Multiple CCJs decided in default - set asides and defences

AngryWatermelon123

1. For the purpose of clarity, initially, the Claimant has obtained the Defendant’s details from the DVLA, as a signatory of the KADOE (Keeper at the Date of Offence) contract:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455973/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf

1.  Under KADOE, the Claimant would have had grounds to receive the keeper details once only, at the time of the offence. At the time of the offence, those details would have been correct as the Defendant was still a resident at the address. After a year has passed and the Defendant has not been in contact with the Claimant, the latter was intended to follow the procedure set out by the IPC and conduct a track and trace search with the relevant agencies.

2. The Claimant has only completed a track and trace search after the Defendant has made them aware of the address change on several occasions (evidence of letters from Gladstones confirming late search)

3. After receiving no response to the Letter Before Claim sent to the Defendant's previous address where they no longer lived, the Claimant proceeded to issue 4 identical claims, alleging parking offences at the same address. The Defendant believes the robo claims were issued so as to cause distress and anxiety as well as to make the process highly difficult and cost prohibitive to defend. These claims were decided in default, as the Defendant was unaware of their existence, having not lived at the address for longer than a year.

4. When the Defendant became aware of the claims, they made a Subject Access Request to the Claimant, so as to find out more about the alleged offences. The Claimant responded within the legal 30 day timeframe, however they left out the PCNs specifically relating to the claims decided in default. The PCNs related to the claims decided in default were sent a few weeks later (emails as evidence), outside of the legal SAR time frame. As a result, the Defendant found it difficult to formulate a witness statement and a draft defence that is concise and addresses the right points, further causing distress. The defendant believes that the Claimant acted with malicious intent.

5. The Claimant has shown continuous disregard for the court process by issuing multiple robo claims as well as being disrespectful to the Defendant on numerous occasions - they have not at a minimum, put the effort in spelling the Defendant’s name correctly on official court documents, although they have received the correct information several times. The Defendant’s name is not ‘Joney Doey’ or ‘Jonny Doo’, it is ‘John Doe’.

6. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

1. A strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

2.  'Adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

7. The Defendant denies (35.1) or (35.2) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances, is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

8. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict proof of:

1. The alleged breach, which is not pleaded in the Particulars of Claim and requires further and better particulars, and

2. A breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced sum in the Particulars of Claim, including how interest was calculated, which looks to be improperly applied on the entire inflated sum, as if that was all overdue on the day of the alleged event.

9. The Defendant avers that this claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due, whether in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

10. This case is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds the 'numbers game' of bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases.  Ministry of Justice statistics of bulk litigators reveal that there are several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with circa 90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds.  No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a proper cause of action.

11. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022, here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

12. The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "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." 

13. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code - marked as temporarily withdrawn - it is thankfully 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis exposes what they say are industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'fees'. The analysis is found here:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

14. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the former calls debt recovery or 'enforcement' ( = pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

15. Furthermore the code introduces that: “Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking restrictions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease”. This points to the fact that the Parliament wishes private parking companies such as the Claimant take more responsibility to fulfil their duty to protect residents rather than apply blanket punitive measures aimed at increasing profits.

16. With that in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an extreme sum, believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team, not the Claimant.  In this Claim it is additional to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within small claims track rules.  This conduct has been examined and found - including in a detailed judgement by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery'. The Defendant takes that position.

17. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains actually cost 'eight times less' than the seemingly 'price-fixed' +£70 per PCN. This causes consumer harm in the form of almost half a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, which District Judges are powerless to prevent.  This false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies (the IPC and the BPA) who suddenly aligned in 2021 re allowing +£70, each led by a Board of the very parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it. 

18. It is denied that the purported damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis.  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 (decision ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

19. The Claimant has not incurred costs. A parking charge model already includes what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and it is a model that generates a healthy profit.  In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and the £85 'PCN' was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation.  The DLUHC's IA confirms that the parking charge more than covers the minor costs of the letters (NB: the debt collectors do not charge anything in failed collection cases).

20. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, all non-monetary clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry. The 2022 DLUHC Code will replace the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes, which are not regulated and carry limited weight.  In a clear steer for the Courts and for the avoidance of doubt: the DLUHC say they are addressing 'market failure'.

21. In addition, 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.  Further, the Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance.

22. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant failed to erect well-placed, large and readable signs on a par with the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, and unlike the signage requirements set out in the DLUHC Code which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

23. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

24. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'.  In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications intended to be read by consumers. Signage must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

25. The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).  

26. Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged, not least due to the unconscionable added 'Fee'.  The CRA covers disproportionate sums, which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price term and neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs.  

27. The Supreme Court held that 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 alleged breach.  The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms or cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps').  In the present case, the Claimant has failed those tests, with small signs, hidden terms and minuscule small print that is incapable of binding a driver.  Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:

1. Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and

2. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2, both leading authorities that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

3. 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''. 

28. Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the DLUHC Code and these clauses are supported by the BPA & IPC. In 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." 

29. DVLA data is only supplied 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 to form contracts at this site in their name.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.

30. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The DLUHC Code shows that genuine disputes such as this should see PCNs cancelled, had a fair ADR existed.  The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (2020 Annual Report).  This consumer blame culture and reliance upon their own 'appeals service' (described by MPs as a kangaroo court and soon to be replaced by the Government) should lead Judges to know that a fair appeal was never on offer.

31. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it.  The claim is entirely without merit. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out. 

32. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

1. Standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

2. A finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

33. Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) 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.

Signature:

Date:

AngryWatermelon123

Apologies for the very long posts and loads of detail, after our recent experience in court I have found that this case is quite intricate and a lot of judges don't know about the details of the industry so I wanted to include everything.

I'm also using this defence as a way to show the court all the abuse that's been happening over the past few months.

Thanks again!

Coupon-mad

Costs were denied for the 2 set aside claims, as the judge said he has not seen merit for awarding costs to either side so far.

Did the Judge at least state 'costs reserved' on the Order following that hearing, so that the costs are still in play?

You both need to push harder in the upcoming set aside hearings, that the Claimant is completely at fault for failing to do a soft trace to find you before litigation.

This is not only a breach of the CPRs about taking steps to check addresses before filing a claim but also it's a breach of the Codes of Practice (all 3 of them...). 

It is also plainly 'wholly unreasonable' and vexatious to split claims up to cause more than one CCJ, and also the fact that the earliest claim went undefended was 'reason to believe' that the Defendant had moved from that flat. In fact, assuming they still infest the site, they could even have knocked on the door, or asked their client the Managing Agent and found out you'd gone away.

The burden is THEIRS not yours.

There's a great skeleton argument you should copy and submit before your next CCJ set aside hearings.  It's the one now linked in the CCJ set aside section of the NEWBIES thread which I edited again only days ago.
Copy that!

Re the defence, there's also a good (very recent) residential defence by @Rinches19 linked in the NEWBIES thread defence section now.  A good example of adapting the Template Defence for a residential case.

Coupon-mad

Wondering if it's worth someone with a few parking CCJs (e.g. your husband) taking a formal complaint all the way to impasse, then reporting the MoJ to the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Information Commissioner?

Ombudsman complaints cost nothing.

I see a possible valid complaint for having an AI system with zero human intervention at claim stage (before cases are allocated) which allows Claimants to get damaging default CCJs with the press of one button (unilaterally done, even 'out of hours' or o er weekends by parking Claimants' aggressive bulk legals) with absolutely no human checks to make sure (for example) that the POC meet the bare minimum of specification and that the Claim has not been inflated with costs, or duplicated across two claims.

No CCJs are refused.  It just happens by default.  No Judge nor even a CNBC employee even reviews default CCJs. Nothing is done to ever step in or double check that the claim is even remotely valid or reasonable.

It is utterly open to abuse and has been railroaded by bulk litigators who should be banned from small claims, in my view.

It is such a conveyor belt 'nodding it through by AI' system that it doesn't even ask Claimants to confirm that they have taken steps to check addresses are up to date.

I think that is illegal under the DPA 2018.  

The effect of these nodded through (inflated and often duplicated facts) parking CCJs is so damaging for consumers that I'm thinking of the Uber test case recently - this year -  where the company were held in a EU top Court to have breached data processing rules by having an 'AI decision-maker' system with no person checking individual decisions that had potential to ruin lives and livelihoods.

Just like auto-CCJs.

The MoJ also knew about this, years ago.  

In 2016 Courts minister Sir Oliver Heald said: ‘These are serious claims which will be looked at urgently. Our legal system is world-leading and we are determined to ensure that it is not open to abuse.’

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/default-county-court-judgments-2/

Overview

"We are interested in your views as to the effectiveness and appropriateness of the current processes for money claims issued in the County Court.

Of particular interest, will be views from respondents on limiting the circumstances in which an individual may have a judgment made in default against them without their knowledge.

In the light of responses to this consultation, the Government will consider whether any changes are needed to the current arrangements and ask the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which govern processes in the civil courts, to consider any changes.

Any changes to current procedures, following consultation, would inevitably apply to all money claims, whether they arise from, say, a claim for lack of payment for a new fridge or television or are brought by a parking company seeking to enforce a parking infringement on private land."

Parking firms were singled out even more, elsewhere in the report but NOTHING was done.  Not even a specific parking pre-action protocol.  People are treated like 'debtors' and are shockingly funnelled into filling out irrelevant financial declarations about affordability!

NOTHING has been done to make parking Claimants do more to avoid causing CCJs.

