DCB Legal Ltd Claim Form delayed in mail redirection abroad

neilflah

I'm also unsure of these on the N244:

8. What level of Judge does your hearing need?
leave blank?

9. Who should be served with this application?
Highview Parking (claimant)?  

9a. Please give the service address, (other than details of the claimant or defendant) of any party named in question 9.
Do I provide Highview's address (Jack Straws Castle) even though claim form states 'Address for sending documents and payments' as DCB Legal Ltd, Direct House etc?

Coupon-mad

neilflah said:

Hi Coupon-mad,

Are you saying to attach the Contestor Legal Services letter as persuasive authority?

No I am saying attach the court transcript.

Coupon-mad

neilflah said:

I'm also unsure of these on the N244:

8. What level of Judge does your hearing need?
leave blank?

9. Who should be served with this application?
Highview Parking (claimant)?  

9a. Please give the service address, (other than details of the claimant or defendant) of any party named in question 9.
Do I provide Highview's address (Jack Straws Castle) even though claim form states 'Address for sending documents and payments' as DCB Legal Ltd, Direct House etc?

But isn't all this covered in the NEWBIES thread?  Anyway:

-  District Judge

-  DCB Legal of course.  Highview used them for a reason.

neilflah

Thanks Coupon-mad,

The court transcript available by signing up to Dropbox?

Has anyone else had issues completing the N244 on the computer (Chrome), some text disappears from some fields as I move down the form, yet in other fields the text is accepted!!?

B789

You can cite the persuasive appeal case as follows:

1. Recent persuasive Appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44, attached) would indicate the PoC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction to Part 16.  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. 

2. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xy54utt9djv55xitfp7lk/CEL-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=304syf9czf5arl3i1u1ircjln&dl=0

neilflah

Thanks B789

and....has anyone else had issues with the N244 fields when completing?

neilflah

Hi all,

So I just received this email from CCBC:  

Your application is returned as you have paid the incorrect amount of £108. The correct fee for set aside judgement is £275.00 as there is a judgement on the case. Please pay the remaining balance of £167.

 A copy of your application has not been kept by the court and you must send copies of your application when sending the fee or EX160 / supporting evidence.

 

UncleThomasCobley

You are applying for a set aside without consent which costs £275. Only if the claimant agrees to set aside, do you pay £108.

UncleThomasCobley

As this is a DCB Legal issued claim, make sure that your WS for the set aside has this very early on and make sure that you are requesting for your cost of the application to be paid by the claimant:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

1. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

2. 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 Practice Direction 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 same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

Coupon-mad

neilflah said:

Hi all,

So I just received this email from CCBC:  

Your application is returned as you have paid the incorrect amount of £108. The correct fee for set aside judgement is £275.00 as there is a judgement on the case. Please pay the remaining balance of £167.

 A copy of your application has not been kept by the court and you must send copies of your application when sending the fee or EX160 / supporting evidence.

Ring them up and say you have applied for a CCJ set aside 'without a hearing' because you live abroad.  Coming to a hearing in the UK would be prohibitively expensive, etc.  As such, you thought the fee for an application without a hearing is £108 because you are asking a Judge to strike the case out. No hearing needed. Ask them to check with their supervisor. 

Second thought - you could ask Contestor Legal to take it on as they are very successful and specialise in parking cases and set asides, they obtained the HHJ Murch judgment and Mr Yamba can appear at hearings without you having to attend, as he is instructed by solicitors and has barrister qualifications.