We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Default CCJ - VCS used wrong address even if I emailed them the correct one
Comments
-
I'm not sure I agree.... It simply says no costs orders have been made, not that a party will not be entitled to one.
It effectively states that a separate hearing is needed solely to address the costs of unreasonable behaviour, if asked to do so.
It does not say a new application is required.6 -
Thank you @Coupon-mad and @Johnersh for your help in decoding the letter as I'm not sure how to read such letters.
For now, until there is a formal notice of discontinuance, I proceed from the assumption that there will be a hearing for the whole case. Just to make sure I'll be prepared for all eventualities and can file and serve my bundles in time if needed. The hearing is listed on 28 April, and because I'll be travelling in April, I'll have to file and serve by 3 April.
And, in any case, I need to put together a package that details the history of the process to demonstrate the Claimant's unreasonable behaviour for a potential cost hearing or a future Claim. (and to share it when the time of consultation comes).
Making a complaint about the solicitor's misleading statements is still on my to-do list as it's been super busy. But I'll take another look in a few days' time. if you remember or can point to any other cases/threads where Elms Legal has filed misleading consent orders, do me know. I'll do a quick search as well once I start drafting the letter.2 -
I drafted a letter to RSA to report the ELMS filing behaviour and will submit it tomorrow. Let me know if I should add or remove anything.
---I am writing to report ELMS Legal Ltd.’s irregular filing practices to prevent them from misleading the Court in the future.
ELMS misrepresented my position by filing ‘consent order’ I had not agreed to when they acted as Solicitors for the Claimant, Vehicle Control Services Ltd, in the case where I was the Defendant. They also chose not to follow the Court’s filing instructions leaving the Defendant’s documents not filed without informing the Defendant.
I ask the Solicitors Regulation Authority to address this matter 1) to prevent ELMS Legal from filing misleading ‘consent orders’ that mispresent defendants’ positions, and 2) to urge them to adhere to the Court’s filing instructions, especially if and when they do not inform the other parties about their intentions to deviate.
The course of events is summarised below.
Background
Vehicle Control Services (the Claimant) had obtained a default County Court Judgement (CCJ) against me (the Defendant) for an alleged parking contravention, even if I provided the Claimant with my current and serviceable address on the day of the alleged contravention and the Claimant acknowledged having received it. For some reason, the Claimant had sent all correspondence and the claim form to an unserviceable address, which resulted in a CCJ in default. I learned about this from the debt collectors.
I tried to resolve the matter with the Claimant and their Solicitors ELMS Legal, but I received no response from them. In the absence of a response, I applied (N244) for a set aside without consent, paying £275 in application fees.
Instructions and Events Leading Up to the Set-Aside Hearing
My application was listed for hearing on 18 January 2023. The listing letter (Exhibit A) instructed the parties as follows:
DIRECTIONS ON FILING OF TRIAL BUNDLES
Failure to comply with these directions may result in the matter being removed from the list without further warning.
- The parties should seek to agree an indexed, paginated electronic trial bundle and any indexed paginated electronic authorities bundle; and
- One party (which shall be the Claimant in default of agreement otherwise) shall email to the Court enquiries.oxford.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and the other parties no less than 3 days and no more than 7 days before the hearing date either the electronic bundles), or a link to a secure server where the electronic bundle(s) may be accessed.
Soon after the listing, the Solicitors for the Claimant became very active and contacted me proposing to agree for the Judgement be set aside, but without no order to costs and the Claim to be allocated to the small claims track. They called to voice mail, emailed, and followed up on whether I would agree to their proposal as can be seen in Exhibit B.
I did not agree to the small claims track and no order to costs, although I agreed to the set-aside. Because the claim had not been served within four months, the case should have been struck out and the costs ordered to compensate the Defendant’s losses. Thus, their proposal was against my interests.
As you can see from the email exchange (Exhibit B.), I informed the Solicitors on 3 January 2023 that I did not agree or consent to their proposal, and that I would send my trial bundle to them so that they can file all documents to the Court in one go as the Court had instructed in the listing letter. On 5 January 2023, they responded “Thank you for your email and for confirming this. We will be serving our documents on yourself and the court shortly.” But they did not file or serve their documents at this juncture.
I submitted my trial bundle to the Solicitors on 9 January 2023. I also asked them to confirm if they plan to file all documents as per the Court’s instructions and if they were planning to share their documents with me. They did not reply, so I presumed they would follow the Court’s instructions.
ELMS Legal Files a Misleading Consent Order
On 10 January, the Solicitors filed only one document to the Court, and that one document was a ‘consent order’ I had explicitly not consented or agreed to. In doing so, they did not file my trial bundles or materials.
