County Court Judgment

63realfan

Let me know what you think. Appreciate its long winded. 

Coupon-mad

I'm a little worried the judge will not reimburse the CCJ fee paid - my main worry is that the CCBC send out is the cause of not receiving the POC. Will they order the C to pay back costs that wasn't their fault?

You asked this earlier in the thread and I don't think you will get the £275 back from the Claimant as they did nothing wrong, but there is nothing to stop you putting in a formal complaint to the CCBC once all this is over and see if they will grant compensation as they did to @jag_run for a different situation.  So keep that as something to do later this year.


And my thoughts for you to say at the hearing against this DCBLegal WS are these:



They say two things, mainly:

1.  - that the contract breached (according to DCBLegal) said that "patrons must enter their full, correct VRM into the terminal in the main bar on arrival to obtain a permit for the duration of their stay".

But this supposed 'contract' was impossible to conclude during COVID lockdown.

The facts were that the PCN was from 2020 when the pub was closed due to COVID and the car was there for 10 minutes and immediately left.  There was no contract, no agreement and no breach, the car did not 'stay' (it was not 'left' parked) and any contract based purely upon the words quoted by DCBLegal: "patrons must enter their full, correct VRM into the terminal in the main bar on arrival to obtain a permit for the duration of their stay" was void for impossibility.  The claim should be struck out as the elements of a contract are absent. The Defendant avers that this is a plainly extortionate charge with no legitimate interest to support it, which is most likely why ParkingEye did not pursue this one themselves as they usually do with their in-house legal team and solicitor. This looks like part of a batch of old registered keeper data farmed out to DCB Legal in 2022 in the hope of enhancing the monies to £170 (to share between them) and either frightening Defendants into paying that sum - despite the fact it was not on the signs - or to achieve CCJs by default, which most old parking cases do.  This is not a situation where there is any genuine commercial value to be protected as a result of the Defendant’s actions. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage and nor did the pub. The 'penalty' charge is unconscionable in this context, with the leading Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.



2.  - you didn't 'act promptly' as soon as you heard about the CCJ.  
But you did because you filed your N244 on Friday 10th February (within mere days of finding out) after ringing the CCBC three times, first time end of January and they failed to answer, then 2nd February where you recorded the call and the chap at the CCBC said (when you asked "do you think it was down to the postal error")

 "Most likely as it's only been across where the royal mail postal strikes have been happening and people haven't been receiving their claim forms'" 

Third call was to get a copy of the POC that you needed in order to understand a bit more and to respond with your N244 application.

That second call is recorded and the issue date of 9th December is exactly the same date as others online have been reporting the same issue - no claim form served - and one person with a missing 9th December claim had their CCJ set aside on 8th February*.  It is too much to be a coincidence and the recorded call shows the CCBC know "people haven't been receiving their claim forms" and you have proof they known this (did you file and serve that recording in a durable medium so that the Judge can listen to the CCB admitting that?).


* can you get a copy of @Sasanova's Order setting aside their CCJ and a quick email from them confirming that their claim too was purportedly dated 9th December and was never served, same as in your case, and their court has already set it aside based on the likelihood that the postal strike that week caused post to be irretrievably lost.

My draft defence is in and has been submitted since mid feb. My court date is on 5th (next Wednesday). 

I don't think you have submitted a draft defence(?) and I think it would help on Monday morning, if you do send (to your local court and to DCBLegal, by email) a 'DRAFT DEFENCE' and the phone call recording, and Sasanova's Order they achieved and their email confirming their missing claim was also dated 9th December.

You can base your defence on the TEMPLATE DEFENCE:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

because the claim was filed by DCBLegal and they added £70.  Therefore (even though this is ParkingEye) that defence is perfect for your case, with paras 2,  3 and 4 edited to suit.

(para 3) about only realising why this was about when you received DCBLegal's Witness Statement this week.  The Defendant now recalls that it was COVID lockdown and this site is a pub, and saying why the car was only there 10 minutes, and did not 'stay' as alleged.  The Defendant is in a very busy profession and with all the pressures of lockdown, including family issues, did not appeal but the case went silent for two years, so the Defendant concluded that ParkingEye had cancelled it.

