Phase 1: CCJ Removed. Phase 2: Claim Discontinued. Phase 3: Costs.

Harvez63

Coupon-mad said:

The fees email is the right one.

This thread is making me feel so dumb. What fees one? 

KeithP

Harvez63 said:

Yes thats where the CCJ was issued from

No it wasn't. Check again... and then read my post of a couple of minutes ago.

Harvez63

I replied before you edited it. 

No I dont. I know f**king nothing about this !! nothing about courts, nothing about procedures, nothing about what I'm supposed to do. I've spent since 1 today going through every post, everyones tagged threads. I'm at f**king breaking point with it. I stopped in an open car park for 30 seconds and didn't see a sign, and now all this 

It feels at the moment like asking someone a question and being told to go read a book, then asking another one about it, and getting pointed to a different book 

KeithP

OK. Good luck. I'll leave you to it.

Jenni_D

I also know nothing (or very little) about the court process - other than what I've learned here. I also have never been to court.

It took me 5 seconds on Google searching for ccbc fees email address

https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/county-court-business-centre-ccbc

Harvez63

Jenni_D said:

I also know nothing (or very little) about the court process - other than what I've learned here. I also have never been to court.

It took me 5 seconds on Google searching for ccbc fees email address

https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/county-court-business-centre-ccbc

When I first read the post it was just "fees email address" before being edited. I'm obviously hitting refresh quicker then people can edit.

Harvez63

Honestly only just got this sent off 

Spent hours googling, searching, trying to get the transcripts. Almost paid £120 at one point.

I get everyones offering free help, and want to encourage people to 'search' but when you have an over searcher like me it leads to so much confusion and frustration. Being honest I almost had a break down today. Why someone couldn't just post a link I dont know. I'm not having a go either.

I was fast to respond, stuff was getting edited after I commented making me look an idiot. Then I felt an idiot because I couldn't find transcripts or email addresses, or even the right way to do anything. 

The forms of, I sent it to CBBCfees as I'm mentally drained and broken. 

This was never in a million years, even close to being worth not paying the PCN originally. This journey has been absolutely hell. 

In the end I sent off the N244 application off in .PDF, Draft order as a doc, Witness statement as a .PDF, and cost assessments.

The witness statement bundle together with an exhibit list, and blank pages with just an exhibit number and quick reference.

Below is what got sent off, I hope to god its right. I'm scared something is wrong and I've messed something up and the CCJ will never be removed  

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am xxxxxx and I am the defendant whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge. 

Sequence of events

            Background

1. I received a parking charge notice (PCN) from Premier Park LTD for an parking event which occurred on 28thDecember 2017.  

2. The PCN was appealed against with the claimant with communication back and forth via email between the defendant and claimant. 

3. During this time I moved house in November 2019 (exhibit 01) and notified the claimant of the address change on the 4th November 2019, using the same email address previously provided to me by the claimant (see exhibit 02).

4. The claimant responded acknowledgement of the address change on the 6th November (see exhibit 03). 

5. I never received any further communication from the claimant from the above date and therefore believed the claimant no longer wished to pursue me in relation to the original parking event.

Application sought by the Defendant

6. A random credit check was carried out by myself in July 2022 where I had noticed my credit score had gone from being the best available, to being listed as poor. To further investigate I signed up for an in depth credit review and noticed the CCJ was issued against me on the 8th April 2022. It should be noted that no claim was ever served to me at the address for service the claimant had on file and had acknowledged by email on the 4th November 2019. This was a clear breach of Court Procedure Rules (CPR) 6.8.

7. I emailed the claimant the on the 18th July 2022 (exhibit 04), using both the original correspondence email address, and their complaint email address, requesting they set aside the CCJ against myself, whilst attaching the email of address changed acknowledgement (exhibit 01), and for them to respond within 14 days. However no response was received. 

8. Since no response was received I have been gathering the knowledge/information required to the best of my ability to apply for the CCJ to be set aside. 

9. I believe the Claimant has not adhered to Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 6.8 (a) 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.

10. As a direct result from this CCJ brought against me, it has caused an unbearable amount stress emotionally and financially. Hours have been spent trying to gather the information to respond to this issue brought upon me by someone else’s with little thought in the consequences, or following proper procedures.  All this comes during a busy period of house renovations and whilst trying to keep our company afloat during the upcoming recession by working 10 hour days, 6 days a week. As a result of this CCJ it has the potential to take away any vital financial life lines we may need to take in the form of credit, both for our home, our income and our business.   

11. Under CPR 13.2 The Court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered. Given that CPR 6.8 (a) was not met, CPR 13.2 applies and the CCJ should be set aside. 

