Discovered a CCJ on Credit Report. Incorrect Address.

DOMRIDER

More important to get across that a DVLA address is not given out as a service address, which is why operators are required under the BPA CoP to check addresses before litigation which was March 2023. They did not. They breached the Code and CPRs by making no attempt to find the Defendant's current address.

I think 5 onwards should be higher.

Okay, I'll put this after CEL v Chan.

And you don't need to quote Piepenbrock if you already did in your WS. You could just say 'see Defendant's Witness Statement paragraph x.

Even if I didn't reference the transcripts? Is that the same for all those in relation to supporting the 4 months dead argument?

Finally, how should I submit these to the court? I have not submitted anything to my local CC since the transfer of proceedings. 

Coupon-mad

I'm saying don't repeat stuff if it was in your WS.  I didn't look back to check - I have no time to do that.

I assumed all 4 transcripts were mentioned and quoted in your WS given you used the '4 months dead' point.  Most examples put that quote.

You email the local court and cc the solicitors.

DOMRIDER

I'm saying don't repeat stuff if it was in your WS.  I didn't look back to check - I have no time to do that.

I assumed all 4 transcripts were mentioned and quoted in your WS given you used the '4 months dead' point.  Most examples put that quote.

You email the local court and cc the solicitors.

Understood thank you Coupon-mad. Yes WS quotes those cases, I'll reference my WS and include transcripts and email the court and cc solicitors today. 

Coupon-mad

Be aware that Chan is your most powerful appeal case transcript.

Expect the Judge not to like the 4 months dead argument so don't hang your hat on that.  Hang it on Chan and the fact the claim was not served. Therefore CPR 13.2 applies.  

Mandatory set aside for want of good service.

Claim struck out for want of compliant POC.

Thankyou very much - costs please!

DOMRIDER

Court Hearing 06/11/2023: Set aside but not dismissed; the judge determines that I should pay the claimant's costs for appearing and have the opportunity to defend.

I prepared during the weekend and felt as prepared as I could be, given my lack of experience in this area.

The claimant had a representative who approached me before the hearing. I said hello and waited for the usher to show me to the court. Last night, I ascertained that Premier Park Ltd are no longer the operators of Kilve Beach Car Park due to a disgruntled parish council. I think the claimant is attempting to exhaust their remaining claims. I'll explain how the hearing went, but as a preamble, the claimant's representative was highly competent.

It was pretty daunting; the courtroom was fairly large. The judge and the claimant's representative also seemed to know each other, which threw me off as I asked where I should sit.

The judge annoyingly focused on the witness statement and not my skeleton argument and, therefore, not the CEL v Chan case. The judge started by stating their understanding of the case and really didn't like the 4-month argument but frustratingly kept mentioning it. You were correct Coupon Mad!  

I argued that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) were deficient. The judge mentioned that she knows Judge Murch well. I thought that would be a good thing. However, it seemed she found the inadequacies of the PoC in terms of explaining how the contract was breached to be a weak point, simply stating that if I updated my DVLA logbook, I wouldn’t be in this situation.

I argued that the KADOE system has limitations, and the operators can only use the search once. It seemed to fall on deaf ears.

I said that the alleged soft search carried out by the claimant wasn't included in the claimant's evidence and was also conducted after the letter before claim was sent. She believed that this enhanced my argument to set aside the judgment. However, she again mentioned that it wouldn’t have been the case if I had updated my VC5 logbook.

I could see the judge wasn't going to dismiss the claim, so I focused on getting it set aside, stating that the ramifications of a CCJ are severe in comparison to the alleged contravention. I also noted that I have a strong defence to the claim (now that I have received the claimant's evidence).

I stated that the claimant had a duty to take reasonable steps to check for the correct address in accordance with the BPA code of practice. She again stated that this would be relevant in the trial in defence of the claim.

As the claimant had a representative, it did feel as if I wasn't able to 'lead the judge' as mentioned in other thread examples of hearings. The claimant's representative constantly referred to CPR, and the judge would naturally agree. I never had the time to even understand which point was being raised, so I felt a little helpless in that regard.

Finally, costs were mentioned by the judge. The judge stated that I felt that the cost associated should not be borne by the defendant based on the claimant's poor efforts to locate me and my prompt action to defend myself. The judge disagreed with this statement, referring to the logbook not being up to date as my issue.

Although the Witness Statement (WS) on behalf of the claimant didn't mention costs for attending the hearing, the claimant raised this point and claimed that £140+VAT would be sought against the defendant for attendance. He then referenced CPR and case law, which I was unable to hear and respond accordingly to. The judge was persuaded to agree and ordered these to be paid by the defendant within 21 days.

The claimant must issue their full Particulars of Claim within 14 days, and I should file a defence by the 11th of December.

I'm writing this straight after the hearing with a deserved pint in hand. Upon reflection, I feel I did a great job in person, considering the circumstances. However, I currently feel reluctant to fight the claim, even though I believe I have a strong defence, and the judgment for me to pay costs to the claimant was a real kick in the teeth.

