URGENT Help needed! - Discovered CCJ from PCN

Coupon-mad

Yes but see how the hearing goes and if you did feel you want to say that - ONLY AT THE END - at least object to the added £60 or £70 'fake admin fee' extortion and refuse to pay 8% interest.

I say that because most Judges would take off the £70 and the 8% interest even if you lost a case - so why just rush to agree to a hugely inflated Draft Order, when you could pay nothing (or something in between)?

You could always end the hearing without saying that, and pull the rep to one side outside and make an offer to end it.

WARNING: DO NOT DO THAT BEFOREHAND.  MOST REPS WILL ASK FOR A "QUICK WORD" IN THE WAITING ROOMS BEFORE THE HEARING.

NO.

See what your Judge decides first, it might all be dismissed on the spot.

Toyaboya2

@Coupon-mad my main concern was the CCJ staying on my record as its already been past 30 days for paying, so that it isn't included on my credit file (if I paid now, the CCJ would still stay on my credit record but as 'satisfied', which is still quite damaging for loans etc) 

So I was worried that if the judge decided to dismiss my argument, then the 'timeline' for paying off the CCJ would just continue as if nothing had happened and the CCJ would stay on my record as satisfied if I paid. Whereas if I went with the Draft Order it would be guaranteed to be wiped off. Is this correct? 

Or would the Set Aside hearing 'reset' the 30 days to pay the CCJ, even if I was unsuccessful? (so it wouldn't show on my record at all if I paid within 30 days, not even as 'satisfied' ) 

KeithP

Toyaboya2 said:

@Coupon-mad my main concern was the CCJ staying on my record as its already been past 30 days for paying, so that it isn't included on my credit file (if I paid now, the CCJ would still stay on my credit record but as 'satisfied', which is still quite damaging for loans etc)

That's right.
If you pay now or do nothing the Judgment remains on your credit file.

Toyaboya2 said:

So I was worried that if the judge decided to dismiss my argument, then the 'timeline' for paying off the CCJ would just continue as if nothing had happened and the CCJ would stay on my record as satisfied if I paid.

That too is correct.

Toyaboya2 said:

 Whereas if I went with the Draft Order it would be guaranteed to be wiped off. Is this correct? 

Only if the judge agreed to set aside the earlier Judgment, which of course depends to a great extent on how strong your argument is. I think 'guaranteed' is the wrong word to use.

Toyaboya2 said:
Or would the Set Aside hearing 'reset' the 30 days to pay the CCJ, even if I was unsuccessful? (so it wouldn't show on my record at all if I paid within 30 days, not even as 'satisfied' ) 

If your set aside attempt is unsuccessful, then the situation remains exactly as it is now.

Coupon-mad

Yes you are correct but let the Judge decide how to deal with the claim itself!  Be confident.

The claim and the CCJ are two different things.

If the claim was not served to the right address (that they knew was an old student housing address because the Claimants managed the car park didn't they?!) it is mandatory that the Judge MUST set the CCJ aside (under CPR 13.2).

I think that's the bit you aren't realising.  The Judge will set aside the CCJ due to improper service.

The judge might well ask you about your defence, are you ready for that?  You may need to convince the Judge that you have a defence re the PCN itself in order to get the CCJ set aside.  Do not say you have no idea. I think I set out what to say already...?

Concentrate on what you have to say to get the CCJ set aside.  Anything else you can decide 'on your feet' towards the end but you do have to know and verbalise a defence ready for if the Judge asks.

Toyaboya2

@Coupon-mad @KeithP

Thank you both for your answers, please could you confirm my understanding of the 3 Key areas I will have to argue and convince the judge of on Tuesday: 

1) First I need to argue that claim was not properly served as CPR 6.9(3) was not met, then CPR 13.2 applies. 

