Need advice with a CCJ letter

gdexr

Hello all, thank you very much for approving my user request!

Short story: I've had a parking ticket but never saw the original letter and ignored a few letters from DCBL. I then find this really nice letter yesterday:

This is my first time dealing with legal issues so I'll try to explain what I think happened with a timeline of events:

1. (20/11/2021) New car ( Car B ) bought
2. (20/11/2021 to 30/11/2021) Parking ticket issued somewhere there with old car ( Car A )
3. (30/11/2021) Moved out from Address A to B, Car A V5 lost in the process and did not change the address
   
4. (01/12/2021) Change Car A with Car B
   
5. (around 06/2022) Received two letters from DCBL for Car A, all ignored/forgotten.
6. (01/12/2022) Moved out from Address B to C
7. (21/09/2023) CCJ sent to Address B
   
8. (07/11/2023) Receives the letter above

I checked a credit rating website and it did show a CCJ issued by Civil  Business Centre (CNBC) against me. I also entered all the details from the letter on the DCBL website and located the parking area. While I can't be 100% sure about the parking company involved, I suspect it's Highview Parking Limited based on some signs I found using Google Maps.

I fully understand that I made a mistake by neglecting the initial letters and not seeking help early, but I'll now to take responsibility for my actions.

As I've read through several threads here (most seem too complex for my untrained brain), it appears that there might be a possibility to set aside the CCJ, primarily due to the fact that I did not personally receive any judgment letters from the County Court, in accordance with CPR 12.3.

Q: Is this likely enough to demonstrate that I would have acknowledged the CCJ letter if I had received one?

There was a lot of movement - 3 addresses in 3 years and it looks like they made some effort to find me at Address B. I cannot provide any utility bills from my previous addresses, only the Tenancy Agreement/Contract documents.

I'm still a bit confused about where to look and what to prepare for, but I'll keep reading more threads. I hope to find a solution sooner rather than later.

Thank you very much for your time spent maintaining these forums, it's a real treasure!

Le_Kirk

When you read the NEWBIE sticky, which we advise all posters to read before posting, did you see the bit that said real letters of claim MUST give you 30 days to respond and that if it is 14 days it is a debt collector letter and please refer to the fourth post of the sticky to see what to do with them.  Posted that answer on wrong thread. More worrying is why you did not receive any prior letters; is your V5C up-to-date; don't guess but check.

Coupon-mad

Sounds like you need to set aside the CCJ. This is covered in the NEWBIES thread.

The most recent thread to read who has gone through this and had their parking CCJ set aside, PCN cancelled/claim dismissed - and all their costs back - is by @Troublesum1 (among the top threads with replies today).

gdexr

Thanks both for pointing me at the right direction!

Le_Kirk said:

More worrying is why you did not receive any prior letters; is your V5C up-to-date; don't guess but check.

The V5C was indeed not updated, and not getting the PCN letter was probably due to leaving the address one week after the incident happened. Then, I started receiving debt collector letters 6 to 7 months after that, which I ignored.

---

Q: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've gathered some information about the process of setting aside a CCJ, and here are the steps I've found so far:

1. Fill in Form N244
2. Attach a Witness Statement (as per N244 p.10)
   
3. Fill in Form N24 (General Form of Judgment or Order)
4. Send all these above to Civil National Business Centre (CNBC)

mostly from this post here - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76473858/#Comment_76473858

I'm now following https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6412293/ccj-from-old-address-seeking-advice-on-draft-order-and-ws/p1
regarding all the documents, as it's suggested to be the most recent one. I'll then drop some updates on how it goes!

There's one more thing I'm not particularly sure about and would like to ask:

Q: Who is the claimant in my case here?

There're three actors here:

1. DCBL (the debt collectors)
2. DCB Legal (the solicitors)
3. Highview Parking Limited (the parking company that sold its debt to DCBL)

Actually, I'm not sure if 3) is Highview Parking Limited; I'm just guessing it's them by looking at the car park signs. I don't know if there's a way to confirm this without having the original PCN letter.

All help here is very much appreciated! Have a nice weekend!

KeithP

You would be wise to get the CNBC to send you a copy of the Particulars of Claim.
Phone them on Monday - number is 0300 123 1056 - and ask them to email a copy to you.

