Default CCJ sent to the wrong address

B789

dr_ccj said:

B789 said:

Did you mention anything in the set aside application about recovering your costs should the claimant discontinue after the set aside?

The only thing I can find is in the draft Order in which I said "Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee."
I'm hoping this counts 🤞

Without mention that this claimant is likely to discontinue, a judge may reserve costs. However, jus do as @Coupon-mad has advised above and get the HHJ Murch appeal citation in front of the judge in a SWS asap.

dr_ccj

Coupon-mad said:

Your £275 isn't likely lost. The whole claim should be dismissed on the spot, with your costs awarded to you, for CEL to pay.

URGENTLY send the new (persuasive) HHJ Murch* appeal case transcript to the local court and you must copy in CEL, with a short, signed & dated supplementary WS ... and your costs listed on a separate sheet.  Don't forget your loss of leave for attending the hearing as well as the £275 fee.


* search the forum for Murch Chan which is a CEL case!  YOU MUST ADD IT NOW.

Thank you for this advice, I would never have thought to consider this.

I think I've managed to find the case you're talking about? 

"a recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the PoC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction to Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the PoC."

Would I have to add this to my original witness statement or create a new one (a shortened version of the original) and then resubmit to CCBC fees/CEL or would it be a case of printing it out and posting to Bournemouth Court and CEL. 

The 14 days expires on 2nd October so I will prioritise getting this done tomorrow when I have access to a computer!

As for costs, I guess it would be the £275 plus loss of earnings to attend hearing and then the time involved to complete the application? I don't want to be cheeky or come across greedy!

Coupon-mad

Email it to Bournemouth Court and CEL (CERTAINLY NOT THE CCBC IN NORTHAMPTON!  That was just a door).

As for costs, I guess it would be the £275 plus loss of earnings to attend hearing and then the time involved to complete the application? I don't want to be cheeky or come across greedy!

Yes.

And I said it should be 'a short, signed & dated supplementary WS'.  That means an extra one.

dr_ccj

Alrighty...



Then of course signed and dated.

A lot of this has been essentially copied from a multitude of threads I've trawled through but it seems most people use the same or similar wording.

I'd like to include the actual transcript of the Murch case but unsure how one sources this (a google search doesn't seem to throw up anything). Would anyone be able to direct me to this please?

Once this is all sent off I assume I should probably start drafting a skeleton defence in preparation for the hearing (when I finally hear about it) and have found what looks like a good one, very similar to my own situation (CCJ for PCN I knew nothing about - Page 5 — MoneySavingExpert Forum)

As always, thanks for the help!!

Coupon-mad

I am not very keen on this bit, especially the words in my bold which almost reads like an admission:

The Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the PoC."

Use this wording instead, IMHO:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80314298/#Comment_80314298

But obviously don't copy things like "quantum of almost two thousand pounds" which is specific to that case!  Also that's a defence not a WS so you should change 'The Defendant' to "I" because a WS is your story in the first person.

Are you attaching a costs assessment that includes the £275 as well as hearing attendance costs?

You aren't sure how to source the CEL v Chan transcript that's on a good twenty or thirty threads this month already?  There's no point sending a SWS if you don't append the transcript!

Look at your search results. It's everywhere!  No idea why you are Googling for it?  Anyway - to help you - it all started here which would have come up in your forum search results:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6473149/major-judgement-where-judge-strike-out-the-claim-form/p1

Yes you should later do a skelly - there's a good one in the thread by @hallie28 which is more recent than Harvez's 2022 case.  BUT DON'T FORGET TO DOUBLE UP IN THE SKELLY BY REFERENCING AS WELL, THE NEW HHJ MURCH APPEAL JUDGMENT.

That's your possible 'entire claim struck out' card so say it twice!

dr_ccj

I have amended the last sentence as you suggested, I would agree the wording makes more sense. 

I eventually managed to source the transcript, many threads hint at an exhibit but don't actually post it. I'm possibly/probably simply not using the right words in my search as the one you linked certainly didn't show! Thank you for the link

As for the costing, I have amended the sentence to include the £275, baffled how I managed to miss that
'I ask for my fixed witness costs in addition to the £275 paid to submit the N244 claim'. 


As an aside, I'm getting a lot of pressure from my partner to accept the 'without prejudice offer' and pay the additional £95 to simply remove the stress from my life given it's guaranteed to scratch the CCJ from my record. I feel like I'm nearly at the finishing line and have invested a lot of time and effort into this, however I would agree with him that my stress levels have been pretty significant the last few weeks. What would people say in response to this?

Coupon-mad

Carry on. Get your money back. You can do this. That authority is JUST LIKE YOUR CASE and a Judge can't ignore the HHJ Murch appeal judgment.  Yours was CEL too!  Exact match case for that Chan set aside case.  There is nothing CEL can do about this.

You are spoon-feeding your Judge here and they will lap it up!  Go to the hearing confident and asking for a strike out and your costs (as per the CEL v Chan appeal authority where he got hundreds in costs).

I didn't mean for you to just change a sentence; there was a whole set of paragraphs in that link to add/edit to suit to improve your statement. Not just that one paragraph.

dr_ccj

I've just dug out the claim that CEL made and those paragraphs are making a lot more sense to me, I understand why you recommend that I include them - definitely bulks up and validates everything.

I am struggling to reword the below to suit my situation but I'm hoping this is suitable:

"The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.  The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise:

(a) the contractual term(s) relied upon;

(b) the details of any alleged breach of contract (the date is given with no specifics whatsoever); 

(c) how many 'PCNs' are being pursued in this claim and how much each of these charges were; 

and

(d) how the purported and unspecified extra 'damages claimed' arose and the breakdown of the £182 

Your words give me a great deal of confidence, thank you. I've tried explaining to him that from what I've read it appears that I'm going to have to go to a hearing anyhow and there is still a risk that the CCJ won't be set aside so why not attend the hearing, get the CCJ set aside and possibly get my money back. Seems like it's basically win-win!

Coupon-mad

It should be win-win thanks to the Chan judgment.

I think remove this as the POC does give just one date:

c) how many 'PCNs' are being pursued in this claim and how much each of these charges were; 

Le_Kirk

In your supplementary WS your point 2 states: -
2. The Civil Enforcement vs Ming Tak Chan against this judgment
surely should be
2. The Civil Enforcement vs Ming Tak Chan is against this judgment