Then para 4 for you will be about the contract alleged by DCBLegal being clearly void for impossibility (look at my words above).  Do not use para 4 from the Template Defence as it doesn't work for your case.

63realfan

Hey @Coupon-mad
 
Massive thanks for your reply. You were right, I didn't have a defence draft. 
There's a few things that raised suspicion with DCBL witness statement one thing is that they say I responded because I ignored it. That got my blood boiling a little bit! Anyhow I spoke to Sasa who isn't willing to help with this as thought I was reluctant to help earlier last month which is a bit of a communication mix up as I was more than happy to help him fight back for costs which is a shame so I'll have to just move forward without that but think it could of been crucial having that support. 

I've worked on the draft defence and added some stuff in. 
I've worked out dates etc and checked their evidence and added it into the defence. 

Questions - Do I need to add that I've been given help online from you? I recognise the judge may see I've used templates or had help, if questioned what do I say or should I add into my defence I've received assistance? 

I've added on the defence statement from paragraph 5 onwards if those paragraphs are relevant to my case? Don't want to add anything and get ripped apart in court about them, should I leave them or just stick with paragraph's 1-4 I already have. 

I'll attach the defence below - Appreciate its a big one. CM - massive thanks again. If you are happy with what I've put I'll submit today.

Many thanks -

IN THE COUNTY COURT 

Claim No: XXXXX 

Between 

Full name of Parking Eye Limited 

(Claimant)  

- and -   

XXXXXXXXX 

 (Defendant) 

_________________ 

DEFENCE 

 

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars. 

**DOES THIS STILL STAND FOR MY CASE?** 

        2. The facts as known to the Defendant: 

             

1.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle and driver. 

1. In response to received DCBLegal's Witness Statement received this week Thursday 30th March. The Defendant now recalls that it was COVID-19 lockdown (3rd lockdown) and this site is a pub where strict rules were in place for many social places including pubs where pub in correspondence may have been closed for public safety reasons in line with government guidelines. 

1. The defendant did not 'stay' as alleged. 

1. The Defendant recalls dropping a passenger off at the time and duration of the alleged offence and car was not ‘’left’’ at any time. 

1. The Defendant is in a very busy profession and with all the pressures of lockdown, including family issues, did not appeal but the case went silent for 23 months so, the Defendant concluded that ParkingEye had cancelled it. 

1. The defendant always intended to defend this if ParkingEye had ever sued but they didn't. Two letters sent within a week of each other a month after the alleged offence then no claim in 2021 and nothing for 18 months until a letter from DCBL in November 2022 that bore all the hallmarks of a scam, adding a false £70 that was never on the sign. 

1. The Defendant reiterates strongly that no Claim form from CCBC arrived AT ALL and the defendant would not have ignored court claim, which has never arrived and appears to be part of a CCBC batch that went astray during the postal strikes before Christmas. 

1. The defendant is asking for a set aside under CPR 13.3 because the defendant did not receive the claim (at all) it was inflated by DCBLegal way beyond the alleged 'contract' on the signage. 

1. The defendant works for the police & has his own business so would have replied to a court claim, to not risk any harm to my business/work caused by a CCJ. 

1. The defendant acknowledges that he could have paid an extra £25.28 and cleared the CCJ off his record however is defending for the set aside as the defendant has genuinely and truthfully not received the claim form from CCBC that resulted in the default CCJ and as mentioned believes he has a strong defence against the original PCN. 

1. The defendant believed it was a scam because the car was only there for 11 minutes, which is within a reasonable grace period set by landowners at most locations. There was no breach and the contract wasn't £170 - this is an abuse in itself. 

1. In response to DCBL witness statement ‘’you didn't 'act promptly' as soon as you heard about the CCJ. ‘’  
    
   Respectfully, the defendant did because he filed his N244 on Friday 10th February and (within mere days of finding out) after ringing the CCBC three times, first time end of January and they failed to answer, then 2nd February where the defendant recorded the call (as included with set aside application documents) and the gentleman at the CCBC said (when asked by the defendant **5 minutes and 30 seconds into the call recording** "do you think it was down to the postal error?") 
    
   Response from CCBC: 
    
    "Most likely as it's only been across where the royal mail postal strikes have been happening and people haven't been receiving their claim forms'"  
    
   Third call was to get a copy of the POC that you needed in order to understand a bit more about the PCN. 
    
