Remote CCJ hearing help

steadyuk

Hi everyone, 

I have made an application to have a CCJ set aside and received a notice of hearing of application with a hearing date of mid October. The hearing will take place by Microsoft Teams and the letter instructs that the applicant must arrange the call so all representatives can join the call. 

Questions I have are

• I have emailed UKPC for contact details for the call, but I have had no response. I will attempt again by email to other UKPC addresses, but is email enough? Can the hearing still go ahead if they provide no contact details? 

• A pdf bundle needs to be attached to the call. What should be in the pdf bundle? My WS and DS from the n244 are as below. Do I also need to draft a defence? 

Due to not receiving the letters I had no chance to contest the charge, which I think would have been simple as the shop attached to the car park (tk maxx) had extended hours past their usual restricted time of 10pm due to the government extending hours for Christmas post lockdown.

many thanks

N244 

The Defendant seeks an order setting aside the judgement dated 14/06/2022 pursuant to CPR 13.2. The Defendant seeks the order to set aside because he was unaware of the proceedings. 

The Claimant served proceedings at an address not used by the Defendant since June 2017

Witness statement

I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, am the Defendant in this matter.

1. I make this Witness Statement in support of the application for an order that the judgment in this case (Claim No. XXXXXX Judgment dated 14/06/2020) be set aside.

2. I learned of the existence of this claim on 10/07/2023 when I checked my Credit File showing a requested payment of the judgment detailed in paragraph 1. [attached in appendix A]

3. It is my understanding that the claim was served at XXXXX . However, I no longer live at that address.

4. I have lived at my current address since June 2017. This is evidenced by my mortgage statement  [attached in appendix B] and update to the electoral register. [attached in appendix C]

5. I have never received any documentation from the Claimant regarding this matter and as such I was never able to defend the claim. 

6. Given that this claim is related to a parking incident which occurred in December 2020 it follows that the Claimant would have had reason to believe they did not hold my current contact details having received no response from me for over 6 months. 

7. It is therefore unreasonable for the Claimant to pursue a claim against me without ensuring that they had the correct and current contact details, especially given the multiple of avenues that could have been used to obtain my current address. 

8. Based on the above I believe the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use my current address when making their claim, meaning I did not have the opportunity to defend this claim properly. 

9. As a result of all the above, I respectfully request that the Court sets aside the judgment in this claim under CPR 13.2 for improper service of the court documents. 

10. Alternatively, if the court is not inclined to set aside the judgment in this claim under CPR 13.2, there are good reasons why the judgment should be set aside under CPR 13.3.

Claim no.: xxxxxx

Between:

UK Parking Control Limited (Claimant)

--- and ---

xxxxxx

UPON reading the Defendant's application dated 14/07/2023 and the annexed witness statement of

XXXXXX dated 14/07/2023

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The default judgment dated 14th June 2022 be set aside.

2. The Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs of this application to the sum of £275

3. Unless the Claimant serves a copy of the Claim Form on the Defendant by 4pm on DD/MM/YYYY,

the claim will be struck out without further order.

4. If the Claimant serves the claim form as directed in paragraph 3 the Defendant shall file and serve

a defence by 4pm on DD/MM/YYYY.

5. If the Claimant discontinues it’s claim after the judgment referred to in paragraph 1 is set aside,

the Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of this application, assessed at £275, plus the Defendant’s

costs for attending the hearing.

6. All enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.

B789

You may want to expand slightly on this:

10. Alternatively, if the court is not inclined to set aside the judgment in this claim under CPR 13.2, there are good reasons why the judgment should be set aside under CPR 13.3.

You need to specify a reason for setting aside under CPR 13.3, even if only to mention that the claimant has no cause of action or has breached their own CoP, etc.

Have ou managed to obtain the PoC from the original claim? There may be enough in there (or lack of) to get the claim struck out at the set aside hearing.

steadyuk

That's great, many thanks for that.  

PoC->

THE CLAIMANTS CLAIM IS FOR AN OUTSTANDING PARKING CHARGE ISSUED TO VEHICLE xxxxx WHENPARKED AT xxxxx. THE SITE IS MANAGED BY THE CLAIMANT. THE DEFENDANT IS THE KEEPER OF OR THE DRIVER NAMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCHEDULE 4 OF PROTECTION OF FREEDOM ACT 2012 OF THE VEHICLE. VEHICLES PARKING AT THE SITE ARE SUBJECT TO THE PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND  TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHICH ARE SET OUT ON SIGNS AT THE SITE AND FORM PART OF A CONTRACTBETWEEN THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE AND THE CLAIMANT.ON 04 12 2020, THE VEHICLE WAS  PARKED AT THE SITE IN BREACH OF THE CONTRACT,THE CONTRAVENTION BEING NO PARKING OUT OF HOURS. BY ENTERING THIS CONTRACT THE     DEFENDANT AGREED THAT THEY WOULD BE LIABLE   FOR £100.00 PARKING CHARGES, PLUS ADDITIONAL CONTRACTUAL CHARGES INCURED BY THE CLAIMANT  FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE DEBT PURSUANT TO   THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.  

