Surprise CCJ from QDR Solicitors

broadsid

Neither, I've referenced and included quotes from it, but not included the CoP itself

Coupon-mad

Should have done.  What about the 4 transcripts?

broadsid

I've dropped the ball there, didn't realise I needed to incude that - I did attach the 4 case transcripts as pdf attachments to the email document I submitted, along with evidence of my address change and credit search history - which proves there was no check for my new address.

Coupon-mad

OK so it's about a PCN from 2019 so you need the right version of the BPA CoP (not the 2020 version) and you could simply email it as a PDF to the local court & Claimant's solicitor QDR, attached to a Supplementary WS (short & sweet, saying what it is and this is provided to assist the court at the CCJ set aside application hearing on (DATE) at (TIME).  State that the Claimant is not in any way disadvantaged or surprised by this exhibit because it is their own Trade Body's (BPA) Code of Practice from the year of the PCN and it is this that operators must abide by.

By the way...are they saying they didn't do a soft trace and relied upon the DVLA address without checking it was good for service of a claim in 2022?

And did QDR add £12 in top of the false £70, in top if the PCN?  i.e. did they add £82?

I ask because the £12 is meant to be to cover the soft trace (actually costs QDR 28pence).  But the point being, if they didn't do a trace then why have they added that £12?

broadsid

They haven't mentioned doing a soft trace and I checked my credit report for the past 3 years and did not find any record that they ran a trace to get an updated address - so were relying on the DVLA address the entire time.

I don't think QDR added £12 - the charge began at £60 (if paid early), then went to £100, was then passed on to ZZPS who raised it to £170.

Coupon-mad

But what do the Particulars of Claim say? You got a copy when you rang the CCBC before you put in your application?

How do you know the breakdown of the inflated CCJ if not seeing the POC?

broadsid

The only information I was given when I called CCBC was the claim amount, which was £275 and the claimant was UK Parking Control, who were using QDR Solicitors

KeithP

broadsid said:

The only information I was given when I called CCBC was the claim amount, which was £275 and the claimant was UK Parking Control, who were using QDR Solicitors

Perhaps you should phone the CCBC again and ask them to email the Particulars of Claim to you.

broadsid

I called CCBC this morning to get the particulars of the claim, I've been sent a very high level description which doesn't give me any more detail than the claimants witness statement for the court case tomorrow.

This is what I was sent:

THE CLAIMANTS CLAIM IS FOR AN OUTSTANDING PARKING CHARGE ISSUED TO VEHICLE XXX WHEN PARKED AT XXX. THE SITE IS MANAGED BY THE CLAIMANT. THE DEFENDANT IS THE KEEPER OF OR THE DRIVER NAMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCHEDULE 4 OF PROTECTION OF FREEDOM ACT 2012 OF THE VEHICLE. VEHICLES PARKING AT THE SITE ARE SUBJECT TO THE PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHICH ARE SET OUT ON SIGNS AT THE SITE AND FORM PART OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE AND THE CLAIMANT.ON 18 12 2019, THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED AT THE SITE IN BREACH OF THE CONTRACT, THE CONTRAVENTION BEING REGISTERED USERS ONLY. BY ENTERING THIS CONTRACT THE DEFENDANT AGREED THAT THEY WOULD BE LIABLE FOR £100.00 PARKING CHARGES, PLUS ADDITIONAL CONTRACTUAL CHARGES INCURED BY THE CLAIMANT FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE DEBT PURSUANT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

Coupon-mad

That's not high level, it's generic wording.

Did the CCBC not give you the breakdown from the table on the right of the claim; i.e. how do POC only mentioning a specified sum of £100 (with no specified damages nor interest) become £275-odd?