CCJ - FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHT!!

GlassRoof36

Hi, 

What a godsend this forum is, I've been obsessively reading and researching on here ever since getting a threatening letter through the door and now it's reached the time when I need some advice, plus my head may explode otherwise.

First off, here's a quick summary of what's happened so far...

I received a surprise letter from a debt collector (Direct Collection Bailiffs LTD) to my current address on the 14/07/22, informing me I owe £185 and have an unpaid CCJ. The Claimant is Vehicle Control Services Ltd. The date of the CCJ is March 2019 and I never received any correspondence or a Letter Before Claim (the first letter from the court I think). I believe this is due to the Claimant sending letters to an old address, which was actually a pub I ran and lived at temporarily. Mail sent to the pub was redirected to my employer at his own address, I have proof of this with a council tax bill. I only lived at that address for a year and knew it was going to be temporary, so my bank accounts and electoral roll stayed registered to a permanent address, my Mum's. I did change the address on my driving licence and my V5C to the pub, knowing that this is a legal requirement. I moved out of this address in November 2018 so obviously didn't get any letters about a court date AT ALL given that the CCJ is dated March 2019!! After moving out of the pub, I didn't really have a fixed address as my partner and I were pretty much sofa surfing trying to save up to buy a house. This meant I did not immediately have a new address to change my driving license and V5C to, but everything else was still registered to my Mum's address during this interim period. My Mum never received ANY correspondence from Vehicle Control Services LTD, Nottingham Crown Court or DCBL. 

On the day I received the letter I rang DCBL asking for more information about what a CCJ is (I was clueless). They were useless and told me to ring Nottingham Crown Court. I rang the Court who informed me they do not hold any physical or digital copies of the original claim but confirmed that the default judgement had been sent to the old address. They identified the Claimant, told me it was for a PCN, the PCN location, date and the reference number. 

About 14 days after receiving the initial letter, and after hearing nothing from VCSL, I went onto their website to see if I could find any information about my PCN. I used the reference number and my car registration and VOILA! Photos of my car from the date of the PCN, and information about my "contravention". I used the information to rummage this forum and found other cases, from the same car park, parked in the same "restricted area" and subsequently the way they defended their claim (and won obviously).

It's been 16 days since I received the letter, 16 days of reading this forum and getting prepared to try and get this b*lls**t set aside. I'm at the stage where I am filling out the N244 form, witness statement, draft order and draft defence. I know 16 days is a long time but with the mixture of work and researching this forum, time just seems to have escaped me! I hope I've not left it too late?!

These are the questions I have;

1. After some frantic research on here, I quickly sent off a SAR to VCSL and have received nothing in return. At this point in time I hadn't realised that proof of ID was needed with the SAR, are they still obliged to respond or should I send another email with ID? 

2. The part of the process I have not got my head wrapped around is initially asking the Claimant for a set aside with consent. What is the benefit? Would this be pointless because I want to fight the original PCN anyway? From what I've read, they will only agree to set aside with consent if the original PCN is paid. I'm happy to take the risk of the N244 form and paying £275, so should I just take that route? Have I left it too late anyway to ask for consent?

3. I've completed a draft order, draft witness statement and a draft defence, would be great to get your keen eyes over this!! 

4. Would it be worth explaining in my witness statement why its been 16 days since becoming aware of the CCJ and submitting a N244 form? Something along the lines of 'Waiting for information about the claim from the claimant. Only just finding information about my PCN 2 days ago on VCSL website so now able to understand how and why I should defend the claim. Time researching how to defend the claim as I'm not a lawyer and can't afford to hire a professional for help. 

Thanks in advance!!

GlassRoof36

WITNESS STATEMENT 

NOTTINGHAM COUNTY COURT 

Claim No. xxxxxx

BETWEEN: 

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) 

– and – 

xxxxxx (Defendant) 

_________________________________ 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF xxxxxx 

_________________________________ 

WITNESS STATEMENT: 

1)    I am xxxxxx and I am the DEFENDANT against 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. 

2)    This is my supporting statement to my application dated xxxxxx requesting: 

a)    Mandatory set aside for the Default Judgment dated xxxxxx as it was defectively served using an old address, pursuant to CPR 13.2. 

b)    An order for the original claim to be dismissed as it was not served within 4 months of the issue, pursuant to CPR 7.5 and the Claimant having failed to apply for an extension, pursuant to CPR 7.6. 

c)     An order for the claimant to pay the defendant £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee plus the cost to attend the hearing and relevant litigation in person costs. 

3)    I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. 

