WS to support the 4 months dead argument.

1.  OK, the actual transcripts?

2.  Would they be correct that in 2020 an Equifax trace would have shown you as living at the old address? Or does that not ring true - if so you could email a SAR to Equifax to ask who did soft traces against you in the past 3 years and when, and exactly what address data was returned to the requester?

That’s so annoying because that means i’ve paid £550 now 😭

1- No not the transcripts I just included paragraphs about it in my WS.

2- Yes because my car was still registered there until March 2022. As I was a student - insurance companies say you should register and insure your car to the address it is kept the most. Well roughly 9/12 months of the year my car was at my “home address” (where the letters were sent).

However, I have a credit card where the address has been changed several times to reflect moves and i have been registered to vote where I live now since Sept 2018. I’ve also been paying council tax since August 2021 at my current address (one month before the CCJ was submitted).

eb23456

So should I just take the loss and sign the agreement? Means I’ll lose the money but at least the CCJ won’t be on my file (hopefully 🤞🏼)

Coupon-mad

eb23456 said:

So should I just take the loss and sign the agreement? Means I’ll lose the money but at least the CCJ won’t be on my file (hopefully 🤞🏼)

Hmmm. I am not saying that.

It galls me to point out that is an option but it's not the only one. You could get an Equifax SAR and try to call BW Legal out.

This must be your choice but I want it to be an informed choice.  So, let's look at your options and the evidence:

"Boxwood and M&S cases were included in the WS to support the 4 months dead argument."

• 1.  OK, the actual transcripts?
  
  2.  Would they be correct that in 2020 an Equifax trace would have shown you as living at the old address? Or does that not ring true - if so you could email a SAR to Equifax to ask who did soft traces against you in the past 3 years and when, and exactly what address data was returned to the requester?

• Coupon-mad said:

  Hmmm...up to you what to do now.
  
  If you accept and sign that, then your £275 fee is down the drain albeit it should mean there will be no £108 fee (because you already paid £275 and have a 'live' N244 application in).
  
  And it will all be over, as long as the Judge accepts that Order. Can't be sure but IMHO they probably will because it meets the overriding objective of resolving disputes justly and at minimal cost to the court and parties involved.
  

  That’s so annoying because that means i’ve paid £550 now 😭 
  
  1- No not the transcripts I just included paragraphs about it in my WS.
  
  2- Yes because my car was still registered there until March 2022. As I was a student - insurance companies say you should register and insure your car to the address it is kept the most. Well roughly 9/12 months of the year my car was at my “home address” (where the letters were sent). 
  
  However, I have a credit card where the address has been changed several times to reflect moves and i have been registered to vote where I live now since Sept 2018. I’ve also been paying council tax since August 2021 at my current address (one month before the CCJ was submitted).

My answer is below but the forum software included it in a 'quote' box that I can't remove!

Where your car was registered as a student is fine (you are right) but that's not the answer to my question.  Where the car was registered in 2021 is irrelevant to an Equifax soft trace.  But your second paragraph above, IS something that would be expected to show as a soft address trace.

We had a completed - success - BW Legal CCJ set aside case this month (wish I could recall which one, maybe the one by @msx999 - read that thread) where BW Legal stated they did TWO soft traces with Equifax and the defendant asked Equifax...and it turned out (so tge D reported) not to be true! 
 
If you are a robust person, your other option is as I said above, earlier:

- decide to see this through at s hearing

-  email and say 'no' to the consent order and ask BW Legal to evidence as a screenshot exactly and entirely what was returned under the two soft traces they say they did in 2021 from Equifax and ask why they failed to do one in 2022, given a bulk Equifax trace costs from 29 pence in bulk? 

-  do a SAR to Equifax (asking the right questions I already spelt out) AND you could also ask them what date was the first time your NEW address (state what is is) was stored by Equifax and would have been returned...2021 or 2022 and which month?

I am hoping you can carry on and call them out.

I would carry on it it was me.  They should have found your new address in 2022.

