UKPC PCN Fine/CCJ - please advise

rodriguez51

Coupon-mad said:

So they made two separate claims?  That is a clear abuse of the court process and Henderson v Henderson* needs adding to your WS argument, each one cross-referencing the other claim number.

* search the forum.

Get your N244 and WS and evidence emailed to the CCBC fees email address mentioned in those other threads, ideally by Monday morning (and ring up to pay the 2 fees)  or you are going to look so late applying that you will get refused.

Yes thats right. The first fine was on 05/11 and the other two 27/11 and 29/11. When I spoke to the court the guy was confused himself, he explained the debtors have filed two into one ccj which I'm assuming is the two at the end of the month and one alone separately. I will add it to my argument if it applies here

I'm sorry this is all new to me what is 'WS'? Also can I get my fees back if the CCJ is set aside?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Acronyms are all explained in the 5th post of the NEWBIES FAQS thread that you really need to read because the second post covers CCJ set asides and already answers all your questions.

rodriguez51

Coupon-mad said:

Acronyms are all explained in the 5th post of the NEWBIES FAQS thread that you really need to read because the second post covers CCJ set asides and already answers all your questions.

Thanks Coupon,

I've been reading through it but I dont see anything about applying with or without consent. Should I request consent from the claimant to set aside the CCJ as that apparently looks better in the defence and also saves money on the set aside fee

Coupon-mad

You should ask them but that costs more (in money and in terms of feeling mugged) as it would undoubtedly involve paying them, and not defending the case.

AND the court might still refuse. There has to be a reason in law to set aside a CCJ; consent of both parties is not a shoo-in.

Now read threads by:

@Brokenchief

@Jack5656

@msx999

rodriguez51

Coupon-mad said:

You should ask them but that costs more (in money and un terms of feeling mugged) as it would undoubtedly involve paying them, and not defending the case.

AND the court might still refuse. There has to be a reason in law to set aside a CCJ; consent of both parties is not a shoo-in.

Now read threads by:

@Brokenchief

@Jack5656

@msx999

I would rather not pay them a single penny so I assume no consent would be the better option.

I am reading through all of them, however its pages and pages information to absorb and its bit confusing.

From what I understand here the best defense in my favour

- The CCJ claims and judgment forms were sent to a former address. I had no knowledge of court action

-The vehicle at the time while offically under my name was not mine at the time of charge. I retroactively notified and updated the dvla records and have documents stating I de-registered the car before the time of the incidents.

I have tax and insurance records for the car i actually owned at the time.

- After my appeal to POPLA they requested proof but by time the DVLA sent me my updated records the deadline had past.

- Henderson vs Henderson disputing multiple CCJ's

Is there anything else I might not see that can help? Does the 4 months dead argument apply in my case?

Also in terms of formatting the applications, do I write out the WS into the application and then submit a DO seperately in a word document? Should I do a Skeleton argument?

Sorry for the questions just want to get my ducks in a row. Thank you again for your help so far!

rodriguez51

After reading a bunch of other peoples experiences and statements and racking my brains I've put this WS together.

Is this okay? I think it has covered most bases

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

I am XXX and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated XXX requesting to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated XXX, as it was not properly served at my current address.

b. Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

c. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.

d. I also reference a further separate claim for default judgment XXX in which I have made separate N244 applications to the court, as this too was not properly served at my current address, both issued by the same claimant for substantially similar particulars of claim.

e. In order to save the court and both parties time I politely request the court for one single hearing for all the above claims.

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1.1.  I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

However I was not the owner or driver at the time of the event. As I had work commitments, the vehicle sale was supervised by a relative who did not change the ownership.

1.2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on XXX. I am aware that the Claimant is UK PARKING CONTROL Ltd, and that the assumed claim is in respect of unpaid Parking Charge Notices.

1.3. The claim form was not served at my current address, and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgment following a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd.

The address on the claim is XXX. I was living at my current address at the time of the event at XXX. In support of this, I can provide a copy of my bank statements and an Experian Credit report showing my address listed at XXX if required.

1.4. In addition to the above, it should be highlighted that the integrity and law-abiding intention of the Defendant should be taken into consideration on the basis that;

1.4.1 I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the XXX.

1.4.2 On XXX, I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgment.

1.4.3 XXX I have willfully submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.

1.5. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s correct contact details at the time of the claim.

1.6. On that basis, I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address that the Defendant no longer resides. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of my current residence. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an old address and an irregular judgment.