4)    I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on xxxxxx. I am aware that the Claimant is Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCSL), and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from the xxxxxx at Flora Street Retail Park. I wish for the opportunity to contest this £185 charge for the reasons outlined in my attached draft defence. 

5)    Since the claim form was not served at my current address, I thus was not aware of the Default Judgment until xxxxxx following a letter being received at my current address from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd (DCBL) (see Exhibit E01). 

6)    The address on the claim is xxxxxx. I moved out of this address on xxxxxx. The property was a business where I worked and lived on a temporary basis through an agreement with my employer. In support of this I can provide correspondence with my previous employer acknowledging I was no longer living there (see Exhibit E02). 

7)    I have not ever received any previous documentation from the Claimant, thus I was never able to properly challenge the Claimant’s claim. The address was a business registered with my previous employer/landlord with mail being redirected to his business address. In support of this I can provide a council tax letter in my name, received at my employer’s address (see Exhibit E03). A new postal address was created through royal mail in order to receive post (see Exhibit E04).   

8)    I was ‘there to be found’ via an inexpensive credit check as I had a permanent address on my record, at xxxxxx This address was registered to my bank statements and the electoral roll (see Exhibit E05 and E06). 

9)    I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without confirming the Defendant’s correct contact details at the time of the claim. They had also failed to explore an ‘alternative place or method’ to inform/enquire the Defendant. 

10) The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of my current residence, and having received no return correspondence from me whatsoever following their assumed multiple attempts to reach me at an old address. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an old address and an irregular judgment. On that basis, I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) 

“Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).” 

11)  Under CPR 13.2 The Court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered. Given that CPR 6.9 (3) was not met, CPR 13.2 applies and the CCJ should be set aside. 

12)  In the alternative, CPR 13.3 applies and there are very good reasons to set aside this exaggerated claim, which includes a disproportionate and indeed, false 'debt recovery' sum.  In fact, no debt recovery occurred nor cost the claimant any money whatsoever, in addition to £100 parking charge.  The Government has described the false fixed 'fee' as 'designed to extort money from motorists' in the new statutory Code of Practice this February and has banned it. The Defendant has good prospects of defending a claim, if served with one. 

13)  In addition to the above, it should be highlighted that the integrity and law-abiding intention of the Defendant should be taken into consideration on the basis that, I have put my utmost effort to obtain necessary information and have managed to submit the case application within 3 weeks of discovering the Default Judgment. 

a)    I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the xxxxxx after receiving a letter through the post from DCBL. I subsequently checked Credit Karma on the same day to see if the letter was genuine. 

b)    On xxxxxx I contacted DCBL by phone call to retrieve any information about the CCJ. They could not provide me with any information and told me to contact Nottingham County Court. 

c)     On xxxxxx and xxxxxx I contacted Nottingham County Court (NCC) by phone call. I was given the name of the Claimant (VCSL) and a reference number. I requested a copy of the original claim letter but was told no physical or digital copies are held on file. NCC confirmed the original letter was sent to my previous address at xxxxxx. 

d)    On xxxxxx, I sent a Subject Access Request (SAR) via email to the Claimant so that I could have sight of the evidence against me. I did not receive a response so contacted the Claimant’s litigation department email address on the xxxxxx for a SAR (see Exhibit 07). 

e)    On xxxxxx, after receiving no response from VCSL about their claim, I was able to find information about my PCN on the VCSL website using a reference code provided by NCC. This provided me with enough information to write my defence for the original claim. 

f)     On xxxxxx I have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case 

15)   The Claimant has failed to adhere to their own Code of Practice, The International Parking Community (CoP) which states under Section 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. 

16)  According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country. 
 
Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. 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.” Furtherance to points raised in 5) above. 

17)  I rely upon the following authorities to support that claim is defective as it was not served to a “last known address”: 

a)    HHJ Hacon in MB Garden Buildings Ltd v Mark Burton Construction Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 431 (IPEC) (28 February 2014) 

b)    HHJ Behrens in Broadside Colours And Chemicals Ltd, Re (No 2) [2012] EWHC 195 (Ch) (20 February 2012) 

18)  In support of the request that the claim be dismissed due to claim not being served within 4 months of issue and the claimant having failed to apply for an extension I rely again upon Marshall & Rankine v Maggs [2006] EWCA Civ 20 (25 January 2006), specifically paras 100-105 which are inclusive of the following key points: 

a)    100. Service of the claim form is a crucial step in the proceedings. The rules are designed to ensure, so far as possible, that the claim form is brought to the attention of the defendant, and where he is represented, his legal representatives. Normally, this must be done within 4 months of the date of issue. CPR 7.6 permits an extension of time for service. If an application to extend time is made after the time for service has expired, the CPR 7.6(3) pre-conditions must be satisfied. 

