Help with a CCJ Set Aside please?

Mars28

Quick update……I’ve now had the second court case and I won. Claimant tried to wriggle and came up with some new (to me) case law last minute but it was fairly easy to defend against. At the end of the day I had enough evidence that I wasn’t the driver, as well as evidence which showed they misled the court at the first hearing, and their WS!

Got my costs as well, which were fairly high. Though I probably wasn’t quick witted enough in the moment at the end to really press for my costs as a litigant in person and a finding of unreasonable behaviour. Still, it was nice to dent their accounts, even if it is relatively minor compared to their profits!

Happy to give more feedback when I have more time if it’s useful, especially things I have learnt going sitting in court. Happy to help if and where I can.

Thanks so much to all those that contribute so much to this forum, you are all absolute legends. There are countless numbers of people around the country who would otherwise be completely vulnerable to large faceless organisations who take advantage of people who just don’t just don’t know how to avoid be tricked/confused/scammed/scared into paying something they don’t owe, or worse force life altering financial consequences on innocent people!

Of course, a special thanks to Coupon-Mad who puts so much into this and whose advice is truely kicking the !!!!!! out of unscrupulous parking companies. Thanks very much for all of your advice and help!

 

Coupon-mad

It is true that I am proud to be representing consumers, kicking the crap out of the worst rogue operators - and not just here with advice only.  I'm also on the Government Steering Group, shaping the new statutory Code of Practice in virtual meetings, eyeball to eyeball with certain PPCs.  

What fun!

Are you aware of the upcoming Public Consultation, your chance to help change the law to stop this litigation culture?

In a few weeks we need you back here to help us to win the main war against rip-off charges & false admin costs.

Anyway:

WELL DONE FOR WINNING YOUR BATTLE AND GETTING YOUR COSTS!

ANOTHER CP PLUS ONE BITES THE DUST!

Please tell us more.

Which court & Judge?

We'd love to read a'full report' in your own words please, of who said what and how did the Judge view your evidence that they'd misled the first Judge?

I guess you mean the Claimant/solicitor protests that they had done a soft trace, when (on the balance of probabilities) they darn well hadn't?

Which point(s) won it?  The fact that you were not driving and the NTK was non-POFA?

Was that hard to get the Judge to see, that CP Plus don't bother with the 'keeper liability' provisions of POFA Schedule 4?

Did your costs include the £275 back?

1505grandad

Well done  -  fantastic result.

"........large faceless organisations who take advantage of people who just don’t just don’t know how to avoid be tricked/confused/scammed/scared into paying something they don’t owe, or worse force life altering financial consequences on innocent people!"

Not forgetting that it all starts with the biggest faceless organisation of all who freely sell private data to known-for-years scammers(Hansard)  -  who can apparently harvest this info and up to 6 years later (when data subject possibly moved at least once) take advantage of the Courts to obtain CCJ's for obscene amounts.

Mars28

Been struck with other things the last few months, problems come like buses apparently, but kept meaning to come back when I could. My case was in Barnstaple, but didn't get the judges name. I stuck with Maam!

The process was simple enough. It was very formal as expected, and very judge led which was mostly helpful. I had expected to need to lead the judge through my Defence, but in fact she pretty much did that on my behalf based on my WS, with me joining to claryfy specific details. I felt like the WS and Defence had turned the tables, which meant the claimant was doing all the defending trying to come up with satisfactory answers, which ultimately fell (far) short. The solicitor tried to engage before hand but I palmed him off and kept my powder dry.

The non-POFA compliance was the key point - the judge hammered the solicitor on it! There was a discussion on whether I was liable as keeper of the vehicle where the the solicitor squirmed around trying to answer the pointed questions in my WS. It was as awkward as it was joyful watching the Judge calling out the Claimant's failure to follow the procedure and was not having any of the waffle the solicitor tried. She declared that I could not be held as keeper and if they wanted to proceed it would need to be as driver - they did.