1.6.2 I also refer to 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.

1.6.3 The defendant was 'there to be found' for the sake of a 29 pence bulk Experian trace or similar very inexpensive and immediate credit reference agency address check. If the claimant had used the address details from a credit reference agency address check, I would have been notified of this judgment and could have acted to prevent it.

1.6.4 I updated DVLA promptly and they updated my records on XXX confirming I was no longer the keeper of the vehicle after the date of sale XXX. I also requested details of the buyer so I could direct the claimant to them however due to data protection they would not divulge the information. If the claimant were to contact the DVLA with the appropriate probable cause I would assume the information would be made available to them.

1.7 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. The Defendant has no details of this claim, therefore, 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 XXX.

1.8 The Claimant has issued a further claim, XXX against the Defendant with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The issuing of two claims in a less than 4 weeks, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. 

1.8.1 In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:
(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”  I politely request the court to consolidate the further four claims to be determined all together at one hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant for filing five single claims.

1.8.2 The filing of two separate claims for duplicated parking charges is wholly unreasonable, and has cost the Defendant a hugely disproportionate £550. The Claimant should have brought their whole case as one single claim and should have checked the address before filing the claim as required under the Civil Procedure Rules and BPA CoP 23.1c. 

1.9. According to publicly available information, my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses of results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. 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.” Furtherance to points raised in 1.3 above.

1.10. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgment against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fees of £275 from the claimant should this request be successful, or a total of £550 should the Court agree to one single hearing for both claims.

Coupon-mad

Not "wilfully"!  Google it.

I wish people would stop copying that incorrect word that someone years ago thought meant something it doesn't!

In support of this, I can provide a copy of my bank statements and an Experian Credit report showing my address listed at XXX if required.

No. You must attach these now as numbered exhibits.  All pages must be numbered, too.

And change your numbering to normal sequential numbers instead.

And you need a DRAFT ORDER.  As seen in the recent threads I linked for you.  Stop reading the old one with the word 'wilfully' in it.

Plus, add in a paragraph about the BPA Code of Practice clause that requires AOS members to check address details (with a CRA soft trace) before issuing a LBC.

You will find that wording already written by Brokenchief in his skeleton argument (if his case was about a BPA member).  He provides links to the case law you will need for your (later) skeleton argument about '4 months dead'.

Le_Kirk

rodriguez51 said:

1.1.  I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, however I was not the owner or driver at the time of the event. As I had work commitments, the vehicle sale was supervised by a relative who did not change the ownership.

1.4. In addition to the above, it should be highlighted that the my integrity and law-abiding intention of the Defendant should be taken into consideration on the basis that;

1.4.1 I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto ..........

1.4.3 XXX I have willfully willingly submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.

1.6.3 The defendant I was 'there to be found' for the sake of a 29 pence bulk Experian trace or similar very inexpensive and immediate credit reference agency address check. If the claimant had used the address details from a credit reference agency address check, I would have been notified of this judgment court claim and could have acted to prevent defended it.

1.7 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 I submits that this particular claim is dead and the period for service cannot be extended by this application process. The Defendant has I have no details of this claim, therefore, if the Claimant believes there is a cause of action then the correct procedure would be to file a fresh 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 my correct address for service for this Defendant, which is XXX.

1.8 The Claimant has issued a further claim, XXX against the Defendant me with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The issuing of two claims in a less than 4 weeks, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. 

Some suggestions above. Willfully/willingly already covered by @Coupon-mad.  This is a witness statement and is written in the first person so "defendant" becomes "I".

rodriguez51

Coupon-mad said:

Not "wilfully"!  Google it.

I wish people would stop copying that incorrect word that someone years ago thought meant something it doesn't!

In support of this, I can provide a copy of my bank statements and an Experian Credit report showing my address listed at XXX if required.

No. You must attach these now as numbered exhibits.  All pages must be numbered, too.

And change your numbering to normal sequential numbers instead.

And you need a DRAFT ORDER.  As seen in the recent threads I linked for you.  Stop reading the old one with the word 'wilfully' in it.

Plus, add in a paragraph about the BPA Code of Practice clause that requires AOS members to check address details (with a CRA soft trace) before issuing a LBC.

You will find that wording already written by Brokenchief in his skeleton argument (if his case was about a BPA member).  He provides links to the case law you will need for your (later) skeleton argument about '4 months dead'.

No problem. Pages have been numbered and I will get a statement of truth at the end too. I will attach any address evidence as an appendix at the bottom of the statement.

Added the BPA line in to 1.6.3 (now simply 11) as it relates well.

Le_Kirk said:

Some suggestions above. Willfully/willingly already covered by @Coupon-mad.  This is a witness statement and is written in the first person so "defendant" becomes "I".

