Gatwick Airport - Drop Off Parking Defence

qwertyoffice

To update you all on this, I got the judgement set aside after the CCBC admitted they messed up my defence.

But as they said it could take 6 weeks to get the decision, I had no choice but to pay BW Legal in full to get the CCJ removed within the 30 day period.

When my defence got re-Instated, I requested for BW Legal to refund the money paid.
I have just received their response in the post today (attached), any advice on how I proceed please?
Are they allowed to keep the money despite 

my defence being re-instated?

Thank you all for your help so far
(Removed by Forum Team)

B789

Can you show us the set aside order? I think you will be able to get the money you paid back, one way or another. However, it may depend on how the order is interpreted. You may need to make your own claim to get it refunded or the shysters may be forced to refund it anyway depending on how this is interpreted.

It may have been worth taking the hit on your credit record for a few weeks as once the CCJ has been removed due to the set aside, there would be no record of it ever having been made on your file.

I'm sure the experts on here will be along soon to advise.

Coupon-mad

Paying the sum didn't admit liability.  I think you must respond to that and cover yourself, especially to prevent them walking away scott free if they now discontinue the claim!

I realise they act in the interests of their client but that letter takes the biscuit IMHO.

See what @bargepole and @Johnersh think.

Your defence having been reinstated means the case proceeds to trial in the usual way now, so to any reasonable interpretation, why should they hold onto your money in the meantime?

What happens if they now discontinue?

Moreover, you now have nothing to lose and may as well go all the way to the hearing and include that letter in your WS bundle as an exhibit and suggest it is part of litigation conduct that you ask the court to consider if it meets the Dammerman bar of vexatious and wholly unreasonable behaviour.

They didn't mark that letter or the email header: 'Without Prejudice Save as to Costs' did they?

I am especially concerned about a discontinuance.  @Johnersh and @bargepole may be able to suggest a response.

bargepole

It's difficult to comment on this, with out seeing the full text of the Set Aside Order.

I assume that, as the Defence has been reinstated, that ithe case will now proceed as normal, with both sides ordered to file and serve their WS and evidence by a specified date. Then, if it proceeds to a final hearing and you win, you can reclaim the monies from the Claimant's solicitors (BW Legal).

However, if they discontinue before it gets that far, you would have to make an application to the Court for the claimant to pay your costs, on the basis that, as the claim hadn't been allocated to the Small Claims Track at the time the Judgment was set aside, they are liable for the cost of that application.

B789

What did the set aside say about costs?

qwertyoffice

This is all the Set Aside says.....

Upon the court noting that Direction Questionnaire was received and that the Defence was struck out and judgment

entered in error.

It is ordered

1. The Judgment dated 14/12/22 is set aside.

2. The Defence is re-instated.

Johnersh

That is a mess. One of those that's so unusual there probably is no right answer. 

The judgment was always going to be set aside as of right. But I get that the o/p couldn't risk it. 
Not losing a mortgage offer and sparing your time in sorting stuff out after judgment has a value too. 

Now its fully paid, I think it will be very difficult to get the funds back absent an order and the court could feasibility decide the decision to pay was yours. The claimant will almost certainly discontinue. 

 

Coupon-mad

Hmmm...three things spring to mind now that @bargepole and @Johnersh have helpfully replied.

The OP has options:

(a) email the Court URGENTLY - this week - and object to the January Order (you might well have to fill out a N244 application and pay £100 fee which you can ask to be ordered against the Claimant).  Object to the order because it makes no mention of the fact that the Defendant has had to temporarily pay the Claimant £xxx.xx to avoid a CCJ being on the register whilst the court sorted out their error over a period of weeks.  The Claimant is now acknowledging that the defence is reinstated but (see attached BW Legal letter) is unreasonably refusing to pay that sum back, which was never paid with any admission of liability.  Not only does that mean this Claimant will almost certainly now discontinue and entirely get away with this conduct, but it appears to fly in the face of the overriding objective to achieve justice at low cost to the parties.

As such, the Defendant respectfully asks that this order should be set aside and replaced or amended with an added clause in order to put both parties back in the position they would have been in, had the court not made the error with the mislaid N180 form.  Namely: the Claimant do reimburse the Defendant the sum of £xxx.xx in order to allow the case to continue as a defended claim without monies having been paid by either party.  Thus avoiding placing the Defendant at risk.  Clearly, the current order leaves the Defendant at immediate risk of a discontinuance which would end the litigation and the Defendant will never be able to recover the monies (that were temporarily paid to 'hold' the CCJ and prevent the court's error from affecting his credit file).

(b) the OP could also reply to BW telling them the payment was clearly not an 'admission of liability' (because the Defendant had defended the case in full) and it was merely to protect his credit rating (temporarily) until the courts sorted out their error and both parties were placed back in the position they would have been.  BW's reply appears to place the wishes of their client before their first duty (to the court) and pays no regard to the overriding objective which requires cases to be dealt with justly.

(c). The OP in the long run (not as urgent and only to be done if you end up out of pocket) should make a complaint to the HMRC Customer complaints team, whose email appears in the thread by @jag_run who was awarded £150 in compensation to address his losses caused by a similar error by the CCBC.



Questions:

- when you emailed the DQ that the CCBC lost, did you copy in BW Legal TO THE SAME EMAIL?  Did they know you had filed & served your DQ all along?  Did you get an acknowledgement email from BW Legal, to the DQ?

- was this BW letter - or the email attaching it - marked WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS, or nor?

B789

Johnersh said:

That is a mess. One of those that's so unusual there probably is no right answer. 

The judgment was always going to be set aside as of right. But I get that the o/p couldn't risk it. 
Not losing a mortgage offer and sparing your time in sorting stuff out after judgment has a value too. 

Now its fully paid, I think it will be very difficult to get the funds back absent an order and the court could feasibility decide the decision to pay was yours. The claimant will almost certainly discontinue. 

 

What order could the OP use to make a claim for the money paid? It was certainly not paid to satisfy the alleged debt because by the time it was paid, the CCJ had been set aside. It was paid solely to prevent an already defective judgement causing harm to their credit status at that time.

Johnersh

It was certainly not paid to satisfy the alleged debt because by the time it was paid, the CCJ had been set aside

I missed this element of the dynamic late last night. 

I'm not sure it markedly improves matters, given that the o/p then knew the position would be rectified. 

The merits of coupon's suggestion may depend on exactly what information C was provided when the sum was paid.