b)    101. […] If a claimant purports to serve on an address which he mistakenly believes is the last known residence of the defendant, it is therefore necessary to consider the reasonableness of his belief that the address is indeed the defendant's last known residence. 

c)     102. […] In many cases, the claimant will know the address for certain. Where the position is less clear, a direct request of the defendant, or his legal representatives (if they do not have instructions to accept service) may yield an answer. Other enquiries may have to be made. 

d)    103. But the present case shows how dangerous it can be to make assumptions. In our judgment, the first claimant did not have a reasonable basis for concluding that 47 Hays Mews was the defendant's last known residence. He did not know that it was his last known residence. He assumed that it was. He had no real basis for believing that it was the defendant's residence. 

e)    104. […]  As the judge pointed out at para 77 of his judgment, there were other steps that the claimants could have taken if time had permitted: see para 89 above. Since the defendant was the director of a number of companies, another possible step would have been to carry out an on-line search of the Companies House directors' database. 

f)     105. Exercising the discretion given by CPR 7.6(2) afresh, we conclude that this is not a case in which it would be right to extend time for service of the claim form. It follows that the claimant's appeal must be dismissed. 

19)  I have also read the consultation on Default County Court Judgments by Ministry of Justice published 21 February 2018 and it makes an insightful read. Some excerpts are: ‘the claimant must consider whether there is an alternative place or method by which the claim may be served’. And, ‘Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is reforming parking practices and has already taken steps to tackle rogue private parking operators, including banning wheel clamping and towing. DCLG is fully aware of the concerns related to County Court Judgments that follow parking charges and is considering how they can deliver standardised practice across all parking companies, eliminating unfair charges and reducing the instances of claims where the consumer may be unaware of a parking charge being applied’. ‘Where the claimant is unable to ascertain the defendant’s current postal address, the claimant may apply to the Court for service at an alternative place. This may include service via an email address if the claimant and defendant have been in communication via those means and the Court agrees this is appropriate’. 

20)  I believe the Claimant’s practice is a clear example that parking companies’ conduct is not anymore used as a deterrent for citizens to park insensibly, majority of which are law abiding, instead an impending and instantaneous launch of legal action against most of them, leading to default Judgment by Court in 85% of the 1.1 million cases in year 2016/2017, and majority of these were parking tickets. 

21)  Considering all above I submit that the Claimant has not met the service requirements of CPR 6.9 and 7.5. respectively: 

a)    Service has not been effected at a valid address and, 

b)    For want of valid service, these proceedings have not been served within 4 months of issue. 

22)  If there was a case that the Court might not be satisfied on above grounds, I may submit that the Court should use its discretionary powers under CPR 13.3, as there is a profound prospect of defending this claim because of several reasons (draft defence attached). 

23)  I respectfully request the Court that the Default Judgment against me should be set aside and the claim should be dismissed in its entirety. I request the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £275 plus the cost to attend the hearing and relevant litigation in person costs from the Claimant should this request be successful. 

  

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. 

Full Name:  

(Defendant) 

Dated: xxxxxx

Signed: 

 

GlassRoof36

_________________________________ 

DRAFT ORDER 
_________________________________ 

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT: Northampton County Court Business Centre 
 
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) 
 
And 
 
xxxxxx (Defendant) 
 
CLAIM No: xxxxxx 

Upon reading the Defendant's application and the annexed witness statement dated XXXX 

IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. The default judgment dated xxxxxx be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.2. 

2. Pursuant to the Case Management powers of the Court under CPR 3.4(1) and the requirement for service of proceedings under CPR 7.5(1) the Claimant's claim is struck out for want of service within 4 months of issue. 

3. The Claimant does pay the defendant's costs and consequential costs of the application. 

GlassRoof36

Just noticed I've put Nottingham instead of Northampton throughout so editing that now!

Coupon-mad

Yep, I was about to say that but in your draft order just put 'in the County Court' because the case will get allocated out to your local court, whose case directing Judge might then use the Draft order.

Your case law examples are a bit old.  Have a look at the one just worked on by @verdomde on his/her thread which includes three authorities including a quote from Croke from 2022.

I think also the one by @eb23456 is similar.

All authorities should be appended as full transcripts. Also append a costs assessment showing your £275 plus any loss of leave for attending the hearing.

GlassRoof36

IN THE COUNTY COURT 

Claim No.:  xxxxx

Between 

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED 

(Claimant)  

- and -   

xxxxx                      

 (Defendant) 

_________________ 

DRAFT DEFENCE 

 
 

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars. 

