N244 advice req'd

asp746

here's harv's Consent Order and i'll put mine below:

Mine will be:    
1.  The default judgement entered on 10th May 22 be and is hereby set aside:
2. The entry of the Register of Judgments, Order and Fines be cancelled:
3.  The claim for be reserved at the Defendants current address within 14 days of the Order being received.

The Parties hereby consent to an Order on the above terms.
Dated this 16th February 2023.

___________________________________________________________
as you can see i've missed 3. out.   Am i right in thinking that I just email the above to the Litigation dept at Excel or, do I have to put the witness statement aswell as that gives background to how the error occurred?   I've tweaked the witness statement as advised yesterday.   

I did phone a firm of paralegals based in Manchester today who quoted £400 for a consent order and half price for the other one as both served on consecutive days:( 

Unlike others on these threads i'm not bothered about paying the costs - obvs i'd rather pay £108 vs £267 but as i've already paid the CCJs will they just call it quits?   Thanks

Coupon-mad

That is not Harvez63's final agreed Consent Order.

asp746

Here it is....  do I send this first to Excels litigation department? 

CONSENT ORDER

 UPON both parties agreeing that the Claim form was improperly served,

 

It is ordered that: 

1.     The default judgment entered on 8th April 2022 be and is hereby set aside:

2.     The entry in the Register of Judgments, Order and Fines be cancelled: 

3.     The Claimant do pay the Defendant the sum of £275 (being the costs of their N244 application) within 14 days of the court authoring this Consent Order: 

4.     The claim form be reserved at the Defendants current address within 14 days of the Order being received. 

The Parties hereby consent to an Order on the above terms.

Dated this 16th February 2023.

Le_Kirk

You need to say "re-served" meaning served again as opposed to "reserved" meaning kept for a later occasion.

Coupon-mad

asp746 said:

Here it is....  do I send this first to Excels litigation department? 

CONSENT ORDER

 UPON both parties agreeing that the Claim form was improperly served,

 

It is ordered that: 

1.     The default judgment entered on 8th April 2022 be and is hereby set aside:

2.     The entry in the Register of Judgments, Order and Fines be cancelled: 

3.     The Claimant do pay the Defendant the sum of £275 (being the costs of their N244 application) within 14 days of the court authoring this Consent Order: 

4.     The claim form be reserved at the Defendants current address within 14 days of the Order being received. 

The Parties hereby consent to an Order on the above terms.

Dated this 16th February 2023.

That's Harvez's one, yes...it's not yours and those words are not suitable, which you will know because very little of that makes sense for your case.

They are not going to have to re-serve the claim(s) because the litigation is over, in your case, because you paid them.

I advised you to find that Consent Order to see what one looks like, that's all (headings and the phrase at the start 'UPON' in capitals, then numbered points).

Of course you don't send that version, it isn't worded to suit your case - dates and details make no sense - and they are not going to pay the fee for filing the Consent Order (which is not £275).  You've given yourself no leverage to get them to pay anything because you paid them off.  

What we need to see is your draft stating what you want them to agree to (which is what my earlier reply advised).  There is no guarantee they will...why should they as they have all the money...this was the wrong way to go about it but draft something simple.

asp746

here's my letter, hope someone can scan it and let me know...   
Should i admit to the v5 oversight or leave it out?    Thanks

I am writing in reference to two CCJs obtained against me by yourselves (representing Excel Parking Services LTD) on XXXXXXXX. The case reference is: XXXXXXXXX.

It is filed under an old address I have not resided at since March 2020.   All statutory agencies including DVLA were notified of my address change however it appears the V5 was one document that was omitted in error.

Having not been in this situation before and at 55 years old, as soon as I discovered the Judgements I made arrangements to pay them and they are now satisified.  This was no admission of guilt rather a kneejerk reaction to an alien situation that was caused by you instilling me with fear and anxiety. 

My two main concerns are that

(a) you have sent letters to the wrong address, not bothering to do the necessary soft trace and thus your actions/inaction and negligent handling of old, unchecked address data caused both claims to be improperly served and not received;

(b) you have separated two violations when the consecutive alleged dates should have been treated as one.

ADDRESS TRACE:

Any letters or summons must have been sent to the wrong wrong address, you have not conducted a reasonable, necessary soft trace and thus your actions/inaction and negligent handling of old, unchecked address data caused both claims to be improperly served and not received;

The IPC Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice states:

“Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the person being written to is the correct party.”  

