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

Harvez63

does anyone have a link to a similar case they could share so I can follow? @Coupon-mad your normally good with previous cases 

Coupon-mad

You need to do a skeleton argument attaching the 4 case authorities and either the BPA or IPC CoP (as applicable, from the parking event date).  I'd copy what @Brokenchief did for his/her skelly.

Southampton court - great! They might even grant the set aside and dismiss the claim outright, without a hearing.  Great court who know about PPC scams.

Harvez63

@Coupon-mad I did read about a case at a Southampton court so its ended up where I'd hoped it would at least. Although still awaiting an address.

I've used @Brokenchief skeleton argument and adapted it slightly. I expect I will be probably asked to remove point 2 , or at least a better worded version, but as a starting point see below if someone could kindly spare some time to quickly review/add;

Claim No.:  XXX
Between
XXX
(Claimant) 
- and -  
XXX
 (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."

(do I remove the above? I did give an address, I gave BW legal my address of the time, but then informed the claimant of the address change a month or so later? so I'm not sure that applies? Could BWL argue they did serve it at THEIR last known address, therefor its best to leave that out also?)

 2. The claimant had known a previous means of communication with defendant via email, and failed to use this method of commination when no response was forth coming from summons letters served at a known old address meaning they could not be defended. A response not received due to the defendant no longer residing at the address where summons where sent to.

3. 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. 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 XXX.

3.2 There are several authorities for this, including the judgment in Boxwood [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC) (please see attached Boxwood.pdf)  , 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.

3.3 In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 (please see attached Vinos.pdf)  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.

3.4 In judgment of Deputy Master Marsh in Croke & Anor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch)  (please see attached Croke.pdf) 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." 

3.5 In Piepenbrock-v-Associated News Limited [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB) (please see attached Pipenbrock.pdf) 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.”

4.  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.”

 

Coupon-mad

Yep, keep #1 and remove #2.

Never mind any older communication with BW Legal, the fact is that the Claimants were told your new address and THAT was therefore your last known address.

Harvez63

OK thank you. 

So now I just sit back and wait for a hearing date from the courts?

Le_Kirk

2. The claimant had known a previous means of communication with defendant via email, and failed to use this method of commination communication when no response was forthcoming from summons letters served at a known old address meaning they could not be defended. A response was not received due to the defendant no longer residing at the address where summons letters where were sent to.

Suggestion for you.  They are not summons, it is civil not criminal, just letters will do.

Coupon-mad

But para 2 is being removed anyway.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

But para 2 is being removed anyway.

Doh!      

Harvez63

I just went to change my phone contract to get a £6 a month deal and got declined. How anyone can tell me its not a big deal 

In a well paid job, ran my company 6 years now, never declined credit in my life, top score with plenty of borrowing and repayments, and its come to this. 

And they can do this, and have no repercussions or even sense of morality on their own behalf? wow. I'm so fired up.  

Jenni_D

There's a reason why the term Credit Clamping is used - and this is exactly why. (Wheel Clampers have become Credit Clampers).

When the new consultation opens up then yours is a prime example of why the changes the PPCs want should be declined - allowing the £70 "debt charge" to be added will simply accelerate the race to court, and so exacerbate credit clamping.