CCJ served at wrong address - SORN vehicle

Coupon-mad

parkingpains1 said:

@1505grandad
Thank you! I'll update those straight away!

What stage are you at now please?

parkingpains1

Hi @Coupon-mad. So sorry, I don't think I received a notification that you'd posted a question to me. 

We've received a court date for late March a few days before Christmas (they kept moving our case from court to court), but this morning received an email from DCBL saying the follow (also included was a consent order form):

-------

Within your application you allege that the Claim Form was served at your previous address and as such, you did not have an opportunity to respond.

It is the Claimant’s position that the Claim Form was correctly served at your last known address pursuant to CPR 6.9. Pursuant to CPR 6.9(3), the Claimant took all reasonable steps to ascertain your current address by conducting a trace and this trace result provided the Claimant with ‘knowledge’ of the address in which the Claim Form was served.

Despite the above, our Client has taken a commercial view and asked that we propose the enclosed Consent Order; in which Judgment would be set aside, providing the debt and court fee for the Consent Order are paid in full.

If you agree to the enclosed and the same is sealed by a Judge, the registration of the Judgment will be removed from your credit file by the Registry Trust and will no longer negatively impact your credit rating. It will also conclude your liability to our Client in respect of this claim.

If agreed, payment of Judgment sum of £333.84, plus £108.00 Consent Order fee (total of £441.84) is to be made by no later than 27/01/2023 to the below account: -

----

Obviously we're keen to get rid of the CCJ as quickly as possible (although don't particularly want to pay them!) as we need to improve credit rating asap. What would you normally recommend in this situation?

Thanks in advance

Mouse007

I'm going to refer you straight to the last 2 posts of this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6397096/help-with-ccj-set-aside-vs-capital-car-park-control/p3

Don't do it.

Fruitcake

Seconded. 

Do not pay it.

parkingpains1

Hi @Coupon-mad

As mentioned, our court date is late March and we have received the following from DCBL this morning (this has been sent to the court, but a copy sent to us).

------------------

We write in relation to the above matter wherein we are instructed to act on behalf of the Claimant.

We have received the Defendant’s Application and note the content.

Despite the allegations raised by the Defendant, it is confirmed that an address verification trace was conducted via a leading credit reference agency before the Claim was issued. This obtained the Defendant’s current/last known address, and therefore the Claim was issued there in compliance with CPR 6.9. Despite the correct service, the Claimant is agreeable to setting Judgment aside as it is more than likely that the Defendant did not receive the Claim Form and therefore they were unable to respond. Please see a Draft Order enclosed.

The Defendant’s costs are denied in their entirety and the Defendant is put to strict proof.

We respectfully excuse our Client’s attendance at the hearing on xx March 2023. This is meant with no disrespect to the Court, but is a decision made to save incurring any further costs. 

-------

DRAFT ORDER

Before District Judge ___________________________

CLAIMANT

DEFENDANT

Upon considering the Defendant’s application, and the Claimant’s submissions, it is hereby ordered as follows:-

1. The Judgment dated 30/12/2021 is set aside;

2. The Defendant do file a Defence within 14 days of this Order;

3. The Claimant be at liberty to enter Judgment against the Defendant should they fail to comply with paragraph ii of this Order; and

iv. No Order as to costs. 

------

From what I understand of the above, they are admitting that we did not receive the Claim Form and are happy to set aside, rather than go to court (and that they are asking us/the court to agree to no costs to them)? 

I understand that by agreeing to this we will lose the court fee, but am keen to get this resolved asap, without the stress of court. Although I'm not sure what is required for the below...

1. The Defendant do file a Defence within 14 days of this Order;

It would be interesting to get your thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

B789

parkingpains1 said:
From what I understand of the above, they are admitting that we did not receive the Claim Form and are happy to set aside, rather than go to court (and that they are asking us/the court to agree to no costs to them)? 

I understand that by agreeing to this we will lose the court fee, but am keen to get this resolved asap, without the stress of court. Although I'm not sure what is required for the below...

1. The Defendant do file a Defence within 14 days of this Order;

It would be interesting to get your thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

They are admitting that there is a possibility you weren't served correctly which means that the set-aside is highly likely to be ordered. They know they are on thin ice and, as per their previous offer, they keep reducing what they'll accept from you.

What the above order says is that they agree to set aside the CCJ and that you file a defence to the original claim within 14 days so they can file the claim again with the clock reset. So, yes, you'll lose the £275 N244 fee AND you will still have to defend the original claim.

You have come this far and you can see that they are on shaky ground and are backpedalling but are still trying to get you to poop your pants and pay up. Are you really going to just give up?

If you see this through, at worst, you will be back to square one with an outstanding claim but no CCJ and a chance you lose your N244 application fee or much more likely, if you have the moral fortitude to see this through, No CCJ, your £275 paid back to you and a very high probability of the original claim being dismissed.

You have a strong case for your set-aside. You are dealing with DCB Legal who are bottom-dwelling scum with a record of discontinuance and public spankings in almost all contested claims that reach court. The only ones they ever seem to "win" are those that they sneak through, like your was originally, and are not defended and so win by default.

Coupon-mad

Refuse and tell them you want your costs and NOT to file that Order with the court because it is not agreed and will not be signed.

We've seen this before.

They know you will get the CCJ set aside so they are trying to leave you to shoulder the £275 that otherwise mist Judges will award against them.

There is nothing in this for you.  Refuse it.

parkingpains1

Hi @B789 and @Coupon-mad, 

Thank you for your messages. 

I'm just trying to get my head around everything. 

@B789
When you say: 
What the above order says is that they agree to set aside the CCJ and that you file a defence to the original claim within 14 days so they can file the claim again with the clock reset. So, yes, you'll lose the £275 N244 fee AND you will still have to defend the original claim.
When they/you reference filing a defence to the original claim, would this be the parking ticket, rather than the CCJ?

Please could one of you direct me to the best thread to read about preparing for court, from what I've read on other threads the judge is more interested in the CCJ itself, rather than the reason for not paying the original PCN, is that correct? We don't really have any defence as to why we didn't pay the parking ticket, so a bit worried about this.

Thanks again. 

Le_Kirk

After the CCJ is set aside, you will  have to defend the original (underlying) claim/ticket.
If you mean preparing for the actual hearing, this is often posted by @KeithP, if you mean preparing your actual witness statement, draft order and underlying defence, just search the forum using the word "set-aside" in the search box and, for the "Sort by" select "newest", you will find some threads by posters in the same position as you.

Coupon-mad

You DO need a defence to the alleged breach.

Tell us what it is. What happened? Why the PCN?