ccj for parking fine

rms22

I have to say thank you so much for your help in submitting this application, especially, Coupon. You are a star. I could not have done this without you or anyone else who has contributed to the thread. Thank you very much indeed, I am extremely grateful.

rms22

Hi,

I received this email yesterday;

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited v XXXXXXX

Claim No: XXXXXX

PCN: XXXXXXXX

We refer to your application to set aside Judgment which has been forwarded to us by the County

Court Business Centre.

We note your grounds for setting aside Judgment, which state that you had moved address before the

violation occurred. We were provided with your registered address by the DVLA following the date of

violation. As you may be aware, it is an offence (punishable with a fine up to £1000) to fail to promptly

notify the DVLA of a change of address.

As you do not deny being the registered keeper at the time of the violation and because you have not

shown any grounds in your application that you have any reasonable prospects of defending the claim,

it is our position that your application to set aside judgment will be refused. Even if the application is

granted, it is our intention to proceed with the claim against you.

However, bearing in mind this process can take time and will incur unnecessary costs for both parties,

we will consent to setting aside judgment (to support your application) and to discontinue the claim

against you, if you agree to pay the original £60.00 parking charge plus the administration costs and

fees we have incurred in trying to recover payment of the PCN, limited to £35.00, making a total of

£95.00. Each party will bear its own costs of this application. Upon receiving payment, we will provide

you with a draft Order confirming the above, to file with the Court in support of your application.

Payment can be made via our website; www.ce-service.co.uk, or alternatively via our automated

payment line (0115 822 5020). Please be advised that if this offer is not accepted within 14 days of the

date of this letter, we reserve the right to show this letter to the judge on the issue of who should pay

the costs of your application.

Yours faithfully

Legal Team

For and behalf of

Civil Enforcement Limited

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

How should I proceed?

Coupon-mad

Dear CEL,

Get lost.  You are liable for my costs.

rms22

Hi,

Hope you are well. Received a letter today re the hearing date which is in two weeks time. 

What do I need to do before attending ? 

Coupon-mad

Put in the 4 case transcripts (in support of the argument that an unserved claim is DEAD and cannot be resurrected by the court) and the BPA CoP too (section about checking details before a Letter before Claim) as 'authorities' attached to a skeleton argument.

Copy from @Brokenchief who did it.

rms22

Thanks, I've re-read brokenchief's thread. Not sure if I am supposed to print the 4 case authorities and BPA CoP off or email them though?

Is the SA below ok and what should I write as a covering text?

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."

2. 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 XXXX

2.2 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.

2.3 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.

2.4 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." 

2.5 In Piepenbrock-v-Associated News Limited [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB) (please see attached Piepenbrock.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. DVLA address data may not be accurate. DVLA data is provided for a single (very limited) reason, so a parking operator can invite the keeper to name the driver or to pay, or to inform the keeper they will be liable if not, and about their right to appeal.

4.2. The system is called 'KADOE' (Keeper On Date of Event) because it is a brief 'snapshot in time' address to enable a parking firm to send a Notice. Operators are only allowed to ask the DVLA once, hence the code of practice requires reasonable steps are taken to check address details are current before litigation. Even if a motorist later updated a VC5 logbook with a new address (or if the DVLA failed to note a change in a timely manner, which is reportedly common) a parking operator will not know, nor be able to find that out.

4.3. The DVLA keeper data may be outdated (i.e. the keeper cannot be reached at that address) for millions of motorists as reported in Birmingham Live on 3 November 2021. The parking industry know this, hence Codes of Practice direct that further address checks must be made. This is further evidence that DVLA address data should not be solely relied upon, especially with DVLA processing delays.

4.4  The KADOE address is not provided by the DVLA as a 'court claim service address' and cannot be relied upon, because it's an address where the vehicle was kept at a historical point in time (which may not be where the keeper lives; it's where the car was reported 'kept' last time the DVLA heard).

4.5  There is no safe presumption that a DVLA vehicle address is or was a valid address where a Defendant can be served, especially months or years later, especially where there is reason to believe letters are not being received. Silence after sending a Notice to Keeper, a reminder and then a Letter before Claim is a clear indicator that the keeper may not live there.
4.6 A claim sent to an old DVLA address with no soft trace checks (costing as low as 29 pence and offered free by debt collectors connected to the parking industry) fails to meet the BPA Code of Practice and fails to satisfy the specific 'pre-action Protocol for debt claims' and is in breach of the CPRs about the obligation to take 'reasonable steps' to check a Defendant's address so that service is effective.

5.  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.”
 
I believe that the facts stated in this Skeleton Argument are true.

NAME 

DATE

Coupon-mad

You do not put a statement of truth, nor do you sign a skelly and para 5 is not relevant to a skelly (not convinced you were looking at Brokenchuef's final agreed version later in his thread as I doubt it had that ending?).

Email it if it's (in total) less than 50 pages.

rms22

Coupon-mad said:

You do not put a statement of truth, nor do you sign a skelly and para 5 is not relevant to a skelly (not convinced you were looking at Brokenchuef's final agreed version later in his thread as I doubt it had that ending?).

Email it if it's (in total) less than 50 pages.

It's a copy and paste of the final SA I can see on his thread so I'm a bit confused. Do I not put my name and the date on it at all then?

The BPA CoP is 50 pages and Boxwood is 24 pages so does that mean I need to print all 4 case authorities off and the BPA CoP and bring them with me?

Coupon-mad

It means you'd have to send the court a ring binder file with hard copies in advance because they won't print that.

Email it to the Claimant's solicitor, no printing for them!

rms22

Do I have to bring them with me on the day of the hearing or do I need to go and hand them in before ?