ccj for parking fine

rms22

Coupon-mad said:

I'll make sure I mention that the address check must be done before sending the LBC and they hadn't done this. In terms of backing myself up with this I should refer to 24.1c ;

"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 correct contact details for the person you are writing to are correct."

In terms of that, it's black and white that they didn't follow the code of practice and therefore the claim wasn't properly served isn't it ?

Yes - but only if you've put it into evidence.  That's why Brokenchief attached it to his skelly along with the 4 case authorities.

Yes it's a copy of that SA with the 4 case authorities.

Coupon-mad

OK and you put in the BPA CoP too, like he did? 

rms22

Coupon-mad said:

OK and you put in the BPA CoP too, like he did? 

yes, page 17 is in the ring binder, after the SA and before the 4 case authorities.

Coupon-mad

Good stuff.  That debunks CEL's drivel.

Be aware that some Judges wrongly think that a PPC can just use a DVLA car reg address without checking it further.  Your task is to clearly explain why that is an abuse of the CPRs and the BPA CoP and of course CEL could and should have traced you before LBC stage, for 28pence.

And so they caused this unjust CCJ and the claim is dead because it was never properly served.

Even if the Judge is not with you on that leap (the 4 cases...) then in the alternative, the CCJ must be set aside under CPR 13.2 and you will then defend the claim if CEL are ordered to send you full particulars and photos they rely upon.

Either way, due to their conduct CEL must meet your costs of this application because their inaction caused the CCJ.  Even if motorists move house and subsequently change their DVLA car reg address, parking firms are not allowed to ask the DVLA twice so a years-old DVLA car reg address is indisputably unsafe for service.

Especially when letters are receiving no response.  That is a strong 'reason to believe' the address is not good for service.

And the BPA require a soft trace anyway. It doesn't use that phrase but that's what it means. The DLUHC has explained it far more clearly in the incoming Code of Practice (Feb 2022 but on hold, temporarily) where the phrase 'soft trace' is used.

rms22

Just been to the hearing. When I walked in he said it would be a very short hearing. 

He said he'd received a letter from the claimant a day ago (think I heard that right) saying they've consented to set aside the CCJ so that has been set aside which is good, but said there would be no costs (not sure if that meant awarded to me or what)

He said that I'd have to file a defence to the original PCN and said that the Claimant had 14 days to issue the particulars of the claim. 

He mentioned something about the DVLA address being the only one they had available to them (sure I heard that right) and so I I mentioned page 17 of the BPA CoP insofar that it makes it mandatory that all reasonable endeavours in verifying the correct address should be made 

Before I could finish he said I'm going to stop you there, that's for the defence, and so I couldn't continue saying what I wanted to. Basically finishing mentioning 24.1c

I said shouldn't the claim be struck out because it's 4 months dead and he said again that is for the defence and I just felt as though whatever I said would be fruitless.

I couldn't even get around to mentioning costs. 

Whole thing lasted about a minute and a half.

B789

I'm assuming when you say "he said..." you mean, "the Judge said...".

I haven't gone back through the thread but was this hearing for the set-aside? Had you filed for a set-aside without consent or with consent?

He said he'd received a letter from the claimant a day ago (think I heard that right) saying they've consented to set aside the CCJ so that has been set aside which is good, but said there would be no costs (not sure if that meant awarded to me or what)

Did the claimant submit their own with-consent set-aside order which you were not aware of?

rms22

B789 said:

I'm assuming when you say "he said..." you mean, "the Judge said...".

I haven't gone back through the thread but was this hearing for the set-aside? Had you filed for a set-aside without consent or with consent?

He said he'd received a letter from the claimant a day ago (think I heard that right) saying they've consented to set aside the CCJ so that has been set aside which is good, but said there would be no costs (not sure if that meant awarded to me or what)

Did the claimant submit their own with-consent set-aside order which you were not aware of?

Set aside without consent - I wanted my costs back. Sounds like I won't get them.

They sent letters saying they'd agree to set aside the CCJ if I paid them £95 for the PCN.

After the hearing today I hear they have now agreed to set-aside the CCJ but I need to file a defence for the PCN.

B789

I'll leave it to the legal experts to come back to you with more questions and advice. Was your costs order set out correctly? Were the costs reserved?

Hopefully this will be resolved, Maybe the costs were reserved and if you successfully defend the re-issued claim, you will be awarded those back. As for the 4 months dead argument, no idea why the judge said to leave that for the defence, assuming he meant the defence of the original claim. Kind of defeats the purpose as it is supposed to kill the original claim. Did the judge err in law?

rms22

I am happy that the CCJ will be removed which is the main thing. How long should that take to be completely removed? 

What is the likelihood of successfully defending the PCN? I know the car park but not sure what the details of the PCN are. It's ANPR operated I think.

rms22

B789 said:

I'll leave it to the legal experts to come back to you with more questions and advice. Was your costs order set out correctly? Were the costs reserved?

Hopefully this will be resolved, Maybe the costs were reserved and if you successfully defend the re-issued claim, you will be awarded those back. As for the 4 months dead argument, no idea why the judge said to leave that for the defence, assuming he meant the defence of the original claim. Kind of defeats the purpose as it is supposed to kill the original claim. Did the judge err in law?

I attached a schedule of costs and sent that in with my bundle and also emailed it. As I say I did mention the 4 months dead but he said that is for the defence.