The Solicitors’ email (Exhibit C) to the Court states “Please find attached the consent order that we request be placed on file in preparation of the above hearing listed for 18 January 2023. A copy has been sent to the defendant also.” However, this was the first time I learned about the ‘consent order’.
They grossly misrepresented my position and intentions by filing a ‘consent order’ without my consent. The ‘consent order’ submitted by the Solicitors (Exhibit C) misleadingly states “Upon the Parties having consented and agreed to the terms set out below:-“, and proceeds to list the points of order I explicitly had not agreed to. In addition, they had typed my name under the ordered points. The letter was dated 5 January, two days after I expressed my disagreement with their proposal, but, for some reason, they chose not to share the document or their intentions with me before filing it to the Court.
Whilst filing the misleading ‘consent order’, they did not file my trial bundle and authorities. The listing letter clearly instructs that “One party (which shall be the Claimant in default of agreement otherwise) shall email to the Court”, but for some reason the Solicitors decided not to follow the Court’s instructions and also not to inform me about their intentions to deviate.
From the perspective of a law-abiding citizen, the Solicitors' behaviour is unreasonable. It cannot be right to mislead the Court by filing a ‘consent order’ that misrepresents the other party’s position. Similarly, it cannot be right to ignore the Court’s instructions and not file the other party’s materials without prior agreement.
The Defendant’s Corrective Action
On 10 January 2023, when I noticed the Solicitors’ misleading behaviour, I took immediate action and informed the Court that the documents filed by the Solicitors misled the Court by misrepresenting my position. I also filed my trial bundles and authorities without further delay. See Exhibit D, which was also included in the Defendant’s trial bundle.
I did this to ensure that my hearing will not be inadvertently vacated on the grounds that the parties had allegedly found an agreement. I have also been informed about a previous recent case in the public domain where a hearing was vacated in relation to a misleading ‘consent order’ filed by ELMS Legal.
The Claimant Discontinued the Case after the Set-Aside
In the hearing, the CCJ was set aside, and the Judge ordered the Claimant to serve an amended claim form and the Defendant to file and serve his defence. Subsequently, the claim was to be allocated to the small claims track and the costs to be ordered in the subsequent hearing.
Once the second hearing was listed, the Claimant resolved to send some threatening letters, urging the Defendant to pay and settle, only to discontinue the case soon after – probably because the claim was baseless to begin with.
The costs are yet to be ordered, and the Defendant will seek the costs on an indemnity basis following the Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour throughout the process.
Requested Action
I ask the Solicitors Regulation Authority to address this matter 1) to prevent the ELMS Legal from filing misleading ‘consent orders’ that misrepresents defendants’ positions, and 2) to urge them to adhere to the Court’s filing instructions, in particular when they do not inform other parties about their intentions to deviate.
Misrepresenting the other party’s position along with a non-compliant filing can mislead and pervert the course of justice. In this case, I managed to intervene to make sure that my position will secure a fair hearing, but it cannot be right for Solicitors to try to prevent that from happening.
0 -
SRA you mean. Good idea to try this.
I'd remove this paragraph as the first phrase is wrong (you didn't object to 'the small claims track') and without this paragraph I think the rest reads better:I did not agree to the small claims track and no order to costs, although I agreed to the set-aside. Because the claim had not been served within four months, the case should have been struck out and the costs ordered to compensate the Defendant’s losses. Thus, their proposal was against my interests.What is happening about your £275?
Have you emailed the local court Judge to Order that the Reserved Costs be paid to you (if they were reserved by the first trial Judge)?
If there has been a Discontinuance now, you cannot labour under any assumption that there will be a hearing. The costs box is closed unless you open it.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD3 -
A heads-up - there is no middle "e" in Judgment in this context - Google CCJ4
-
Thank you both @Coupon-mad and @1505grandad - I removed the paragraph, fixed the typos, and sent the report and attachments to SRA.
Also, as I received earlier this week another discontinuation letter from VCS. The notice of discontinuance was dated 14 February 2023 like the previous one, and there is line that says "I certify that I have served a copy of this notice on every other party to the proceedings." So I presume the letter should have reached the Court as well. I will email/call to the Court to see if this is the case.
1 -
I emailed the Court a few days ago to see if my case is live or dead, but I'm yet to receive any answer - and I didn't have time to call then. So, I'll be writing my witness statement, exhibits, and schedule of costs over the weekend to file and serve them on Monday, to be on the safe side.
I'm planning to structure my witness statement as per the outline below and refer to CPR 27.14 for unreasonable behaviour, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for wrongly obtained address, and then to points of the standard defence template for the lack of contractual basis and escalation of charges. Anything else I should consider?