I'm going to enjoy the rest of the day off with my newborn and partner and regroup tomorrow evening. Words of advice and encouragement are always appreciated.

So, thanks to Coupon Mad, Keith P, B789, Le_Kirk, and others who have helped so far. Sorry I couldn't get it dismissed!

UncleThomasCobley

Sounds like you drew the short straw with a worthless judge. What I don't understand is how the judge could order you to pay the claimants cost if you have not acted unreasonably.

Whilst the set aside is a relief and removes the CCJ from your credit file, you should definitely defend. The judge has blown the chance of using CEL v Chan by ordering new PoC but that just proves that she knows that they were deficient and breach the CPR and IDs. However, because CEL v Chan is only "persuasive" and not "binding" there is not much you can do about it.

She was definitely against you all the way and by making you feel uncomfortable because of her "chumminess" with the rep for the claimant, you are well within your rights to make an official complaint. Her argument that not updating your V5C negated CEL v Chan shows an ignorance that is worthy of including in any complaint.

Hopefully you will not get the same judge for your defence. Whilst we will happily provide advice on the defence, especially once we see the revised PoC, you may want to consider contacting Contestor Legal Services https://www.contestorlegal.co.uk/ as they appear to have a very good record of getting injustices like this set aside overturned or won with costs at defence. See what Jackson Yamba thinks.

DOMRIDER said:

However, it seemed she found the inadequacies of the PoC in terms of explaining how the contract was breached to be a weak point, simply stating that if I updated my DVLA logbook, I wouldn’t be in this situation.

The best counter to that should have been: "Even if the V5C had been up to date and the claim had arrived at my correct address, it does not alter the fact that the PoC have failed to adhere to the CPR and PD. Rules are rules".

DOMRIDER

Thanks UncleThomasCobley the 'chumminess' with the rep of the claimant, wasn't that bad sorry if it came across that way in my previous reply. I could sense they had a prior acquaintance based on their initial interaction during the hearing. However, I don't believe I have valid reasons for filing a complaint. 

While her assertion that not updating my V5C nullified CEL v. Chan is unfounded, she also pointed out that the case isn't legally binding as you say. It seemed that she may not entirely agree with the ruling.

The best counter to that should have been: "Even if the V5C had been up to date and the claim had arrived at my correct address, it does not alter the fact that the PoC have failed to adhere to the CPR and PD. Rules are rules".

I found it quite odd that despite raising the issue that there was no written or oral agreement between the parking operator and the vehicle's keeper, and arguing that simply bringing a car onto the premises should not be considered an agreement of conduct, rendering the Particulars of Claim (PoC) deficient, I couldn't convince the judge. I felt that I was unable to persuade her on any point, even though I presented the relevant PD16.4 and 7.5, albeit with my own bias.

Hopefully you will not get the same judge for your defence. Whilst we will happily provide advice on the defence, especially once we see the revised PoC, you may want to consider contacting Contestor Legal Services https://www.contestorlegal.co.uk/ as they appear to have a very good record of getting injustices like this set aside overturned or won with costs at defence. See what Jackson Yamba thinks.

Thanks for this, I'll wait for the revised PoC. I must admit the thought of paying further costs towards these bloodsuckers isn't appealing. 

Finally, can someone provide guidance on how to have the CCJ (the primary focus of the hearing) set aside and be required to cover the claimant's representative's expenses? While the claim itself wasn't dismissed, the hearing can be deemed a success as I successfully had the judgment set aside.

Coupon-mad

The CCJ will be automatically set aside in a couple of weeks or so, as a result of this hearing.

You succeeded in the CCJ set aside which is the main thing!

I think you got very unlucky with a Judge who has probably always blamed consumers for not updating their V5C address, so she started with that mindset.  Maybe she rarely sets aside parking CCJs because of that 'consumer blame' bias. Hopefully she learned something from your case that others have never voiced:

- you pointed out that not doing a timely soft search is a breach of a mandatory clause in the BPA CoP

- you pointed out that changing your V5C address more quickly would not have made any difference because a parking firm/DRA can't ask the DVLA a second time.

She may not have realised those two things because the man on the street wouldn't know.

I could sense they had a prior acquaintance based on their initial interaction during the hearing. However, I don't believe I have valid reasons for filing a complaint. 

I agree, there is no complaint.

The last case I lay repped a case (earlier this year) had an obsequious solicitor fawning over the Judge (video hearing) and she clearly knew him. Even worse in terms of her 'performance' was, as we waited for him to join the video call, she was deliberately chatting on first name terms with the Usher (who seemed uncomfortable) and I could tell she always does this and it was a 'show' for my benefit!  Probably thought it was working on me...she was wrong... I was actually laughing to myself watching the energy she wasted on her antics.

The reps often 'know' the court staff and Judges because they see them often in what to them is a work context. And yes, they make it obvious.

Next time you will get a different Judge.

But I would ask Contestor Legal for a call back this week to discuss your case because they are very good at getting costs for consumers and this could possibly be turned around costs-wise with the boot on the other foot with their help at the next hearing.

You will also need them at your hearing if you've relocated to NZ by then.