If you decide to crack on do ALL of the above and:

You will need to bung in those transcripts with a skeleton argument and the applicable version of the Code of Practice before the hearing.  Plus Equifax evidence if they come back quickly!  Do that SAR now while you mull the above over and read the CCJ case where it was reported that Equifax records were... emmm...different from the 2 traces BW Legal said they'd done!

eb23456

Coupon-mad said:

eb23456 said:

So should I just take the loss and sign the agreement? Means I’ll lose the money but at least the CCJ won’t be on my file (hopefully 🤞🏼)

Hmmm. I am not saying that.

It galls me to point out that is an option but it's not the only one. You could get an Equifax SAR and try to call BW Legal out.

This must be your choice but I want it to be an informed choice.  So, let's look at your options and the evidence:

"Boxwood and M&S cases were included in the WS to support the 4 months dead argument."

• 1.  OK, the actual transcripts?
  
  2.  Would they be correct that in 2020 an Equifax trace would have shown you as living at the old address? Or does that not ring true - if so you could email a SAR to Equifax to ask who did soft traces against you in the past 3 years and when, and exactly what address data was returned to the requester?

• Coupon-mad said:

  Hmmm...up to you what to do now.
  
  If you accept and sign that, then your £275 fee is down the drain albeit it should mean there will be no £108 fee (because you already paid £275 and have a 'live' N244 application in).
  
  And it will all be over, as long as the Judge accepts that Order. Can't be sure but IMHO they probably will because it meets the overriding objective of resolving disputes justly and at minimal cost to the court and parties involved.
  

  That’s so annoying because that means i’ve paid £550 now 😭 
  
  1- No not the transcripts I just included paragraphs about it in my WS.
  
  2- Yes because my car was still registered there until March 2022. As I was a student - insurance companies say you should register and insure your car to the address it is kept the most. Well roughly 9/12 months of the year my car was at my “home address” (where the letters were sent). 
  
  However, I have a credit card where the address has been changed several times to reflect moves and i have been registered to vote where I live now since Sept 2018. I’ve also been paying council tax since August 2021 at my current address (one month before the CCJ was submitted).

My answer is below but the forum software included it in a 'quote' box that I can't remove!

Where your car was registered as a student is fine (you are right) but that's not the answer to my question.  Where the car was registered in 2021 is irrelevant to an Equifax soft trace.  But your second paragraph above, IS something that would be expected to show as a soft address trace.

We had a completed - success - BW Legal CCJ set aside case this month (wish I could recall which one, maybe the one by @msx999 - read that thread) where BW Legal stated they did TWO soft traces with Equifax and the defendant asked Equifax...and it turned out (so tge D reported) not to be true! 
 
If you are a robust person, your other option is as I said above, earlier:

- decide to see this through at s hearing

-  email and say 'no' to the consent order and ask BW Legal to evidence as a screenshot exactly and entirely what was returned under the two soft traces they say they did in 2021 from Equifax and ask why they failed to do one in 2022, given a bulk Equifax trace costs from 29 pence in bulk? 

-  do a SAR to Equifax (asking the right questions I already spelt out) AND you could also ask them what date was the first time your NEW address (state what is is) was stored by Equifax and would have been returned...2021 or 2022 and which month?

I am hoping you can carry on and call them out.

I would carry on it it was me.  They should have found your new address in 2022.

If you decide to crack on do ALL of the above and:

You will need to bung in those transcripts with a skeleton argument and the applicable version of the Code of Practice before the hearing.  Plus Equifax evidence if they come back quickly!  Do that SAR now while you mull the above over and read the CCJ case where it was reported that Equifax records were... emmm...different from the 2 traces BW Legal said they'd done!

Thanks for your response. I’m definitely keen on seeing this through and rather win at court if i possibly can! Just to clarify- I need to send the court a copy of the transcripts of the two cases and the relevant code of practice (plus equifax evidence) before the hearing?

Also by 2021 I had moved three time already. I had a credit card registered to the address i was living at then but my debit card account was still based at my “home address” (where these letters were supposedly sent, as it was a student account). The address on my drivers license had been changed to the address I was at in 2021 (unsure about the electoral register). 

