CCJ served at wrong address - SORN vehicle

parkingpains1

Thank you. Ok, I’m still a bit confused. If the the ccj was not served at the dvla traces address (but instead served at an address they credit traced me to) does that make the paras about the dvla in the skeleton argument invalid? Or if the judge questions why the v5 wasn’t updated is it useful to have as a back up argument?

parkingpains1

@B789 sorry I didn’t tag you in the above. 

B789

Without reading back through the whole thread, you should leave the DVLA argument in. All that is pointing out is that they cannot rely solely on the DVLA address if they have had no response to any correspondence. Their CoP even tells them not to rely solely on the DVLA RK address. They will have applied to the DVLA at some point soon after issuing the parking event in order to get the RK details so they can then send their PCN out.

If the RK moves and fails to update their V5C details or sells the car or even if the RK address is not a residential address, there is a high probability that correspondence will not reach the RK. The claimant is obliged to perform a credit reference search which will more than likely show up a more up to date address for the RK because many people update their drivers licence details with the DVLA they forget or are unaware that they also have to update their V5C.

If a judge asks you why you didn't update your V5C (assuming the parking event took place after a home move) you state that it was an oversight and that you were there to be found for the sake of a credit reference search  which would cost the PPC less than 50p because everything else about you, electoral roll, utility company, bank etc. details were updated.

Coupon-mad

parkingpains1 said:

Thank you. Ok, I’m still a bit confused. If the the ccj was not served at the dvla traces address (but instead served at an address they credit traced me to) does that make the paras about the dvla in the skeleton argument invalid? Or if the judge questions why the v5 wasn’t updated is it useful to have as a back up argument?

You need to change the wording to make it make sense.  I knew they'd used a CRA because you told us they had traced the middle address.

You need to change the wording to say they would have had no response from the middle address but then filed a claim there anyway, instead of carrying out an up to date CRA 'bulk trace' for 28 pence immediately prior to the claim. They'd have found the right address because all bank and phone account details, council tax and utility bills (all or some of which would have shown up on a timely CRA check) had been updated to the third address for months.

parkingpains1

@Coupon-mad 
Ok, thanks, I will add that. 

So are you saying, remove all of the DVLA stuff and replace it with the above? 

Not sure whether to keep the below incase the judge asks if we updated the V5 - then we can reference that they couldn't have used that to find anything more than the first address anyway?
 

3. DVLA address data may not be accurate. DVLA data is provided for a single (very limited) reason, so a parking operator can invite the keeper to name the driver or to pay, or to inform the keeper they will be liable if not, and about their right to appeal.

3.2. The system is called 'KADOE' (Keeper On Date of Event) because it is a brief 'snapshot in time' address to enable a parking firm to send a Notice. Operators are only allowed to ask the DVLA once, hence the code of practice requires reasonable steps are taken to check address details are current before litigation. Even if a motorist later updated a VC5 logbook with a new address (or if the DVLA failed to note a change in a timely manner, which is reportedly common) a parking operator will not know, nor be able to find that out.

Coupon-mad

Yes keep that.

Show us your next draft.

parkingpains1

@Coupon-mad here is the updated version...

Thanks!

—-----------------------------------------

SKELETON ARGUMENT

—-----------------------------------------

1 Under 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. As the defendant did not give an address to the claimant at which the claim could be served at (because the defendant was not asked), CPR 6.9 applies. CPR 6.9 stipulates that an "Individual" should be served at their "Usual or last known residence."

2. 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.  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 XX.

2.2 There are several authorities for this, including the judgment in Boxwood [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC)1 , which is a reminder of the strictness of the requirements of CPR 7.6 and how difficult it is to use other parts of the Civil Procedure Rules to rectify a failure to serve the claim form within the requisite period: “A claimant is not entitled to rely on the wide, general powers under CPR 3.10 or CPR 3.9 to circumvent the specific conditions set out in CPR 7.6(3) for extending the period for service of a claim form.

2.3 In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 2 the Court of Appeal considered whether any extension of time should be granted under CPR 7.6 in circumstances where the defendant had been notified of the issue of a claim form but the claim form had not been served within four months as required by CPR 7.5 and the application was made after expiry of that period. The court refused to grant relief on the basis that it did not have power to do so.