   The second call is recorded and the issue date of 9th December is EXACTLY the same date as others online have been reporting the same issue - no claim form served. One person with a missing 9th December claim had their CCJ set aside on 8th February 2023. It is too much to be a coincidence and the recorded call shows the CCBC know "people haven't been receiving their claim forms" of which the call recording proves the CCBC are aware of the same issue around the dates of early December 2022. 
    
   The defendant, whilst on the second phone call to CCBC of which was recorded asked **2 minutes 35 seconds into the call recording** ‘’if the royal mail strikes were planned and I cannot believe that something like that which is quite serious is not registered post especially with the strikes going on would of come out and that I have still not received anything’’  
    
   With a response from the CCBC: 
    
   ‘’They are all automatically sent as soon as we receive them so it does look like it was lost through the royal mail because unfortunately what the courts are doing they aren't really taking into considering the postal strikes’’ 
    
   The defendant continues to express his concern to the CCBC customer service agent that a CCJ was lodged against him in default whilst he was unaware and not having the chance to reply to the claim form which was never received and how serious this is. 
    

 

4. The facts were that the PCN was from 2021 when the pub may have been closed due to COVID and the car was there for 11 minutes and immediately left.  There was no contract, no agreement and no breach, the car did not 'stay' (it was not 'left' parked) and any contract based purely upon the words quoted by DCBLegal: "patrons must enter their full, correct VRM into the terminal in the main bar on arrival to obtain a permit for the duration of their stay" was void for impossibility.  The claim should be struck out as the elements of a contract are absent. The Defendant avers that this is a plainly extortionate charge with no legitimate interest to support it, which is most likely why ParkingEye did not pursue this one themselves as they usually do with their in-house legal team and solicitor. This looks like part of a batch of old registered keeper data farmed out to DCB Legal in 2022 in the hope of enhancing the monies to £170 (to share between them) and either frightening Defendants into paying that sum - despite the fact it was not on the signs - or to achieve CCJs by default, which most old parking cases do.  This is not a situation where there is any genuine commercial value to be protected as a result of the Defendant’s actions. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage and nor did the pub. The 'penalty' charge is unconscionable in this context, with the leading Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished. 
 

 

63realfan

5. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  In breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims, no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts and specific breach allegations, which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however this claim is unfair, generic and inflated.   

6.  This Claimant continues to pursue a disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now likely to be confirmed as banned by the Government this year. It is denied that the purported 'damages' or 'debt fee' sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.  

**IS THIS STILL VALID FOR MY CASE??** 

7. This finding is underpinned by the Government, who stated in 2022 that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice 

8. Whilst the new Code is temporarily stalled for a final Impact Assessment, it is anticipated that adding false costs/damages or 'fees' to enhance a parking charge claim is likely to remain banned. In a section called 'Escalation of costs' the (stalled but incoming in 2023) statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."  

**IS THIS STILL VALID FOR MY CASE??** 

9. The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as this claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."  

10. The DLUHC consulted for over two years, considering evidence from a wide range of stakeholders.  Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers.  Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt/robo-claim firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis, seeking to inflate these claims with 'costs/damages' in addition to the strictly capped legal fees the small claims track allows.   

11. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the parking charge more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit.  In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters including reminders.  The parking charge was held to cover that work. 

12. The driver did not agree to pay a parking charge, let alone these unknown costs, which were not quantified in prominent text on signage. 

13. Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice.  The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that 'recovery' fees were 'designed to extort money'.  A clear steer for the Courts which it is hoped overrides mistakes made in a few appeal cases that the parking industry desperately rely upon (Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy). 

14.  Far from being persuasive, regrettably these one-sided appeals saw Circuit Judges led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and the litigant-in-person consumers lacked the wherewithal to appeal. In case this Claimant tries to rely upon these, the Defendant avers that errors were made in every case.  Evidence was either overlooked (including signage discrepancies in Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to the BPA Code of Practice and the DVLA KADOE requirement for landowner authority) or the Judge inexplicably sought out and quoted from the wrong Code altogether (Percy).  In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control of the driver was unfairly aligned with the admitted parking contract in Beavis. Those learned Judges were not in possession of the same level of information as the DLUHC, whose incoming statutory Code of Practice now clarifies such matters as a definition of 'parking' as well as consideration and grace periods and minor matters such as 'keying errors' or 'fluttering tickets/permits' where a PCN should not have been issued at all, or should have been cancelled in the pre-action dispute phase. 