We therefore proceeded with me Defending as the driver of he vehicle.  We didn't really go into the detail of the BPA rules, POPLA ruling or any case law which I could have relied on as I had evidence that I was out of the country. Again it was almost awkward. The judge lambasted the C for dreadful evidence (small blurry photos etc), and I then spent 5-10 mins watching the solicitor trying to answer how his blurry thumbnail photo of someone in a car balanced against my numerous photos, e-mails, texts and 2nd party witness statements saying I was out of the country, at sea. However they were useful for me to throw in as additional points when the solicitor tried making counter-arguments, the main one being a bit odd:

The solicitor tried to use Elliot v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36, Co/589/82 from August 1982 to make the case that they didn't need to prove I was the driver of the car, claiming that "the onus is on Defendant to prove he wasn't the driver". The judge wasn't impressed that it was not provided before the hearing, but it was a moot point given I had evidence I wasn't the driver anyway, so it was dismissed straight away and I didn't get a chance to object to it's inclusion. I also didn't get to point out that the solicitors conclusions from the script were absurd, or test out a counter using the case law advised on here, POPLA appeals, the DFT review etc.

I got my £275 and costs - not far of £1000 in the end. I work away from home a fair bit so travel is greater than usual. It was nice to get a good hit back at the C, but a shame that the pain experienced by the Claimant was only felt by a sub-contracted solicitor, and not someone from DCBL or CP Plus. But hey, it must of been (at least a little) upsetting when they found out they owed me a little under a grand!

One regret: I requested costs which the judge agreed, and then we went through my expenses which I had prepared. The solicitor didn't object to any of them and no receipts were required. But as I was caught up in the moment, feeling relived and excited, I realised I was well prepared for the Defence, but not as well prepared for the legal arguments behind 'unreasonable behaviour' and the CPRs on costs that I could argue for. So when I asked for litigant in person costs and the Judge replied that I couldn't get them as well as all my other costs (which we had just gone through), I didn't have a strong enough conviction and some evidence to back it up that she was wrong. I wish I had been better prepared to reel of the CPRs which state I can if a finding of unreasonable behavior is found, with some case law to support my arguments. If feel I could have led her to agreeing a finding of unreasonable behaviour as there was good reason for it: The court and I had been miss-led (lied to?) about the trace - they claimed to have conducted traces in their WS and verbally in court, but I had received written evidence from both CP PLUS and DCBL that in fact, they had not. Anyway, it's too late now but a lesson learnt.

In all it was an easy process, but the one thing I would develop if I was to go again was my crib card. It worked well as a handrail to my WS, but next time I would add the CPR rules on costs etc, and probably develop my 'responses section' which weren't my key defence points, but a reference to case law, documents etc that could be used if the solicitor was making arguments which I wanted to counter. E.g. That the onus was on the D to prove they were not the Driver rather than the C proving who was driving. All things I had learnt from this forum (thanks), but in the heat of the moment a handy reference to the evidence behind my counter arguments would have been useful.

It's safe to say I couldn't have done this without you guys, especially Coupon Mad. It frustrates me thinking about how much these companies get away with it, as it's not worth employing a solicitor to defend, and most won't have the ability to defend in person, and even more wouldn't be able to do it without you legends. Thanks ever so much to all the work you guys do on here. It's a real public service and I'll do everything I can to support you in your efforts to stop these unscrupulous chancers stealing money from the pubic with invalid but uncontested claims.

Le_Kirk

Good, thanks for a comprehensive report.

Coupon-mad

That's a great report!  I've never got any costs awarded by a Judge, so you did brilliantly!  Did you frame a photocopy of the cheque?!

Elliot v Loake is countered by Excel v Smith (appeal) which is persuasive on the lower courts.

See you for the Public Consultation I referred to before.  Now anticipated to hopefully run during the Summer. You will want your voice heard, I'm sure.