Unexpected CCJ

verdomde

I will include pdf's of boxwood, croke, vinos, and the BPA thing.
Hope to email tomorrow.
What think you all?
Is there anything else I need to include (i haven't changed my N244 EXCEPT MAKING UKPC the claimant instead of qdr)?

Coupon-mad

If the judgment (CCJ) is only dated June 2022 then you can't (yet) use the 4 months dead argument but may be able to by the time you get a hearing!

verdomde

Oh? I thought that referred to the PCN!

So should I leave it in or take it out?

Coupon-mad

Take it out (and the 3 authorities) but have it and them in your back pocket, so to speak, and if your hearing is set after October, then you can add them attached to a last minute skeleton argument.  Plus your costs assessment.

Like @paulr23 did or was it @ep23456 maybe. Read and learn from others.

You must append to the current WS the relevant Code of Practice, highlighting the paragraph that says operators must check the Defendant's details before filing a court claim.  That means the person's address. A soft trace costs 29 pence so there is no excuse.

verdomde

I have removed 19-22  changed 18 to 

18           UK Parking Contrlol Ltd are a part of the British Parking Association (BPA). Under the BPA’s Approved Operator Code of Practice (please see attached BPA.pdf), 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.”.

                In that same document:

APPENDIX C, 8(4) The notice must be given by:

(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered

An address given by the DVLA is not intended or suitable as an address for service.

18.1        My details were given to Debt Recovery Plus, who are IPC accredited Service Provider Members.  From the International Parking Community’s (IPC) Code of Practice v8, July 2021

22.1 Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the Motorist’s details are still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court proceedings.







I am still looking for something definitive stating DVLA addresses are not suitable as service addresses

verdomde

Just read this on another thread

macman said:

Settled is the same as satisfied: the CCJ's remain on your history, as they are a record of fact.Set aside means that the CCJ is removed.
I can see no valid grounds for you obtaining a set aside, though as the complainant has done nothing wrong-you were served the paperwork at the address you left on file. Forgetting to update the V5 is not a valid reason for a set aside.

Do I have still a chance, given that I eventually did update, and its been years?

Umkomaas

verdomde said:

Just read this on another thread

macman said:

Settled is the same as satisfied: the CCJ's remain on your history, as they are a record of fact.Set aside means that the CCJ is removed.
I can see no valid grounds for you obtaining a set aside, though as the complainant has done nothing wrong-you were served the paperwork at the address you left on file. Forgetting to update the V5 is not a valid reason for a set aside.

Do I have still a chance, given that I eventually did update, and its been years?

The poster is not a regular contributor to this forum. If his advice was sound, don't you think a real forum regular would have already given you that advice?

verdomde

Haha, touché

I know I read something in one of these chats where it was explained why DVLA addresses can't be used, and some document was cited.. any ideas?

Coupon-mad

I am still looking for something definitive stating DVLA addresses are not suitable as service addresses.

No such wording exists in those terms exactly.

But you can say that DVLA data is notoriously unreliable, hence the BPA mandating further checks before filing court claims and the new (temporarily stalled) statutory Code of Practice from the DLUHC (Feb 2022) spelling out the need for even earlier 'soft traces' and mandatory PCN re-issue (not a court claim) if a new address is found. The unreliability of DVLA data is clearly known and a huge concern of both the BPA and the Government regulatory policy team.

You can also say that DVLA data is only provided at the very start of the PCN process, for the limited purpose of (simply) enquiring of the keeper to provide details of who was driving and/or to appeal.  Whilst the keeper can (under certain strict circumstances) later become liable, there is no suggestion that the DVLA car registration address data provided can be assumed to be a reliable address for service of court papers much later on.  Especially in cases where the keeper has not responded nor appealed, which in itself is a fair indicator that the address may not be where the keeper lives.

verdomde

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice


10. Action to recover unpaid parking charges

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).