 
The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. 
 

3.1. The Particulars of Claim refer to ‘A Breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land xxxxx. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state whether the Defendant is being pursued under the POFA 2012 as the registered keeper (they use template wording 'keeper and/or driver' yet the law and liability chain and defence needed for those polar opposite positions, would be entirely different).  The Particulars also fail to explain the locus standi of the Claimant, who are not the landowner yet also fail to state why they, as a mere agent (if indeed they are) of a landowner principal, are bringing this claim.  Further, this is a money-claim and the Particulars state no sum of money, nor even break the total claim down, nor even state the sum of the alleged parking charge. 

3.2. On the date of the alleged contravention the defendant’s vehicle was parked in a large, open area of the car park, along with many other vehicles, assumed to be used as overflow parking. The vehicle was not blocking access to any other vehicles, pedestrian walkways, or access points, nor could it be reasonably assumed that it was causing any inconvenience of any kind. This area is not marked, unlike other areas nearby which are marked clearly with the cross hatch, so the onus is on the Claimant to prove that the area is restricted. 

3.3. The Claimant’s signage as at xxxxx states “No parking in restricted areas, double yellow lines, hatched areas, roadways, pedestrian walkways, entrances or exits.” No other description is offered as to what constitutes a ‘restricted area’. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether expressed, implied, or by conduct. 

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.  

ETC.......

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

I have taken these defence points from a previous case which is the same as mine but I'm not sure if 3.1 applies to me as I haven't seen a 'Particulars of Claim' yet. Am I right in thinking NCC can provide me with this? They were so unhelpful when I called them previously! Are the particulars of claim likely to be in the same wording as ones I've seen on this forum? Mine is the same PCN, for the same location and for the same "contravention" from the same company (VCSL).

Looking forward to some replies!

Thanks

KeithP

GlassRoof36 said:

 I haven't seen a 'Particulars of Claim' yet. Am I right in thinking NCC can provide me with this?

The County Court Business Centre in Northampton can supply a copy of the PoC.

GlassRoof36

Thanks for such a quick response @Coupon-mad

Yep, I was about to say that but in your draft order just put 'in the County Court' because the case will get allocated out to your local court, whose case directing Judge might then use the Draft order.

I will changed that on my draft order now.

Your case law examples are a bit old.  Have a look at the one just worked on by @verdomde on his/her thread which includes three authorities including a quote from Croke from 2022.

I think also the one by @eb23456 is similar.

I will check them out and update my WS.

All authorities should be appended as full transcripts.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this but I will do some research to get a better understanding. My initial guess is attaching full transcripts of cases when using case law examples??

Also append a costs assessment showing your £275 plus any loss of leave for attending the hearing.

I will also look into this. Should this be a separate document?

Coupon-mad

Yes, a costs assessment is a separate document, not an exhibit like your case law transcripts (and you are right in your understanding about what they are).

Remove this because there will be a sum of money stated in a VCS POC:

Further, this is a money-claim and the Particulars state no sum of money, nor even break the total claim down, nor even state the sum of the alleged parking charge. 

GlassRoof36

So here a section of my updated WS with more recent cases added.

____________________________________________________________________________

16)  According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country. 
 
Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. 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.” Furtherance to points raised in 5) above. 

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. 

18) There are several authorities for this, including the judgment in Boxwood [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC) (see Exhibit 08), 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…” 

19) In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 (see Exhibit 09) 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. 

20) In judgment of Deputy Master Marsh in Croke & Anor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch)  (see Exhibit 10) 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."   

21)  I have also read the consultation on Default County Court Judgments by Ministry of Justice published 21 February 2018 and it makes an insightful read. Some excerpts are: ‘the claimant must consider whether there is an alternative place or method by which the claim may be served’. And, ‘Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is reforming parking practices and has already taken steps to tackle rogue private parking operators, including banning wheel clamping and towing. DCLG is fully aware of the concerns related to County Court Judgments that follow parking charges and is considering how they can deliver standardised practice across all parking companies, eliminating unfair charges and reducing the instances of claims where the consumer may be unaware of a parking charge being applied’. ‘Where the claimant is unable to ascertain the defendant’s current postal address, the claimant may apply to the Court for service at an alternative place. This may include service via an email address if the claimant and defendant have been in communication via those means and the Court agrees this is appropriate’. 

__________________________________________________________________

Is that now good to go?

GlassRoof36

Remove this because there will be a sum of money stated in a VCS POC:

Further, this is a money-claim and the Particulars state no sum of money, nor even break the total claim down, nor even state the sum of the alleged parking charge. 

Also amended this. Anything else I should/could add into my defence?