Help needed ASAP - CCJ set aside application

Coupon-mad

Elms could not ask the DVLA so it's irrelevant.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Elms could not ask the DVLA so it's irrelevant.

....... and PPCs are only allowed to ask once.

ribenacat346

@Coupon-mad @Le_Kirk
Thank you for your replies. 

I have started things off by emailing ELMS to let them know I'll be applying for a set aside (as advised on another thread here) and received the below response - does anyone have any thoughts on this? I did think they'd be the ones to come to me with an 'offer' to settle. I would be tempted to pay up to £75 to settle and avoid the stress of taking this to a hearing (as much as that pains me to give in). 

Coupon-mad

They won't accept less than £200 but start at £75 if you want it removed in the first month.

UncleThomasCobley

Offering to pay "up to £75" to avoid the "stress" of taking this to a hearing is nothing but a capitulation to the scammers and becoming a part of the problem by funding them. Surely, the educational benefit of learning a bit of how the civil process works and how to use it to your advantage as well as the schadenfreude of them ultimately losing is a much more healthy option.

As you are applying to set aside under CPR 13.2 which is a mandatory set aside, and with the very recent CEL v Chan appeal judgment likely to be of use in not only getting this set aside but also struck out at the same time, you should concentrate on this. You should also ask for the set aside fee to be refunded to you by the claimant at the set aside hearing.

Can you show us the PoC of the original claim?

Coupon-mad

Except that they are apparently still within the first month, and a set aside is a risk.  I can see why paying something might (sadly) be pragmatic if the CCJ was this month.

UncleThomasCobley

Coupon-mad said:

Except that they are apparently still within the first month, and a set aside is a risk.  I can see why paying something might (sadly) be pragmatic if the CCJ was this month.

Maybe... however, that is assuming they'd accept the max £75 the OP is prepared to pay. A set aside under 13.2 with a  fall-back on 13.3 is most probably going to succeed. I don't think we've seen hardly any set asides under 13.2 fail, have we?

Also, if the PoC are as deficient as most, the original claim could be struck out at the same time with the CEL v Chan argument as the cases are almost identical.

ribenacat346

UncleThomasCobley said:

Offering to pay "up to £75" to avoid the "stress" of taking this to a hearing is nothing but a capitulation to the scammers and becoming a part of the problem by funding them. Surely, the educational benefit of learning a bit of how the civil process works and how to use it to your advantage as well as the schadenfreude of them ultimately losing is a much more healthy option.

As you are applying to set aside under CPR 13.2 which is a mandatory set aside, and with the very recent CEL v Chan appeal judgment likely to be of use in not only getting this set aside but also struck out at the same time, you should concentrate on this. You should also ask for the set aside fee to be refunded to you by the claimant at the set aside hearing.

Can you show us the PoC of the original claim?

I totally hear you, I'm wavering between the anger for the situation being my motivation to continue, however its already having quite an effect on my mental health so I'm sure you can imagine how appealing chucking £75 at them to shut up may seem! 
I need to do more research on the CEL v Chan judgement - that's my plan tonight. I also plan to as for the set aside fee to be refunded (I'm preparing drafts).
Will get back to you on PoC of claim, I'm going to reply to their email and ask for it from them (I'm assuming a PoC is only an official thing I can get from ELMS legal rather than a summary of the situation from myself? - feeling like such an idiot here with all the terminology)

UncleThomasCobley

You should contact the CNBC and ask them for the PoC. The Particulars of Claim are what is on the official N1 claim form as sent out from the CNBC. Don't ask ELMS for them as they may twig and try and bamboozle you with amended PoC. You need what was originally written on the N1 claim form.

The CEL v Chan judgment can be found here:

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

ribenacat346

UncleThomasCobley said:

You should contact the CNBC and ask them for the PoC. The Particulars of Claim are what is on the official N1 claim form as sent out from the CNBC. Don't ask ELMS for them as they may twig and try and bamboozle you with amended PoC. You need what was originally written on the N1 claim form.

The CEL v Chan judgment can be found here:

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

Thank you 

The PoC:

The Claim is for a breach of contract for

breaching the terms and conditions set on

private land. The Defendant's vehicle,

XXXXXXX, was identified in the Leeds Bradford

Airport Roadways on the 30/04/2023 in breach

of the advertised terms and conditions;

namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is

prohibited. At all material times the

Defendant was the registered keeper and/or

driver. The terms and conditions upon

entering private land were clearly displayed

at the entrance and in prominent locations.

The sign was the offer and the act of

entering private land was the acceptance of

the offer hereby entering into a contract by

conduct. The signs specifically detail the

terms and conditions and the consequences of

failure to comply, namely a parking charge

notice will be issued, and the Defendant has

failed to settle the outstanding liability.

The Claimant seeks the recovery of the

parking charge notice, contractual costs and

interest.