Relevant Case Law

12. I am appending four case law authorities to support the argument that an un-served claim is ‘dead’ and the court cannot resurrect it after the CPR’s ‘strict and mandated 4 month period for service. 

13. There are several authorities for this, including the judgment in Boxwood [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC) (see exhibit 05), 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…” 

14. In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 (see exhibit 06) 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. 

15. In judgment of Deputy Master Marsh in Croke & Anor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch) (see exhibit 07) 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."   

16. In Piepenbrock-v-Associated News Limited [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB) (see exhibit 06) the High Court  refused the Claimant’s application for a retrospective extension of time to serve a Claim Form after the Claimant failed to demonstrate they took all reasonable steps to serve the Claim form in the period of its validity.

“Ultimately, the problem was that the Claimant had made no attempt to serve in accordance with the rules…Although I sympathise with the Claimant that the consequences for him of the error of not validly serving the Claim Form will be serious, there is nothing that really separates his case from many others who have made similar mistakes when attempting to serve a Claim Form…I am afraid, in this case, the responsibility for the failure validly to serve the Claim Form rests solely with the Claimant’s side…

In light of my conclusions above, having refused the applications made under CPR 7.6, 6.15 and 6.16, there is not a residual self-standing power available under CPR 3.9 to relieve the claimant of the “sanction” that, as a result of his failure to validly to serve the Claim Form during its period of validity, it has now lapsed. The term “sanction” is inapt because it would, in theory, be possible for the Claimant to issue and validly serve a fresh Claim Form. The obstacle standing in the way of a claim is not any sanction imposed by the Court but the fact that the limitation period for defamation and malicious falsehood has expired.

Finally, the Claimant seeks an order under CPR 3.10 remedying his error in not validly serving the Claim Form. The Defendants submit that CPR 3.10 cannot rescue the Claimant. This general provision does not enable the Court to do what CPR 7.6(3) forbids: Vinos -v- Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784; [2001] CP Rep 12 [20].”

Mr Justice Nicklin concluded, “The Claim Form was not served during its period of validity. In consequence, the Court has no jurisdiction over the Claimant’s claim. It follows that I should also formally dismiss the Claimant’s application for summary judgment.”

The Claim is Dead

17. 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 XXXXXXXXXXX.

18. The Claimant should not be given extra opportunities to waste the Court’s time after failing to follow pre action protocols for debt claims, breaching the BPA code of practice and the CPRs about taking 'reasonable steps' (CPR 6.9) to check a Defendant's address.

 

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.

SIGNATURE

 

…………………….. DATE             19/08/2022

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

DRAFT ORDER

UPON reading the application of the defendant

AND UPON hearing from the defendant and on behalf of the claimant 

AND UPON the court determining that the claim form issued under number xxxx had not been served with 4 months of issue

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Judgment dated 08/04/2022 be set aside

2. The claim issued under number XXXXXX be struck out

3. The claimant do pay the defendants reasonable costs of the application, summarily assessed at £674

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

Defendant’s Costs Assessment 

My Fixed Witness Costs 

Further costs for Claimant’s misconduct, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 44.11 

Loss of earnings through attendance of court hearing = £95 

Research, preparation and drafting documents: £19 Litigant in Person rate x 16 hours = £304 

N244 = £275 

TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED = £674

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

  
I'll phone the court up for payment Monday. I dont even know who to call but I'll figure that out. 

I'm off to go cry in a dark room. I DO really appreciate all your help, even those who I've argued back with. 

Coupon-mad

That's superb.  Honestly.

Job done and they will struggle no end in court.  You told them your new address and can prove it, so your case didn't even need the Code of Practice paragraph about checking addresses (which is why we/you left that out).

They failed on all counts to serve that claim to your last known address.

Expect their lawyers to scrabble around during September, emailing you once they learn about your application, to try to get you to sign their own 'damage limitation' version of a Consent Order that absolves them of your wasted costs.  Don't!

You want your costs - and unless they offer to pay you at least £275 (you might say double that, at least?) you'll see them at the hearing, to explain their conduct.

BTW we couldn't just provide links as we don't have those 4 CCJ set aside court transcripts saved anywhere.  We just have the names of the parties memorised! It had to just be a case of Googling for them and you've done it.

I know this has drained you.

Happy weekend!

Jenni_D

Only 1 typo ... you have Exhibit 06 twice in reference to separate case law authorities - but that's a minor thing and a judge wouldn't (shouldn't) think less of your documentation for it.  

Jenni_D

Coupon-mad said:

Expect their lawyers to scrabble around during September, emailing you once they learn about your application, to try to get you to sign their own 'damage limitation' version of a Consent Order that absolves them of your wasted costs.  Don't!

Maybe I'm thinking of a different thread, but haven't they already tried that? (i.e. sent the OP their own draft order which makes "no application for costs").