 

POFA and CRA breaches 

15. Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a firm may have complied with other POFA requirements (adequate signage, Notice to Keeper wording/dates, and a properly communicated 'relevant contract/relevant obligation').  If seeking keeper/hirer liability - unclear from the POC - the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance and liability transferred.  

16. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA').  The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'.  In a parking context, this includes signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer. 

17. Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer.  Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well placed and lit, and all terms unambiguous and obligations clear. The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair/open dealing and good faith.  

 

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished (lack of legitimate interest/prominence of terms) 

18. ParkingEye overcame the possibility of their £85 charge being dismissed as punitive, however the Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which must each be determined on their own facts.  That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, and took into account the prominent yellow/black uncluttered signs with £85 in the largest/boldest text.  Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, the Beavis case facts set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach. 

19. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.  The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. 

20.  In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. The Claimant’s small signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, and are considered incapable of binding a driver.  Consequently, it remains the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous 'penalty' was seen or agreed.  Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge, include: 

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and 

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2, 

both leading authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and 

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space'' (NB: when parking operator Claimants cite Vine, they often mislead courts by quoting out of context, Roch LJ's words about the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio).   

21. Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the statutory Code and this is supported by the BPA & IPC Trade Bodies.  In November 2020's Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, CEO of the IPC, observed: "Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."  

 

Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR 

22. DVLA data is only supplied to pursue parking charges if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules).  It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) has authority from the landowner to issue charges in this place in their own name.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have standing to make contracts with drivers and litigate in their own name. 

23.  The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The Appeals Annex in the new incoming statutory Code shows that genuine disputes such as this would see the charge cancelled, had a fair ADR existed.  Whether or not a person engaged with it, the Claimant's consumer blame culture and reliance upon the industry's own 'appeals service' should not sway the court into a belief that a fair appeal was ever on offer. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject almost any dispute: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (IPC's 2020 Annual Report).   

 

Conclusion 

24. The claim is entirely without merit. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale. 

25. There is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims.  For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of intimidating pre-action threats. 

26. In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks: 

(a) at the very least, for standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and 

(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.  

27.  Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."    

 

Statement of Truth 

I believe that the facts stated in this defence 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. 

Defendant’s signature: XXXXXXXX 

Date: Monday 3rd April 2023 

 

B789

You do understand that every paragraph except for headings should be numbered sequentially?

Coupon-mad

Remove your para 5 (unnecessary in your case as you have now seen details) and instead, divide the overly long para 4 into two.  Making that 4 and 5.

Do not admit to being there 11 minutes.  That's buying into and blindly accepting the unproven two ANPR images that probably come from 2 different cameras, which are not synchronised and have been shown to be minutes out.

Instead I would say the car certainly stopped for less than 10 minutes and given the event merely involved dropping off a passenger, this was not parking at all. Then add/edit this to suit your case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79959631#Comment_79959631

Them the rest of the template defence.

Remove ALL of this (below) which should instead be in your witness statement about setting aside the CCJ, not in the defence about the parking charge:

1. The defendant always intended to defend this if ParkingEye had ever sued but they didn't. Two letters sent within a week of each other a month after the alleged offence then no claim in 2021 and nothing for 18 months until a letter from DCBL in November 2022 that bore all the hallmarks of a scam, adding a false £70 that was never on the sign. 

1. The Defendant reiterates strongly that no Claim form from CCBC arrived AT ALL and the defendant would not have ignored court claim, which has never arrived and appears to be part of a CCBC batch that went astray during the postal strikes before Christmas. 

1. The defendant is asking for a set aside under CPR 13.3 because the defendant did not receive the claim (at all) it was inflated by DCBLegal way beyond the alleged 'contract' on the signage. 

1. The defendant works for the police & has his own business so would have replied to a court claim, to not risk any harm to my business/work caused by a CCJ. 