CPR 6.9(3) requires reasonable protocols to be taken where the Claimant has reason to believe that the Claimant no longer resides at the last known address 6.9(2), in my case LPS had reason to believe this because: 

- the Claimant originally found my university address through a credit 'soft' search over 6 years ago, the incident happened in a university car park, so LPS had good reason to 'guess' it was a university address and I would no longer be resident there 4 years later (when gladstone's sent the LBC) 

- Although I made contact with DRPL in 2016 from a letter sent to the university address at the time, no response from subsequent communications (NTK/ LBC etc) was reason to believe I no longer lived there. 

- Additionaly, from Gladstone's own WS, they held an alternative address for me from a credit search done in 2020. My credit file shows that the university address had not been used by me since June 2017 (bank accounts, electoral roll etc). So the Claimant knew or at least had very strong reasons to believe that I was resident at another address, why did they not send a copy of the Letter before claim to this other address they held? 

- The Claimant never bothered to send a LBC or any communication regarding the claim to my Dvla registered address of the vehicle, surely this would be the first point of call where they had reason to believe the address they held was incorrect? My DVLA address was never the University address. My dvla address was up to date at all times and I even would have received correspondence from my old DVLA address (pre 2019, different to my university address) as I have a forwarding service! 

- the Claimant breached their own code of practice with the BPA which requires them to " if no response have been received to the NTK / NTD reminder letters take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing two are correct", because the Claimant took no STEPS, they made no endeavours! 

- Again, from their own admission, the Claimant held my email address details the entire time. When they had reason to believe I was no longer resident at university address, why did they not attempt to make contact with me via email? 

- If LPS had contacted me via either email, my DVLA address or the address they found from the 'soft' credit search, the Claimant could have confirmed my service address and alerted me to the impending claim.

2) Hopefully once I have convinced the judge to set aside by CPR 13.2 from my arguments above, I will then need to argue the claim is dead and the court is bound by jurisdiction to throw it out. 

The argument is essentially: If the claim form was not validly served (CPR 6.9) the time limit for acknowledging service has not begun (CPR 10.3). If it hasn't begun it can't have expired (CPR 12. 3. If it hasn't expired that is a mandatory set aside (CPR 13.2)  

I've read the 4x cases but not 100% on how to string them into my argument (is this detailed on any threads?) from my understanding they are all basically the same in the claim forms were served outside the 4 month window and as such the claim must be pronounced dead and the court has no powers to resurrect/extend retrospectivly due to past binding precedents. I think you mention in other threads Boxwood tends to be the key one but from my understanding its mostly the same points as in Pipenbrook and Croke? 

I can also raise my arguments for successfully defending the claim at this point, which is predominantly me having a valid parking ticket at the time with photographic proof (I haven't yet put together a draft defence, as thought this would be strong enough evidence in itself, would you agree?) . 

3) I will then need to argue unreasonable conduct in order to obtain my costs (£275 fee + 10 hours @ £19 litigant in person rate) : 

I will link this back to my points in 1), Namely the claimant's failure to spend 29 pence on a soft trace pre-litigation, in clear breach of their binding Code of Practice and the CPRs when they had multiple clear reasons to believe I was no longer at the old address. 

Please could you confirm if this is the most effective structure for my arguments? Do you think I am missing anything? 

Again thank you so much 

Coupon-mad

Absolutely on the money!

Mouse007

That's excellent - for the first time I think I'm beginning to understand the mysterious voodoo world of CPR and set asides.

I'll raise you - secondary obligation and legitimate interest. Double or quits?

Toyaboya2

@Mouse007 sorry, I don't understand the question? 

Mouse007

Toyaboya2 said:

@Mouse007 sorry, I don't understand the question? 

Twas a joke not a question, in another corner of this dark paradise we are fighting against the question of penalty clauses in contracts. Those that allow or not the £100 parking charge. Is it a penalty or not? The deep question which took 7 Law Lords to decide upon.

You have done well to understand your corner, I was just in the opposite end of the room and appreciated your commentary.

Toyaboya2

@Mouse007 well glad I could help my knowledge is an accumulation of many threads before me, which are being assisted by a few helpful angels around here