Noted, it just sounded better than repeating "I" or "Myself" every time. I will change it if its jeopardising the statement

thank you Le_kirk

Revised draft:

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

I am XXX and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated XXX requesting to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated XXX, as it was not properly served at my current address.

b. Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

c. Order for the claimant to pay the £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.

d. I also reference a further separate claim for default judgment XXX in which I have made separate N244 applications to the court, as this too was not properly served at my current address, both issued by the same claimant for substantially similar particulars of claim.

e. In order to save the court and both parties time I politely request the court for one single hearing for all the above claims.

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1.      I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

However I was not the owner or driver at the time of the event. As I had work commitments, the vehicle sale was supervised by a relative who did not change the ownership.

2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on XXX. I am aware that the Claimant is UK PARKING CONTROL Ltd, and that the assumed claim is in respect of unpaid Parking Charge Notices.

3. The claim form was not served at my current address, and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgment following a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd.

The address on the claim is XXX I was living at my current address at the time of the event at XXX. In support of this, I can provide a copy of my bank statements and an Experian Credit report showing my address listed at XXX if required. Please see Appendix A & B displayed on page 4.

4. In addition to the above, it should be highlighted that the integrity and law-abiding intention of the Defendant should be taken into consideration on the basis that;

5. I discovered a CCJ lodged against me on the XXX.

6. On the XXX, I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgment.

7. I have willingly submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.

8. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held my correct contact details at the time of the claim.

9. On that basis, I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address that I no longer reside. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of my current residence. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an old address and an irregular judgment.

10. I also refer to 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.

11. BPA Code of Practice clause that requires AOS members to check address details (with a CRA soft trace) before issuing a LBC. My actual address was 'there to be found' for the sake of a 29 pence bulk Experian trace or similar very inexpensive and immediate credit reference agency address check. If the claimant had used the address details from a credit reference agency address check, I would have been notified of this judgment and could have acted to prevent it.

12. I updated DVLA promptly and they updated my records on XXX confirming I was no longer the keeper of the vehicle after the date of sale XXX. I also requested details of the buyer so I could direct the claimant to them however due to data protection they would not divulge the information. If the claimant were to contact the DVLA with the appropriate probable cause I would assume the information would be made available to them.

13. 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) I submit that this particular claim is dead and the period for service cannot be extended by this application process. I have no details of this claim, therefore, 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 me with the information required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, issued this time to the correct address for service for myself, which is XXX.

14. The Claimant has issued a further claim, XXX against myself with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The issuing of two claims in a less than 4 weeks, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. 

15. In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:
(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”  I politely request the court to consolidate the further four claims to be determined all together at one hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant for filing five single claims.

16. The filing of two separate claims for duplicated parking charges is wholly unreasonable, and has cost me a hugely disproportionate £550. The Claimant should have brought their whole case as one single claim and should have checked the address before filing the claim as required under the Civil Procedure Rules and BPA CoP 23.1c. 

17. According to publicly available information, my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses of results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. 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.” Furtherance to points raised above.

18. Considering the above, I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgment against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fees of £275 from the claimant should this request be successful, or a total of £550 should the Court agree to one single hearing for both claims.

I believe that the facts stated in this case are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

signed

XXX…………………………………………….
[Name of the Claimant] or
[The Claimant’s Litigation Friend, [insert name] ] [date]

DRAFT ORDER
CLAIM No: XXX
BETWEEN:
UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED  (Claimant)
-- and --
XXX (Defendant)
______________________________________________
DRAFT ORDER
______________________________________________

IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The default judgment dated on XXX be set aside.
2. Costs to be reserved.  - (Is this the correct wording for requesting set aside fee returned?)
3. Unless the Claimant serves a copy of the claim form on the Defendant by 4pm on XX/XX/22 paragraph 1.2 shall cease to have effect and the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £275 and the claim shall be struck out.  - (what dates should go into this?)

4. Should the Claimant discontinue the Claim after the CCJ is set aside, paragraph 1.2 shall cease to have effect and the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £275
5. All enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.

As usual everyone is extremely supportive, means a lot thanks again.

1505grandad

Para 1.9  -  "The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses (of) results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country."

Is (of) rrquired?

"1.1.  I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged (offence)."

I would use "parking event" instead of (this)  -  there is no crime involved.

"As I had work commitments, the vehicle sale was supervised by a relative who did not change the "(ownership)"

Should (this) be "Registered keeper"?  -  the only address DVLA is the RK