Also, do I need to include a draft order and skeleton argument? Will it put it put me in bad position if I miss either or both of them? But perhaps I should include somewhere at least what sort of order I hope the Judge to make.
----1. This witness statement covers events from 29 August 2021 to 31 March 2023. It lays out the Claimant’s and their Solicitor’s unreasonable behaviour and vexatious litigation along with the evidence and defence against the alleged parking contravention.
2. This witness statement includes the materials previously presented as part of the N244 appeal package and set-aside hearing bundles. It also details the poor signage at the site of the alleged contravention and the Claimant’s irregular filings leading up to and following the set-aside hearing, leading to a notice of discontinuation. This statement proceeds in six parts.
a. The lack of appropriate signage at the site of the alleged contravention voids the alleged contractual basis.
b. The Claimant’s failure to use the Defendant’s current address, even if they acknowledged having received it from the Defendant and had it all along. Instead, they obtained a wrong party from a 3rd party without a legitimate reason and pursued a claim with an invalid address depriving the Defendant of an opportunity to appeal or defend himself in the Court, thus leading to a Judgment in default which was eventually set aside.
c. The Claimant’s vexatious litigation and filing irregularities. The Claimant did not respond to the Defendant’s request to appeal to set aside the wrongly entered Judgment with consent, so he applied for a set-aside without consent and that was listed for hearing. Leading up to the hearing, the Solicitors for the Claimant blatantly misrepresented the Defendant’s position to the Court. They filed a ‘consent order’ to which the Defendant had explicitly not consented, regardless of their multiple emails. They also left the Defendant’s trial bundle and authorities not filed, thus not following the Court’s filing instructions. A complaint has been filed with the Solicitors Regulation Authority about their behaviour.
d. The Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour after the set-aside hearing. Following the filing and serving of an amended Claim form and the Defendant’s defence, the Claimant first sent threatening letters urging the Defendant to pay and settle, but this was soon followed by a notice of discontinuation. However, the notice had not been filed to the Court by 26 March 2023.
e. Unreasonable escalation of the demanded parking charges and fees.
f. The Claimant’s errors, negligence, vexatious litigation, and misconduct amount to unreasonable behaviour, which has required the Defendant to spend disproportionate time and cost required to correct the situation.
0 -
A WS is written in the first person. You, as a witness, are narrating your version of events. You still number each paragraph sequentially.
That looks and sounds more like a defence which you already filed. Search for other WS and see how they refer to the defence already filed.2 -
Search for other WS and see how they refer to the defence already filed.Latest exemplars to read and then develop your own in similar style are those by @aphex007 and @SJRRJS
Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street3 -
Thank you @Umkomaas for the exemplars! I will have a closer look and add relevant parts.
I've been compiling relevant events to my witness statement and it's getting long – I've been with this case since October and to detail all errors, negligence, misconduct, and unreasonable actions of VCS and ELMS takes space even if I try to be brief. Luckily there was a recent change in my schedule so I don't need to rush my documents ready today as was the earlier plan.
When going through the documents, I re-read the Notice of Trial Date letter, and it says something I had previously missed.
"Unless the claimant does by 4.00pm on the 31 March 2023 pay to the court the trial fee of £27.00 or file a properly completed application (ie one which provides all the required information in the manner requested) for help with fees, then the claim will be struck out with effect from 31 March 2023 without further order and, unless the court orders otherwise, you will also be liable for the costs which the defendant has incurred."
"If your claim has been struck out, it will no longer exist. The hearing will be vacated, unless a counterclaim survives the claim being struck out.", and"If, following strike out of the claim the claimant or defendant wishes to start fresh proceedings a new claim must be filed together with the appropriate fee or application for help with fees."
So, if read this right, if VCS did not pay by Friday, the claim will be struck out, and they are liable for the costs which I have incurred. I didn't make any counterclaim to my knowledge, but I did raise a point on unreasonable behaviour and disproportionate costs.
Although the letter does not say what counts as costs, at least my set-aside hearing bundle includes all my costs till that date. And I would have a few more lines of costs to add. It would be my plan to seek the costs for unreasonable behaviour, and potentially for misconduct, and that's why I need to document their unreasonableness as good as I can - in case I need to submit statement for a cost hearing or some such. I also made a really nice exhibits that detail the lack of signage to begin with, but let's see if there will be any use for it.
I presume VCS hasn't paid as they've sent me a Notice of Discontinuance twice, although at least the first one didn't make it to the Court. But that is yet to be seen.
And if they Notice of Discontinuance made to the Court before payment deadline, would it mean the case has not been struck out but just discontinued?
I may try to contact again tomorrow to see where my case stands at the moment.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.4K Spending & Discounts
- 243.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 256.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards