Found out about CCJ through debt collection agency after moving - help!

Coupon-mad

DryShake said:

So I got the letter a couple of days ago for a hearing date (next monday). I need to send the files to the court by email today and would very much appreciate if you could tell me how what the subject/contents of the email should be. 

The letter I got was dated 2 weeks ago but took over a week to arrive and I've just started a new job this week so I just don't have time to go through everything. 

Should I follow the guidance on this link here or the guidance on this site? Is the signature thing important? I don't have a printer/scanner.

(remove spaces from:) www. justice . gov . uk / courts/email-guidance 

Also all of the correspondence so far has been to manchester court (not ccbc), I don't know if that makes a difference to anything 

You are not dealing with the CCBC now; that admin centre was only a doorway to get the case allocated to your local court at Manchester.

EDIT -
my post after the above is now deleted because I didn't realise this is a set aside hearing and thank goodness, the OP is not in breach of the Order re WS!

DryShake

I sent my updated WS/Skeleton defence/etc with the N244 Approx. 1 month ago. I didn't receive any email or letter until Tuesday this week when I received a "notice of Hearing of Application". I've not received any other documents from anyone.

I don't know if the other side has done anything - I've received nothing from them?

Do I just send the documents again?

Coupon-mad

DryShake said:

I sent my updated WS/Skeleton defence/etc with the N244 Approx. 1 month ago. I didn't receive any email or letter until Tuesday this week when I received a "notice of Hearing of Application". I've not received any other documents from anyone.

I don't know if the other side has done anything - I've received nothing from them?

Do I just send the documents again?

Ah, so it's a CCJ set aside hearing? Phew!!  Panic over.  Sorry!

You've done all you need to do then and the C often sends nothing to these hearings.

OK, so now it's preparation time.  Think of and practise in front of a mirror, for the worst type of Judge.

Be warned that a few Judges start with a fixed mindset that blames the consumer for not changing their DVLA logbook address promptly.

Really, really difficult CCJ set aside hearings have been reported recently by:

@Brokenchief

@Jack5656

@verdomde

@aluminiumminimumimmune

Read their threads right to the end over the weekend.

Be ready to bring out the evidence of the Claimant's mandatory Code of Practice which requires a second check of address and details of the defendant before litigation.  It is NOT correct to sat that a PPC can just presume a DVLA logbook address is good for service of court papers and in fact that's a clear breach of their code.

Have you filed a skeleton argument with the 4 authorities about the '4 months dead' argument' to try to kill off the entire claim?  You could whizz that over in the morning if not.  See the above threads.

Have you put the relevant code of Practice in evidence already?

You do need that CoP clause in evidence, to show the Judge that PPCs must check addresses again before LBC stage and this Claimant didn't bother, therefore the CCJ must be set aside AND the entire claim struck out for want of service, and your costs awarded.

And lastly, have the bones of a defence up your sleeve because bad Judges who don't get it that these are mandatory set asides, often go the easier route of a 'discretionary' set aside and want to know that you have good prospects of successfully defending the claim that they might not 'get' has never been served, so is already dead...

But this is Manchester (a good court) so hopefully you will be pushing against an open door with DJ Iyer or similar!

DryShake

Ok thank god, I've just emailed them with the .pdfs that were rejected for being too long in the N244. Those are some very good arguments I'll go over this weekend so I can express them clearly on Monday. Thank you so much for the advice I can get to sleep now!

Fruitcake

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Section 62, "Test of Fairness") regarding contract terms must be considered by the court even if they have not been brought up beforehand, as stated in Section 71 of the Act

This means you might be able to slip in comments about the PPC failing to make further checks concerning the motorist's address if you haven't already done so because they must abide by the ATA's code of practice in order to make a contract with the landowner and operate on the site in question.
The contract becomes unfair if they haven't followed the ATA's requirements.

This applies to any other points that may be raised as long as you can convince the judge to allow them.

Rushing to court, adding debt or admin charges they haven't accrued, or adding interest at an unrealistic 8% are all unfair consumer terms, in my humble opinion.

Make notes during the hearing of what the other side says so you can challenge points you believe are incorrect.

DryShake

I tried attaching all 5 of the pdfs and got rejected for size again. Tried sending just the CoP on its own immediately after that but didn't get a response yet. 

I've also gotten emailed with supporting documents from excel (arrived at 5.25pm on a friday for monday morning hearing!) so it looks like they plan on being there in person.

I plan on printing my defence out at the library tomorrow, should I try to print the CoP and bring that?  I realise it might be rejected by the judge but might have a chance of being allowed? 

KeithP

DryShake said:

I plan on printing my defence out at the library tomorrow, should I try to print the CoP and bring that?  I realise it might be rejected by the judge but might have a chance of being allowed? 

You only need a single page of the relevant bits of the Code of Practice.

It would be a big mistake to throw the whole CoP at both court and the claimant and then when asked where exactly is the bit you want us to read, your answer cannot be "I don't know. It's in there somewhere".

Coupon-mad

Yes print 3 copies of the relevant page of the IPC CoP (not the BPA one of course). One for you, one for the Judge and one for the other side's rep.

You will know from reading the clause in the CoP, that if Excel issued the claim more than a year after the parking event, then they were in breach of the IPC CoP NOT to check your address with a 28 pence 'soft trace'.

You could also print out a couple of copies (for you and the Judge) of the 4 binding authorities that say that a claim that is not properly served is dead after 4 months.

DryShake

Ok so ignore the BPA one and just print 3 copies of page 25 of IPC CoP.

I'm not sure which pages are relevant in the pdfs for the judgement, or is it all of them? or do you mean just the skeleton defence?

Coupon-mad

I mean the four (entire) case law transcripts as kindly posted by @Brokenchief in his thread, that support the '4 months dead' argument.

Do you know how to explain that argument to a grumpy old Judge who thinks he/she knows it all and wants to blame you for not updating your DVLA address?

Sorry to say this but you do still sound somewhat unprepared if you didn't know which Code of Practice applies:

Excel are in the IPC, not the BPA. 

You've found the IPC CoP clause about checking details before litigation? 

Please re-read my earlier post where I warned you what to expect and what to practise explaining.  With practice you will be ready to express it well and to use the case law.