Not_A_Hope

The claimant is the PPC. They cannot sell the debt on but the legal leeches DCB Legal earn their I’ll gotten gains by inflating the sum and by people ignoring the court claims (or by sending letters to old addresses) leaving the claim undefended resulting in a default CCJ.

To be sure who the right PPC is that raised this claim is you should ring the CCBC but prepared for a wait.

Once you have that info you should write / email the PPC and any legal acting on their behalf with your new address and instruct them to erase the old ones.

You should make sure your V5C is up to date with the DVLA if it is not already

Le_Kirk

There are four recent threads in the NEWBIE sticky that you can use as exemplars starting with @Brokenchief, @Jack5656, @parkingpains1 and  @EpsomJim

Coupon-mad

Le_Kirk said:

There are four recent threads in the NEWBIE sticky that you can use as exemplars starting with @Brokenchief, @Jack5656, @parkingpains1 and  @EpsomJim

But due to CEL v Chan, and the fact we now suggest a THREE POINT DRAFT ORDER (not 6 point) I will be replacing most of them with this and maybe the one by @hallie28 instead:

A recent thread to read who has gone through this and had their parking CCJ set aside, PCN cancelled/claim dismissed - and all their costs back - is by @Troublesum1

gdexr

Thanks everyone for helping out!

KeithP said:

You would be wise to get the CNBC to send you a copy of the Particulars of Claim.
Phone them on Monday - number is 0300 123 1056 - and ask them to email a copy to you.

I did this on Monday and got the following email from CNBC:

---

CLAIMANT = HIGHVIEW PARKING LIMITED
SOLICITORS = DCB LEGAL LTD (7451)
TEL = [Removed by Forum Team]
REF = [Removed by Forum Team]
AMOUNT = £282.04

POC=

1. THE DEFENDANT(D) IS INDEBTED TO THE CLAIMANT (C) FOR A PARKING CHARGE(S) ISSUED TO VEHICLE XXXXXXX AT PARKWAY RETAIL PARK

2. THE PCN DETAILS ARE 22/10/2021, 2000011574XXX

3. THE PCN(S) WAS ISSUED ON PRIVATE LAND OWNEDOR MANAGED BY C. THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED IN BREACH OF THE TERMS ON CS SIGNS (THE CONTRACT), THUS INCURRING THE PCN(S)

4. THE DRIVER AGREED TO PAY WITHIN 28 DAYS BUT DID NOT. D IS LIABLE AS THE DRIVER OR KEEPER. DESPITE REQUESTS, THE PCN(S) IS OUTSTANDING. THE CONTRACT ENTITLES C TO DAMAGES. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

• 1. £155 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE PCN(S) AND DAMAGES.
• 2. INTEREST AT A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM PURSUANT TO S.69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 FROM THE DATE HEREOF AT A DAILY RATEOF £0.02 UNTIL JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT.
• 3.COSTS AND COURT FEES

---

Coupon-mad said:

Le_Kirk said:

There are four recent threads in the NEWBIE sticky that you can use as exemplars starting with @Brokenchief, @Jack5656, @parkingpains1 and  @EpsomJim

But due to CEL v Chan, and the fact we now suggest a THREE POINT DRAFT ORDER (not 6 point) I will be replacing most of them with this and maybe the one by @hallie28 instead:

A recent thread to read who has gone through this and had their parking CCJ set aside, PCN cancelled/claim dismissed - and all their costs back - is by @Troublesum1

It was easy to follow @hallie28 thread and came up with this Wintess Statement and Draft Order(comments below). It feels a bit like I'm repeating myself in places, but that's essentially my situation: I received a debt recovery letter for the CCJ, but there was no letter regarding the CCJ claim itself. I am now looking at the actual N244 Form.

gdexr

---

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, XXX, of XXX , will say as follows:

1. I am the Defendant in this matter and I make this witness statement in support of my application to set aside the County Court Judgment (CCJ) entered against me on 21/09/2023, in default due to a defective service of Claim.
2. I was not aware of the claim made against me until I received a "NOTICE OF DEBT RECOVERY - Unpaid County Court Judgment" letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd. on 7th November 2023. This is when I found out the Claimant had obtained a default CCJ against me.
3. The Claimant served the claim to an old address. This is a breach of CPR 13.2 (a) as the claim form was never served to my current address.
4. The Claimant had a duty to take reasonable steps to check for the correct address, in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice 22.1 and CPR 6.9, as more than 12 months have passed since the PCN on 22/10/2021.
5. I have not received any correspondence or notice regarding the County Court Judgment until I became aware as per paragraph 2 above.
6. It has been more than a month since the CCJ was issued, during which time I have not been aware of the claim or the CCJ. As per CPR 7.5, the claim should now be dismissed.
7. I believe that I have a strong defence to the claim, and should it not be dismissed, I wish to have the opportunity to defend it properly as per CPR 13.3.
8. I have set out the grounds for my application in the attached draft order.

THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE THE CLAIM

1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on 21/09/2023. I am aware that the Claimant is Highview Parking Limited and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice.
2. CPR 6.9 stipulates that an "Individual" should be served at their "Usual or last known residence." The Claimant, having obtained a previous address from the DVLA on 21/10/2021 and having received no response, did not perform the requisite "reasonable diligence" required to find my correct address to serve the claim form in 09/2023.
3. The claim form was not served at my current address, and as a result, I was unaware of the Default Judgment until I received a "NOTICE OF DEBT RECOVERY - Unpaid County Court Judgment" letter at my current address. This constitutes a breach of CPR 13.2(a), as the claim form was never served to my current address, whereas the debt recovery letter was. Due to this, the judgment was wrongly entered as I was unable to submit an acknowledgement of service in the absence of notification of the case (CPR 13.3).
4. The address on the claim is [ADDRESS B]. I moved from this address to my current address at [ADDRESS C] in December 2022. In support of this, I can provide documentation showing my updated address if required.
5. The fact that there was no response from a series of letters sent to my previous address should have alerted the Claimant to the possibility that I was not residing there. Silence after sending a Notice to Keeper, a reminder and then a Letter before Claim is a clear indicator that the Registered Keeper may not live there.
6. I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address at which I no longer resided. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of my current residence, despite having some 12 months to establish a valid address. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an old address and an irregular judgment.
7. According to publicly available information, my circumstances are far from unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses of results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

THE INTERNATIONAL PARKING COMMUNITY CODE WAS NOT FOLLOWED

1. International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice which requires a soft trace to be undertaken was not followed. The IPC Code of Practice 2019 - Version 7, November 2019, clause 22.1 states;
2. Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the motorist’s details are still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court proceedings”

DVLA ADDRESS DATA MAY NOT BE RELIABLE

1. DVLA data is provided for a single (very limited) reason, so a parking operator can invite the registered keeper to name the driver or pay the invoice or inform the registered keeper they will be liable if not, and notify of appeal rights.
2. The system, called 'KADOE' (Keeper On Date of Event), is a brief 'snapshot in time' address to enable a parking firm to send a Notice to the registered keeper. 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 updates a VC5 logbook with a new address (or if the DVLA fails to process a change in a timely manner, which is reportedly common) a parking operator will not know, nor be able to find that out.
3. There is no safe presumption that a DVLA vehicle address is a valid address where a Defendant can be served. The KADOE address is not provided as a 'court claim service address' and should not be relied upon, as it is only an address where the vehicle was kept at a historical point in time (which may not be where the keeper lives; it is where the car was 'kept').
4. A claim sent to an old DVLA registered keeper address with no soft trace checks (costing as little as 29 pence and offered free by debt collectors connected to the parking industry) fails to meet the IPC Code of Practice, fails to satisfy the specific 'pre-action Protocol for debt claims', and is in breach of the CPRs about the obligation to take 'reasonable steps' to check a Defendant's address so that service is effective.
5. Considering the above, I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgment against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside, and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £275 from the claimant should this request be successful.