And that statement by Sir Oliver Heald was a whole year before it got even worse, the year - 2017 - when DBLegal were invented.  They snowballed and they alone are now responsible for the most parking CCJs of all - something like a hundred thousand claims p.a., IIRC, with c90% going to default CCJs.

IMHO this is abuse of the court system.

I think the AI system handed to Claimants giving known rogue 'bulk litigators' the power to:

(a). deliberately or negligently use old DVLA addresses with little or no effort made to trace the correct address or even (where a new address is found) actually use that new address for claims;

(b). inflate claims (often in multiples of £70 layered on top of parking charges) then 

(c) improperly serve boiler-plate unspecified POCs to out of date addresses;

(d). then press a button for a default CCJ 

...is possibly illegal.

  

AngryWatermelon123

Coupon-mad said:

Costs were denied for the 2 set aside claims, as the judge said he has not seen merit for awarding costs to either side so far.

Did the Judge at least state 'costs reserved' on the Order following that hearing, so that the costs are still in play?

You both need to push harder in the upcoming set aside hearings, that the Claimant is completely at fault for failing to do a soft trace to find you before litigation.

This is not only a breach of the CPRs about taking steps to check addresses before filing a claim but also it's a breach of the Codes of Practice (all 3 of them...). 

It is also plainly 'wholly unreasonable' and vexatious to split claims up to cause more than one CCJ, and also the fact that the earliest claim went undefended was 'reason to believe' that the Defendant had moved from that flat. In fact, assuming they still infest the site, they could even have knocked on the door, or asked their client the Managing Agent and found out you'd gone away.

The burden is THEIRS not yours.

There's a great skeleton argument you should copy and submit before your next CCJ set aside hearings.  It's the one now linked in the CCJ set aside section of the NEWBIES thread which I edited again only days ago.
Copy that!

Re the defence, there's also a good (very recent) residential defence by @Rinches19 linked in the NEWBIES thread defence section now.  A good example of adapting the Template Defence for a residential case.

First off, thanks again!

I'm not sure about the costs reserved, I'll double check. We will also push harder, it was a very stressful day & I suppose we didn't know what to expect and what to do.

With regards to the defence, I've already written a defence using the template (the whole section on costs) as well as other bits from residential cases. I've posted it above, split in 2 comments. Is that no good? I appreciate it's rather long and goes into a lot of detail, that is by design, I found that there is a lot of confusion about things like KADOE, our previous address etc. and I guess I also wanted to air out some of the frustration coming from all the months of threats and abuse and stress. They didn't even bother to spell my other half's name right after we sent them several documents and emails and letters, we almost didn't understand when they called us in the court room through the speakers...it's becoming humiliating.

AngryWatermelon123

Coupon-mad said:

Wondering if it's worth someone with a few parking CCJs (e.g. your husband) taking a formal complaint all the way to impasse, then reporting the MoJ to the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Information Commissioner?

I see a possible valid complaint for having an AI system with zero human intervention at claim stage (before cases are allocated) which allows Claimants to get damaging default CCJs with the press of one button (unilaterally by the Claimant) and no human checks to make sure (for example) that the POC meet the bare minimum of specification and that the Claim has not been inflated with costs, or duplicated across two claims?

It is such a conveyor belt system that it doesn't even ask Claimants to confirm that they have taken steps to check addresses are up to date.

I think that is illegal under the DPA 2018.  

The effect of these nodded through (inflated and often duplicated facts) parking CCJs is so damaging for consumers that I'm thinking of the Uber test case recently - this year -  where the company were held in a EU top Court to have breached data processing rules by having an 'AI decision-maker' system with no person checking individual decisions that had potential to ruin lives. Just like auto-CCJs.

I'm willing to do this too. Who would I be complaining to, the PPC?

I've already spoken to my MP who has spoken to the PPC & the DLUHC, due to engage with the IPC and Gladstones.

The PPC obviously refused to do anything, the DLUHC mentioned the call for evidence, which I want to get involved in as well, however I still need to read up on how to do this. I've seen you are actively involved in the government consultations as well, if you can shed some light of how I can contribute, I'm more than happy to do so.

Coupon-mad

Only the person with default CCJs can complain. Is that both of you?

It would be a complaint about - and addressed to - the MoJ.  Not the PPC. I fancy we do this - pm me and we can talk about that line of attack - as I think there is illegality here in the CCBC's use of AI for default CCJs.

But I can't complain because I'm unaffected.  I could complain 'on your behalf' though.... if you are up for it.

Re the Call for Evidence just answer a question with your own evidence.  You do not have to answer every question; many of them are mainly aimed at the PPC industry.

I am so glad you are taking a real stand and want to contribute to the DLUHC's evidence.  Find a way to use you and your husband's experience and evidence to shape an answer to a question or two!

In your draft defence, I don't know why you've changed these to something that makes no sense to me?