Planning on doing an SAR to Equifax first thing Monday morning but have also asked BW for evidence from Equifax. 

I will not let them win!!!

Coupon-mad

 Just to clarify - I need to send the court a copy of the transcripts of the two cases and the relevant code of practice (plus equifax evidence) before the hearing?

Yes, attached to a skeleton argument.

Someone has done exactly that already this month; off the top of my head might have been @paulr23 so look at his CCJ set aside thread.

I would have expected your credit card address to show on a soft trace.  I suspect that it's possible in 2021 that two addresses were held about you on your credit file, and that's why you need to ask Equifax the exact questions I suggested.

eb23456

Just found the one from Paul - will amend and post here. Can I just confirm that I still don't need to send anything to BW Legal? I've noticed you said to Paul he had to send copies of everything to them?

Coupon-mad

Copy in BW Legal or they will object to your skeleton argument and authorities.  They've already seen your N244 application but haven't seen anything since, and you must be open.

Last night I found a third authority about the court having no jurisdiction to hear or allow to continue, a claim where the Particulars were not served to the D within 4 months:

It's the judgment of Deputy Master Marsh in Croke & Anor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch) where the claimant was one day late in properly serving the Particulars of Claim to the Defendant. The claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was refused.

Deputy Master Marsh is worth quoting in your skelly (plus of course, append the transcript):

65.  "The defendants were entitled to know within the four month period specified in the CPR whether a claim had been made against them and to be able to understand that claim. [...] Unless an extension of time is granted, the claim will cease to have any validity and will be struck out."

eb23456

Okay so I need to email the skeleton argument and transcripts to BW and the court? I don't need to send BW my WS/N244/Exhibits/Draft Order ?? Also I've just read through a case linked on the newbies thread about hearings - the person won and had their fee reimbursed, but they said you really need to know the relevant points of the CPR. In their case it had been two years between the "offence" and the CCJ being lodged. In my case it was 1 year and four months. Just need to know what CPRs I need to be hot on if anyone wouldn't mind letting me know !!!

eb23456

Also here is the skeleton argument - do I need to add anything else??

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XX                                                   CLAIM NUMBER: XXX

 

BETWEEN: 

 

BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LTD.

                                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT

AND

 

XXXXXXX

                                                                                                                              DEFENDANT

 ------------------------------------------------------------------

SKELETON ARGUMENT

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1. 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. As the defendant did not give an address to the claimant at which the claim could be served at (because the defendant was not asked), CPR 6.9 applies. CPR 6.9 stipulates that an "Individual" should be served at their "Usual or last known residence."

1.2 The defendant was made aware of the CCJ following contact from a vetting officer at the Metropolitan Police. The letters regarding the claim were sent to an incorrect address which the defendant moved out of in September 2018 (see document entitled “Exhibits” to see tenancy agreements of properties that the defendant has lived at since). The Defendant (and their correct address) were 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.

2. 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 (current address)

2.2 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.

2.3 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. The transcripts for both above cases have been attached.

2.4 In Croke & Anor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch) the claimant was one day late in properly serving the Particulars of Claim to the Defendant and the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was refused. In section 65 of the transcript of the trial (which is attached) Deputy Master Marsh stated “The defendants were entitled to know within the four month period specified in the CPR whether a claim had been made against them and to be able to understand that claim. [...] Unless an extension of time is granted, the claim will cease to have any validity and will be struck out." 

3 Britannia Parking Group Ltd are a part of the British Parking Association (BPA). Under the BPA’s Approved Operator Code of Practice, it is stated in section 24.1 “Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.”. A copy of the Code of Practice can be found in the document entitled “Exhibits”.

3.1 Had the claimant done a credit reference agency address check before sending their LBC, they would have found the defendant’s correct address. Instead, they continued to send letters to an address with no response from the defendant and therefore failed to comply with the BPA’s Code of Practice. 

4 The defendant would conclude that a set aside is mandatory under CPR 13.2 due to the claimant’s incorrect service to an inaccurate address and therefore requests this judgement to be set aside.