1. The defendant acknowledges that he could have paid an extra £25.28 and cleared the CCJ off his record however is defending for the set aside as the defendant has genuinely and truthfully not received the claim form from CCBC that resulted in the default CCJ and as mentioned believes he has a strong defence against the original PCN. 

1. The defendant believed it was a scam because the car was only there for 11 minutes, which is within a reasonable grace period set by landowners at most locations. There was no breach and the contract wasn't £170 - this is an abuse in itself. 

1. In response to DCBL witness statement ‘’you didn't 'act promptly' as soon as you heard about the CCJ. ‘’  
    
   Respectfully, the defendant did because he filed his N244 on Friday 10th February and (within mere days of finding out) after ringing the CCBC three times, first time end of January and they failed to answer, then 2nd February where the defendant recorded the call (as included with set aside application documents) and the gentleman at the CCBC said (when asked by the defendant **5 minutes and 30 seconds into the call recording** "do you think it was down to the postal error?") 
    
   Response from CCBC: 
    
    "Most likely as it's only been across where the royal mail postal strikes have been happening and people haven't been receiving their claim forms'"  
    
   Third call was to get a copy of the POC that you needed in order to understand a bit more about the PCN. 
    
   The second call is recorded and the issue date of 9th December is EXACTLY the same date as others online have been reporting the same issue - no claim form served. One person with a missing 9th December claim had their CCJ set aside on 8th February 2023. It is too much to be a coincidence and the recorded call shows the CCBC know "people haven't been receiving their claim forms" of which the call recording proves the CCBC are aware of the same issue around the dates of early December 2022. 
    
   The defendant, whilst on the second phone call to CCBC of which was recorded asked **2 minutes 35 seconds into the call recording** ‘’if the royal mail strikes were planned and I cannot believe that something like that which is quite serious is not registered post especially with the strikes going on would of come out and that I have still not received anything’’  
    
   With a response from the CCBC: 
    
   ‘’They are all automatically sent as soon as we receive them so it does look like it was lost through the royal mail because unfortunately what the courts are doing they aren't really taking into considering the postal strikes’’ 
    
   The defendant continues to express his concern to the CCBC customer service agent that a CCJ was lodged against him in default whilst he was unaware and not having the chance to reply to the claim form which was never received and how serious this is. 
    

63realfan

Hey CM, 

Thanks for reply. Slightly confused as thought that you wanted a lot of that added from your previous comments from last Friday. I've already submitted my witness statement so can't really edit this now. I'm worried the judge will question me about the rest of the stuff from the template and I won't have a leg to stand on. I may just leave the defence draft altogether. If I'm being honest the stress has really gotten to me today and the worry I may really lose this and have the CCJ for 6 years and the consequences of that. Apologies to be such a sob but thought a lot of what I put was in line with what you said for the defence only to be told that it should be with the witness statement that I submitted weeks ago. 

Maybe I just shouldn't have wasted your time and paid the extra £25 and would of been a whole lot less stressful and having to lose even more money by taking days off work etc and with prospect I won't be able to recover the money for the N244 application. The whole thing has got to me today a bit and I think for the sake of just letting them win would of been least stressful and less impactful on my mind the last few months

Coupon-mad

DO NOT LEAVE THE DEFENCE DRAFT.

The defence is required.

Just do exactly what I said.  Don't waver.  I am telling you how to win this. You want the CCJ wiped?

You can do this!

Just copy/paste & plonk the section I removed into a signed & dated Supplementary Witness Statement, attaching the evidence you want to add now, that you might not have attached with the first WS.  The Code of Practice page about checking addresses is definitely needed, as is your evidence of being on the voters' roll or that your council tax, utilities & bank statements (whatever evidence you have) were changed and you were 'there to be found' if they'd done the trace/check the CoP says they must.

You allowed to add a second WS and evidence - which you should say at the start of it, that you are having to add now you've seen their Witness Statement and for the first time finally know what this was about.

Ping both the draft defence and the supplementary WS & your evidence attached, to the local court & DCBLegal by email.  Put the date & time of hearing and the CLAIM NUMBER in the subject line.

Job done tonight!

63realfan

Thank you for getting back. Eased my mind. Had a 5 minute cloud of negativity so am going through that now. Bit confused on the code of practice page where do I find that?

Coupon-mad

In the BPA Code of Practice, which you just Google.