"The Defendant denies (35.1) or (35.2) have been met."

What?...

And PLEASE go look at the defence by @Rinches19 because currently yours is missing all the usual residential case arguments that he or she stated clearly in theirs.

And please go get the skeleton argument linked in the CCJ set aside section of the NEWBIES thread.

You need to submit (file and serve) one like that before the next CCJ set aside hearing.  It will help you argue it better and probably get costs and MAYBE even the claims dismissed on the spot, which is what that poster achieved only a week ago.

AngryWatermelon123

Coupon-mad said:

Only the person with default CCJs can complain. Is that both of you? Yes, that would be both of us.

It would be a complaint about - and addressed to - the MoJ.  Not the PPC. I fancy we do this - pm me and we can talk about that line of attack - as I think there is illegality here in the CCBC's use of AI for default CCJs. I will drop you a message, thank you!

But I can't complain because I'm unaffected.  I could complain 'on your behalf' though.... if you are up for it.

Re the Call for Evidence just answer a question with your own evidence.  You do not have to answer every question; many of them are mainly aimed at the PPC industry. Got it!

I am so glad you are taking a real stand and want to contribute to the DLUHC's evidence.  Find a way to use you and your husband's experience and evidence to shape an answer to a question or two!

In your draft defence, I don't know why you've changed these to something that makes no sense to me?

"The Defendant denies (35.1) or (35.2) have been met."

What?... I'm a bit confused here, I've pasted my defence in 2 comments, the first covers primacy of contract and the cases as well as some particular details about the case (after the set aside hearing I wished that a lot more detail had been clarified to the judge beforehand, in the witness statement)

And PLEASE go look at the defence by @Rinches19 because currently yours is missing all the usual residential case arguments that he or she stated clearly in theirs.

And please go get the skeleton argument linked in the CCJ set aside section of the NEWBIES thread.

You need to submit (file and serve) one like that before the next CCJ set aside hearing.  It will help you argue it better and probably get costs and MAYBE even the claims dismissed on the spot, which is what that poster achieved only a week ago. You will probably tell me off here, but the CCJ set aside applications have been submitted using a local solicitor & we have representation for the hearings. The solicitor said nothing else can be submitted at this point, we have only submitted witness statements back when we found out about the CCJs in June.

I've added responses in bold, thank you!

Edited to say I know my numbering got knocked off when posting, the defence reads from the second page of the thread (my first comment) then  follows on the third page of the thread (my second comment)

Coupon-mad

Ah OK so you have a solicitor - I understand that, bearing in mind the money and your credit rating being at stake - and it's a darn good thing that he or she didn't tell you to offer to pay the 'scam' sums demanded and try to get a consent Order to set aside the CCJs.

We see that wrong approach sometimes from solicitors who don't understand how appallingly wrong private parking charges are.

I am a bit concerned your solicitor didn't get your costs awarded though.

Should have been possible if he or she had known that not doing an address trace before litigation was a specific breach of all three current Codes of Practice.  

Also you can certainly submit a skelly prior to a hearing, in addition to a WS.  I suppose that would increase your costs to ask your solicitor to write one, though. A skelly summarises the legal arguments and helps the Court.

I suspect much of what is in our exemplar skelly for CCJ case hearings is probably niche stuff that your solicitor doesn't know (e.g. the case law, and the Codes of Practice, and the latest from the DLUHC about why adding £70 per PCN is exaggerated and unconscionable).

It is important to check if your Judge 'reserved' costs or disallowed ('no order as to') costs.

If the latter - ouch!  That's expensive. 

Re this bit, the odd thing is you've changed the numbers, so it doesn't make sense (35.1 or 35.2 make no sense):

"The Defendant denies (35.1) or (35.2)have been met."

I'm a bit confused here,

AngryWatermelon123

I know, I have asked about the reserved costs and will see what the best course of action is. 

The thing is, when we discovered 7 CCJs between us we kind of panicked and not having dealt with anything like this previously, made us get a solicitor.

So in regards to the 35.1/35.2 bit, my first comment where I pasted the defence ends with point 28. Then, the second comment starts with 1, but it should really be 29 and continue onwards. Point 7 in my second comment should be point 35 (if you were to continue the numbering from the first comment). That point 7 (which was point 35 initially) has sub points, which are 35.1 and 35.2 (now in the second comment show just as a and b).

Apologies, it's my bad for using automatic numbering that got a bit messed up, I hope that makes more sense.

Otherwise, would you say that I'm covering the right things for a defence in the 2 comments? To me, it seemed fairly similar to the thread you've mentioned as well as others, I've been reading this forum since I found out about the CCJs in June.

As a side note, I'm not planning to ask my solicitor to write anything else because of costs, he suggested that I should do all the writing to save costs too & I agree. 

I'll definitely take a look at the skeleton defence you've mentioned, thanks again!