B789

It may be possible to argue that the PoC fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice Direction to Part 16. The alleged breach, "No parking out of hours", is a bit too vague. Without stipulating the actual hours that parking is allowed and the time parked, there is nothing in there to defend on.

Coupon-mad

The hearing will take place by Microsoft Teams and the letter instructs that the applicant must arrange the call so all representatives can join the call. 

Phone the local court and object to that burden. You are a litigant in person.  This is unacceptable and only normal where a party is legally represented.

DO NOT ACCEPT THIS BURDEN.

It's a mistake by the court staff to expect you to do this and be responsible for arranging the call. Ring them and tell them to please arrange the hearing and that you are not represented so can't do all this.

Your dates are wrong.

You say in para 1 that the CCJ was dated 14/6/2020.  Yet you later say the parking event was six months later than that (December 2020)  but you also talk there about a 'six month' gap of not hearing from you.  Then in your Draft Order you say the CCJ was actually 18 months later in 2022...

You need more in your WS. Exhibits too; evidence of where you lived and a link to the correct (out of two) Code of Practice and state how the PPC breached it by failing to re-check the address before litigation.

Using an old DVLA address IS NOT ALLOWED.

You should copy the witness statement by @hallie28 because you are missing loads.

You don't need a defence yet but do need to know the basis of your defence.  Can you prove the shop was open?

Which PPC?

Is this a QDR claim?

steadyuk

Many thanks for the help and noticing the date. Date in WS item 1 . should be 14/06/2022.

Company is UKPC and QDR solicitors. 

I will make the amendments and ring the court. I have evidence from the council of where I lived in the appendix. 

Unfortunately I haven't been able to prove that the shops where open. I have contacted the stores and they can't tell me without a receipt. I have looked through bank accounts for transactions, but no luck yet. 

Do I just email in the WS amendments to the local court? 

many thanks

GrannyKate

Google the name of the store and Christmas opening December 2022.  Lots of press articles about the extended opening hours - here is an example https://www.standard.co.uk/shopping/esbest/christmas/supermarket-opening-hours-christmas-new-year-bank-holidays-b1044054.html

Sorry got confused by dates and you want 2020 not 2022 but you should be able to find similar examples with store name and December 2020

Coupon-mad

Do I just email in the WS amendments to the local court? 

And you MUST copy in QDR.

If you've already sent a WS, instead send a skeleton argument like hallie's,

steadyuk

ok, that's clear many thanks. 
I rang the local court (Exeter) and they admitted it was a mistake and will send me an amended version of the notice of hearing.
The car park was Exebridges in Exeter (TK Maxx store), with the help of contact details in this thread I have also contacted the owners to confirm opening times. Google searching news and hours is not showing up anything :-(
UKPC Overstayed due to panic attack appealing to POPLA - Page 2 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Drafting up the skeleton argument now, many thanks to all. 

Coupon-mad

I rang the local court (Exeter) and they admitted it was a mistake.

I knew it!  Totally too much to ask of you.

steadyuk

 I have drafted/copied skeleton arguments from other threads. Many thanks to all!

Few questions

- I spoke to the local court and they said I have time to amend the witness statement. Do I create a separate document with statement of truth for this amendment and email it into the court and QDR? Or resubmit the whole WS? I need to amend the date in para 1 to 14/06/2022
- I would like to add additional evidence of electoral role address that I have received from Exeter CC. Do I add this as an exhibit onto the skeleton or onto the WS amendment?
- Is it correct that the skeleton should not include a statement of truth and not be signed?


Skeleton (with personal detail removed and I have hyperlinked the cases, final will include headers and page numbers)

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 XX). 

 

2.2 There are several authorities for this, including the judgment in Boxwood vs Gleeson [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 would not have had any response from communications sent to (XXXXX) but then filed a claim there anyway, instead of carrying out an up-to-date Credit Reference Agency (CRA) 'bulk trace' for 28 pence, immediately prior to the claim. Had the Claimant carried out an up-to-date CRA ‘bulk trace’ they would have found the correct address (XXXX due to the fact that mortgage statements and the electoral register had been updated to this address for many months (see mortgage statement dated XXX, submitted as evidence).

 

3.1 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.”