2.4 In judgment of Deputy Master Marsh in Croke & Anor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch) 3 the claimant was one day late in properly serving the Particulars of Claim to the Defendant and the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was refused. In section 65 of the transcript of the trial Deputy Master Marsh stated “The defendants were entitled to know within the four month period specified in the CPR whether a claim had been made against them and to be able to understand that claim. [...] Unless an extension of time is granted, the claim will cease to have any validity and will be struck out." 

2.5 In Piepenbrock-v-Associated News Limited [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB) 4  the High Court refused the Claimant’s application for a retrospective extension of time to serve a Claim Form after the Claimant failed to demonstrate they took all reasonable steps to serve the Claim form in the period of its validity.

“Ultimately, the problem was that the Claimant had made no attempt to serve in accordance with the rules…Although I sympathise with the Claimant that the consequences for him of the error of not validly serving the Claim Form will be serious, there is nothing that really separates his case from many others who have made similar mistakes when attempting to serve a Claim Form…I am afraid, in this case, the responsibility for the failure validly to serve the Claim Form rests solely with the Claimant’s side…

In light of my conclusions above, having refused the applications made under CPR 7.6, 6.15 and 6.16, there is not a residual self-standing power available under CPR 3.9 to relieve the claimant of the “sanction” that, as a result of his failure to validly to serve the Claim Form during its period of validity, it has now lapsed. The term “sanction” is inapt because it would, in theory, be possible for the Claimant to issue and validly serve a fresh Claim Form. The obstacle standing in the way of a claim is not any sanction imposed by the Court but the fact that the limitation period for defamation and malicious falsehood has expired…

Finally, the Claimant seeks an order under CPR 3.10 remedying his error in not validly serving the Claim Form. The Defendants submit that CPR 3.10 cannot rescue the Claimant. This general provision does not enable the Court to do what CPR 7.6(3) forbids: Vinos -v- Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784; [2001] CP Rep 12 [20].”

Mr Justice Nicklin concluded, “The Claim Form was not served during its period of validity. In consequence, the Court has no jurisdiction over the Claimant’s claim. It follows that I should also formally dismiss the Claimant’s application for summary judgment.”

3. The Defendent believes that the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address at which I no longer reside. The Claimant would have had no response from XX (ADDRESS 2) but then filed a claim there anyway, instead of carrying out an up to date CRA 'bulk trace' for 28 pence immediately prior to the claim. Had the Claimant carried out an up to date CRA ‘bulk trace’ they would have found the correct address (XX ADDRESS 3) due to the fact that utility bills, council tax and mortgage agreement had been updated to this address for months.

3.1 The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of my current residence despite having some 11 months to establish an address. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an old address and an irregular judgment.

4. DVLA address data may not be accurate. DVLA data is provided for a single (very limited) reason, so a parking operator can invite the keeper to name the driver or to pay, or to inform the keeper they will be liable if not, and about their right to appeal.

4.1. The system is called 'KADOE' (Keeper On Date of Event) because it is a brief 'snapshot in time' address to enable a parking firm to send a Notice. Operators are only allowed to ask the DVLA once, hence the code of practice requires reasonable steps are taken to check address details are current before litigation. Even if a motorist later updated a VC5 logbook with a new address (or if the DVLA failed to note a change in a timely manner, which is reportedly common) a parking operator will not know, nor be able to find that out.

5.  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.”

Coupon-mad

Remove 'I' and 'my' because it's not a signed WS.  Put 'the Defendant's'

parkingpains1

@Coupon-mad
Thanks - removed those. All good to go? 

The other thing we just noticed reviewing the info from the SAR is that the Ticket Reminders only seem to have gone to Address 1 and not Address 2. Any idea why they would trace us to that address and not send reminders, or why they wouldn't show all correspondence in the SAR?



And does this look ok for the Cost Summary?

—-----------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF COSTS

—-----------------------------------------

Ordinary Costs

Loss of earnings through attendance at court hearing : £95.00

N244 submission fee: £275

Sub-total £370

Coupon-mad

Because by that time they wanted £160//£170 and so it's not in their interests to re-send benign £100 reminders!