Excel Parking Services - Siddals Road car park Derby -(I WON!)

Coupon-mad

Agreed.  But you must do more. 

Tell Elms that they unreasonably refused at a time when a consent order was suggested by you (months ago) and it is now too late because you are out of pocket by £275 snd their client is liable for those costs.

State that they MUST NOT include this draft Consent Order in any bundle because it is NOT AGREED and has not been signed, and is irrelevant to the case.  It is known that in another similar case, a draft consent order with the Defendant's name typed at the bottom was held out to appear to be a signed document and regrettably, a Judge wrongly took it to be so.

To avoid this sort of misunderstanding, that purported consent order draft has been rejected because it came too late and £275 costs are already a feature of the application made.  That draft document must not be sent to the court.  The hearing paid for will go ahead.

(Copy in the local court but REMOVING the attachment, or doing it as a fresh email, so that the rogue 'draft consent order' isn't accidentally placed before the Judge).

MysticDad

I've received a rather shoddy witness statement opposing the Set Aside.

• They have got my gender wrong

• They are claiming that my application is not prompt, citing two cases (Hart Investments v Fidler [2006] and The Big Yellow Van v Rayner [2014] where the Defendant took 59 days and 102 days respectively to apply for a Set Aside (incidentally, does anyone have transcripts/summaries of these cases?).  They are conflating the date that the Judgment was made with the date that the defendant became aware of the Judgement. (I made my application within a month of becoming aware of the CCJ, and within a few days of obtaining a copy of the Judgment)

Coupon-mad

You don't need those two cases - you are right that they are conflating two different dates and you acted promptly.  Not that you are required to, in a mandatory set aside situation under CPR 13.2!

What a shoddy mess.

Hope they didn't try appending the draft consent order so it looks like a real one, to misdirect a Judge?

Did they try saying they did double check the address before issuing the claim, or are they trying to tell the court that it's perfectly OK to run with the old DVLA data?

MysticDad

They've not tried to forge a consent order.

They claim they are mandated to serve all documents on the DVLA keeper address and it's apparent they did not carry out a soft trace or similar. They refer to CPR 6(9) but neglect to mention CPR 6(9)3.

Coupon-mad

And they neglect to mention that the IPC CoP requires AOS members to check addresses before litigation...

I wasn't suggesting any attempt at forgery BTW!  Just 'did they include the draft consent order' such that a lax Judge, in a hurry, might think your name on it is your electronic signature.

MysticDad

Coupon-mad said:

And they neglect to mention that the IPC CoP requires AOS members to check addresses before litigation...

I'm probably being daft - where exactly is this specified?

Le_Kirk

MysticDad said:

Coupon-mad said:

And they neglect to mention that the IPC CoP requires AOS members to check addresses before litigation...

I'm probably being daft - where exactly is this specified?

It will be in the CoP, ask Auntie Google.

MysticDad

I've looked in the COP and can't find  reference to verifying addresses before litigation, which is why I'm asking.

Router66

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.

MysticDad

Ah OK. In this instance proceedings were issued ~6 months after the 'parking event'.