CLAIM IS DEAD AS MORE THAN 4 MONTHS HAVE PASSED FROM THE ISSUE DATE OF PROCEEDINGS RELEVANT CASE LAW

1. Case law precludes the court from resurrecting a dead claim more than 4 months after it was improperly served and does not give the courts any scope to do so.
2. There are several authorities, including the judgment in Boxwood [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC), which are reminders 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.”
3. In the judgment of Deputy Master Marsh in Croke & Anor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch), 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."
4. In Piepenbrock-v-Associated News Limited [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB), 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.
5. “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 [...]
6. 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. [...]
7. 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]. [...]
8. 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.”
9. In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784, 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 the power to do so.
10. CPR 12.3(1) states that a claimant may obtain judgment in default of an acknowledgement of service only if at the date on which judgment is entered (a) the defendant has not filed an acknowledgement of service or a defence to the claim (or any part of the claim); and (b) the relevant time for doing so has expired. In this case, the claim form was not validly served in [month/year] due to failure to check for a current address (CPR 6.9 (3)), therefore the time limit for acknowledging service has not begun. As the time limit has not begun it cannot have expired. As the time limit has not expired the condition in CPR 12.3(1)(b) has not been satisfied. This results in a mandatory set aside (CPR 13.2). It follows that if a claim is set aside for failure to be served, then the claim cannot be resurrected and served again after 4 months has passed from the date of filing pursuant to CPR 7.5(1). This is on point with the court of appeal in Dubai Financial Group Llc v National Private Air Transport Services Company (National Air Services) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 71 (09 February 2016):
11. “Moreover, I do not consider that the CPR presents an obstacle in the circumstances of this case to setting aside judgment. CPR 13.2 provides that the court must set aside a default judgment where any of the conditions in rule 12.3(1) and 12.3(3) was not satisfied. The latter provision does not apply, but the former is relevant. CPR 12.3(1) states that a claimant may obtain judgment in default of an acknowledgement of service only if (a) the defendant has not filed an acknowledgement of service or a defence and (b) the relevant time for doing so has expired (my italics). I accept Mr McLaren's argument that when an order for retrospective validation of an alternative method of service has been made pursuant to CPR 6.15(2) the relevant time for filing an acknowledgement of service is the period which the court must specify under CPR 6.15(4)(c). Where, as in this case, the court did not specify any such time there can be no relevant time which has expired for the purposes of CPR 12.3(1). If this analysis is correct the requirements of CPR 12.3(1)(b) have not been satisfied and so the court is obliged to set aside the default judgment pursuant to CPR 13.2(a).
12. I do not see it as a draconian consequence that a judgment, obtained after deemed service has been effected without specifying a time for that service to be acknowledged, should be set aside as of right in such a case. I agree that CPR 13.2 specifies the circumstances in which a default judgment must be set aside and in my judgment one of those circumstances is when judgment is entered in default of an acknowledgement of service when "any of the conditions in rule 12.3(1) …was not satisfied". Here one such condition was not satisfied, namely the time for acknowledgement of service had not expired, because none had ever become applicable.
13. This, to my mind, is not "playing technical games" (c.f. the passage from the Abela case, cited at paragraph 11 in the judgment of Longmore LJ). It is merely applying the principle that due process should be followed. If a defendant has never become under a valid obligation to acknowledge service, either as specified under the rules or by order of the court, I do not see how it can be that a judgment can be entered against him in default of such acknowledgement. He is simply not in default at all.”

THE CLAIM IS DEAD

1. Continuing a dead claim more than 4 months after it was raised (but never properly served) is impossible under any rule of law or practice (CPR 7.5).
2. The Claimant is wholly responsible for failing to serve the claim correctly within the 4 months (as required by CPR 7.5) and as a result this claim is dead.
3. The Claimant should not be given extra opportunities to waste the Court’s time after failing to follow pre-action protocols for debt claims, breaching the IPC code of practice and the CPRs about taking 'reasonable steps' (CPR 6.9) to check a Defendant's address.
4. If the Claimant believes they still have a claim then filing afresh is the only way forward. The Claimant may send a ‘Letter Before Claim’ to the right address, this time following the pre-action protocol for debt claims. The court is reminded that this Defendant has received nothing to build any defence on. No claim form and no detailed particulars of the claim have ever been sent to the Defendant’s current address.
5. This claim should be struck out as more than 4 months have passed (CPR 7.5 refers) from issue of proceedings [date] and service of the claim was defective (i.e. it was never served).
6. I have responded to this matter as promptly as possible. I discovered a CCJ from a "NOTICE OF DEBT RECOVERY - Unpaid County Court Judgment" letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited sent to my current address on the 9th of November 2023. I then contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgment. The following day on [DATE] I have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.
7. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £275 from the claimant should this request be successful.

gdexr

Statement of truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement 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.

Signed:

Date:

---