A new mortgage and address in April 2020 would have been visible on my credit file that I believe had you checked you would have discovered a different address and, if you had sent letters to this address it would have avoided me being subject to such draconian action.   In addition, payment for tickets at the carpark used can only be used by business' or residents AND all payments are online via an APP that requires you to put your name, phone number and email address in for contactable purposes.   I am astonished that this data is collected and yet not used in situation such as the current one I have found myself in - I have used that said carpark since June 2020 and continue to do so until this day AND am using the same car registration number.  Bearing in mind the above, I believe that I was findable and that you have breached the above code of practice.  

In addition you have used two consecutive parking day violations when they should have been treated as one.  

HENDERSON v HENDERSON

The issuing of separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. The long-established case law in Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, and more recent authorities, establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. In the event that similar matters proceed to claim issue, they must be particularised as a single claim and not as multiple separate cases, otherwise (as an extreme analogy) a builder purportedly owed money by an individual customer, could file a separate claim for each brick laid.

The facts of these cases are duplicated in every respect: Claimant, Defendant, parking charge breach allegation, and added unrecoverable 'debt collection' and/or 'legal' costs for each case, that are an abuse of process in themselves, given that the Claimant did not in fact ever incur such costs and that they are disallowed by virtue of the ceilings set in the POFA 2012 and the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

Multiple claims and disproportionate added costs run contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and vacate the other hearing, and the Defendants asks that these two cases be put before a Judge at the earliest opportunity - before allocation - to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant for a gross abuse of process and to strike out the imaginary and unrecoverable added 'damages/debt collector' costs, which do not exist even once, let alone multiple times per claim.

I require that you contact the court and pay the fee required to set aside the CCJs that your negligence has caused and/or to file a suitable Consent Order to remove the CCJs forthwith and for the improperly served claim to be dismissed.  I have attached one for your convenience.

This is in accordance with your duty to pay regard to the Overriding Objective and the proposed remedy is reasonable and has value to your client, because the alternative route I will be forced to seek is as follows:


If no acceptable reply is received from you by 14h March 2023 I shall file a N244 set aside application 'without consent' and will seek to claim the £275 fee. Further, I will pursue my additional costs for research, paperwork and court process preparation and having to take a day off work for the court hearing.  Indemnity costs will be based upon the fact of your client's indisputably unreasonable conduct and data abuse.

Take note that the longer this situation persists, the more impact it has on me, and potentially on my employment and reputation.  This situation is untenable and I expect immediate action to rectify the position. I work as a  XX and my hourly rate, should I have to resort to filing the N244, is £30 ph and I shall seek all my costs and time - and if need be will file a counterclaim during the process - if you fail to properly address this immediately.

I expect a substantive response and swift action to remedy this at no cost to me and attach evidence of my house purchase of XXX on 30/04/20.

1505grandad

"The IPC Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice states:

“Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the person being written to is the correct party.”  

Not sure where the above came from but should the correct wording be as follows:-

"22 Debt and Debt Collection

22.1 Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the Motorist’s details are

still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court

proceedings."

Coupon-mad

I thought you were sending them a Draft Consent Order; that's what we wanted to see (your bespoke version).

I require that you contact the court and pay the fee required to set aside the CCJs that your negligence has caused and/or to file a suitable Consent Order to remove the CCJs forthwith and for the improperly served claim to be dismissed. 

Nope, they are not going to unless you word it the way we advised earlier, why should they, you already mistakenly paid them in full so left yourself very little leverage - you need to tell them, what's in it for them?

 I have attached one for your convenience.

One what?  Your statement doesn't say.

asp746

CONSENT ORDER

UPON both parties agreeing that the Claim form was improperly served by being sent to a previous address and that you failed in your duty to take reasonable steps to locate me once it became clear there had been no response 

AND

by separating both violations despite them being dealt with concurrently by yourselves exposed me to double damage to my credit rating and exaggerated fees and costs but to resolve the matter I have paid them both in full without admission and will say no more if Euro will sign the attached two consent Orders which will then be filed with the court to wipe both CCJs due to an old address being used.

 

It is ordered that: 

1.     The default judgment entered on 17th May 2022 is hereby set aside:

2.     The entry in the Register of Judgments, Order and Fines be cancelled: 

3.     The Claimant do pay both fees of £108 given the alternative, should this matter proceed to Court I would be asking the Judge to order Euro to pay me back all costs plus expenses given their unreasonable conduct.

The Parties hereby consent to an Order on the above terms.

Dated this 21st February 2023.

Coupon-mad

No, there are two separate things that you need to create.  Not one.

1.  A formal draft consent order that has no 'I' nor 'you' in it.  No rants.

2.  A covering letter that says why it's to their advantage to agree because they will be exposed to far higher costs if you have to apply 'without consent' for these two abusive CCJs (which should have been one consolidated claim) to be set aside.