CCJ for PCN I knew nothing about

Coupon-mad

Please try to find time to answer some of the DLUHC's questions before it closes in September. They want evidence-backed responses (not opinion at this stage) so people fighting CCJs are in a unique position where you CAN show evidence.

There is one question about consumer behaviour that might lend itself to people like you providing your evidence of what this has cost you in time, money and peace of mind, and that you are an honest person who would have paid a fair charge (even if the PCN reason seemed harsh) and you'd be far LESS likely to pay if an unjustified 30% fee was to be added.  

People are more likely to pay if the parking charge is not increased.  The threat of court is enough of a stick.

Harvez63

hallie28 said:

Thanks for the support - the amount of hours this (and the other 2 I have ongoing) take up of my life, it's no wonder people just pay them to get rid of the stress. It's abhorrent that this level of harassment and bullying is legitimate in this country! Because of this CCJ, I can't renew my mortgage, I can't change my credit card (I annually change them to 0% ones, can't open a new bank account, can't get the new car I wanted and my car insurance is 4x higher than usual! the £275 costs is the least they owe me!

I'm a very strong person, and the CCJ completely broke me and felt like it sucked every achievement I had away from me, had some dark moments with it. It must sound so exaggerated to others form the outside, and I even had comments on my own thread, but if suffocated me. My life is consumed by my businesses, weekends with my young family, trying to find time to read and learn added so much stress and done me in mentally. Especially not being so academic or knowledge of courts. 

I had a balloon coming up on a PCP on an expensive car, and absolutely no way of doing anything with it. Not because of business or hard work, but because of these people who walked into my life, slapped a CCJ on me automatically, then removed that one day before the court, then discontinued the PCN 3 weeks before the court without telling me and NO remorse or punishment for them. 

The effects of a CCJ shouldn't be underestimated. I had a banking error, which almost closed my business because I couldn't open a new bank account to receive income, no business, no income, no mortgage. Phone contracts sky rocketing without being able to change to get a £6 contract. Insurances refusing to offer, and those who did where 2/3 times as much and wanted money up front. A second car I couldn't pay the finance on because I didn't have a business account in my own name. 

Insane, absolutely insane. I'll stop because I dont want to take over your thread. 

Le_Kirk

That is just the sort of story/information that should be going into the Government's call for evidence.

hallie28

Update & a few questions: 

I have my hearing date on the 19th September. I have finally received my SAR requests back from Gladstones & UK CPM. 

In their defence they state that they did a search for my address when I didn't respond at first address, found my correct address, wrote to me and I didn't respond. There is no evidence of this. In my SAR email I provided both addresses to ensure they sent correspondence related to both. Have they have broken some law by either falsifying information in court, or withholding the evidence from me?

The photos submitted in the evidence show me parked at 08:00 and 08:01. Is there any defence in terms of grace period? 

Gladstones have emailed to say they won't be present in this hearing (they decline to attend the previous one too). I know this is standard practice for them, but think the double standards are outrageous and their refusal to attend twice should be enough to get it thrown out. 

My question is about if there is anything else I should submit as evidence (and if I can do so at such a late stage). I saw another post where the judge didn't consider any other evidence that was bought on the day, and I feel that above 2 points are important. 

Coupon-mad

Because this hearing is about setting aside the CCJ it's not about the PCN defence (yet) unless the Judge asks you about your possible defence.  In which case yes, you can say verbally that they failed to allow a grace period and the signs are inadequate, etc.

As for them saying they did a soft trace, they always say that and never evidence it.  Anyone might question whether they are being truthful.

The only thing you might want to add (file & serve the week before the hearing)  is a version of the good skeleton argument seen in the thread I linked last week in the NEWBIES thread CCJ set aside section. It's a good example of a skelly and they got the entire claim dismissed at the hearing!

And a costs assessment if you haven't already.  Push for your costs at the hearing.

hallie28

Thanks

Re: skeleton argument, is this different from the witness statement? Do I just submit this as evidence to the CCBC email address?

Is there a template to be used for the cost assessments, or do I just write these down? How far should I push the costs? Should I be happy with just claiming back the set aside fee, or detail the real costs? I don't want the judge to think I'm pushing my luck. 

Thanks

B789

You could argue that "They state that they (solicitors) did an Experian check which revealed an alternative address, that they wrote to this address, and I didn't respond. They have not added this letter in their evidence." is evidence of unreasonable behaviour and so all your costs should be allowed, not just the minimum as per small claims.

Coupon-mad

Skellies are explained in the NEWBIES thread and in the thread by @Jack5656

Costs assessment is a page listing your costs, e.g. seen in the WS bundle by @aphex007

hallie28

Thank you.. I think I have my head around it. 

I have pretty much copied the example in the newbies thread. The only bit I have amended is section 3 specifically relating to their evidence about doing a soft trace. I am unsure the correct legal terms to use for lying and being intentionally deceitful, so unsure if this bit needs removing. Any advice would be appreciated as I need to submit this today. I've added the whole Skeleton Argument for compeltedness

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 have 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 correct address after providing the Defendant with the information required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, issued this time to the correct name and address for service for this Defendant (address). 

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 Defendant believes that the Claimant did not adhere to CPR 6.9 (3) as they failed to show due diligence in using an address at which the Defendant no longer resided. The Claimant did not have any response from communications sent to XXX but then filed a claim there anyway.

3.1 The Claimant states in paragraph 8. of their witness statement that their solicitors carried out a search via Experian and wrote to this address with no response received.  This letter was not received by myself. It was not submitted as evidence with their witness statement. I submitted a Subject Access Request to both the Claimant and their solicitors on 26th July 2023. I received responses from the Claimant on 28th July 2023 and from Gladstone’s on 14th August 2023. Neither SAR responses revealed any attempt to complete a ‘soft search’ or any letters addressed to addresses other than XXX. On this basis, there is no evidence to suggest that they have completed the searches required to adhere to CPR 6.9 (3). Furthermore, unless evidence is provided of the soft search and the letter addressed to the ‘possible new address’, I propose that this is intentional misinformation and a contempt of court.

3.2 Had the Claimant carried out an up-to-date CRA ‘bulk trace’ for 28p, they would have found the correct address of 495 Tessall Lane, B31 5HA through a variety of sources, such as the electoral register. I have been contacted by another legal team via this route, relating to a Parking Charge Notice that pre-dates the current claim.

3.3 The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the Defendant’s current residence despite having some 12 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

All good.  I like this:

"I propose that this is intentional misinformation and a contempt of court."

Add hyperlinks to the case law transcripts that you should find as links on Casemine or Swarb.  Saves attaching pages & pages!

As with all submissions, email the skeleton to the local court and Gladstones.

You do not sign a skeleton.