Need advice with a CCJ letter

1505grandad

"The claim form was not served at my current address (address C), and I was therefore unaware of the Default County Court Judgment against me until I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd. dated 31 October 2023 to my current address"

Just checking  -  is the above letter the same one in your bullet points here:-

"On the 7th of November 2023, I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd. at address C. The content of the letter detailed the unpaid County Court Judgment and prompted the awareness that legal proceedings had taken place without my prior knowledge."

gdexr

1505grandad said:

"The claim form was not served at my current address (address C), and I was therefore unaware of the Default County Court Judgment against me until I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd. dated 31 October 2023 to my current address"

Just checking  -  is the above letter the same one in your bullet points here:-

"On the 7th of November 2023, I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd. at address C. The content of the letter detailed the unpaid County Court Judgment and prompted the awareness that legal proceedings had taken place without my prior knowledge."

Yes, it is. Does it sound wrong to have the same statement in the "Default Judgment"? In fact I mention it once again as the second point in "The claimant failed to serve the claim".

Coupon-mad

No, it is just the dates don't match. Either talk about the date on the letter or the date you think it arrived. Probably the latter.

Remove 'of' from all the dates (looks clunky). But yes, that timeline at the top really helps.

Make it clear in your blurb that a whole year had passed between the threatening letters from DCB and the court claim.

Clearly, by waiting a year before finally filing a court claim, it became incumbent upon them to renew their 28 pence address search in Summer 2023, to comply with the Code of Practice and CPRs, especially as no reply was received in 2022 AND they held two possible addresses (A and B ) so could not reasonably just choose one obtained from an old CRA trace a whole year before, from which no reply had ever been received.

Had they done so, they would have discovered address C.

This isn't just probable, nor even 'more than likely' that Address C would have been returned from a 28 pence bulk 'soft trace; it's definite.  Clearly you were 'there to be found' easily in 2023, as proved by how easily DCB lifted a finger to press a button and (auto-bulk) trace your Address C, immediately AFTER the CCJ but didn't bother BEFORE the claim.

Coupon-mad

Also, you realise you need all these as exhibits?

I can provide evidence such as tenancy agreements, contracts and bank statements.

Have a look at the recent WS and evidence example by @Chesterfield1970

Plus you need in your bundle, the CEL v Chan Judgment and other strike outs as exhibits too. This link by @Le_Kirk has them all together:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/gl0tt6pc65xnnvtq2e6g8/h?rlkey=ovz1j9xud64vzhqxx0fh2a8im&dl=0

You should also attach the POC email you got from the CCBC.

And a costs assessment as seen in other threads.

gdexr

Thanks for the feedback @Coupon-mad cannot express how much appreciate your input!

Coupon-mad said:

No, it is just the dates don't match. Either talk about the date on the letter or the date you think it arrived. Probably the latter.

I'have adjusted these dates to match now, I see it causes some confusion.

Coupon-mad said:

Remove 'of' from all the dates (looks clunky).

Removing!

Coupon-mad said:

Clearly, by waiting a year before finally filing a court claim, it became incumbent upon them to renew their 28 pence address search in Summer 2023, to comply with the Code of Practice and CPRs, especially as no reply was received in 2022 AND they held two possible addresses (A and B ) so could not reasonably just choose one obtained from an old CRA trace a whole year before, from which no reply had ever been received.

Had they done so, they would have discovered address C.

This isn't just probable, nor even 'more than likely' that Address C would have been returned from a 28 pence bulk 'soft trace; it's definite.  Clearly you were 'there to be found' easily in 2023, as proved by how easily DCB lifted a finger to press a button and (auto-bulk) trace your Address C, immediately AFTER the CCJ but didn't bother BEFORE the claim.

I'm on it! Just a quick question I already mention that "I was there to be found of the sake of a 29 pence [...]" further down - obviously I'll rewrite most of these paragraphs to point out the facts in a more concise manner as you suggested, however, is it a 28 pence or a 29 pence bulk address search? Perhaps I'm blind but I can't find anything about it googling?

Coupon-mad said:

Also, you realise you need all these as exhibits?

No, I did not! I've got 4/5 documents which I can attach to the WS document - mainly tenancy agreements/contracts and bank statements.

Coupon-mad said:

Plus you need in your bundle, the CEL v Chan Judgment and other strike outs as exhibits too.

Yep, downloaded this document already yesterday!

Coupon-mad said:

Have a look at the recent WS and evidence example by @Chesterfield1970
You should also attach the POC email you got from the CCBC.
And a costs assessment as seen in other threads.

I'll have a look at the thread mentioned!

Coupon-mad

https://assets.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk/g-cloud-12/documents/700542/435094443943409-pricing-document-2020-07-13-1541.pdf

Under 30p soft trace in bulk.  Confirmed by the parking industry to be cheap as chips, because Excel Parking told the DLUHC that the cost including admin time is just £1.50. This figure is a matter of public record, as it's stated in the draft Impact Assessment here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64b6666a0ea2cb001315e47b/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

gdexr

Coupon-mad said:

https://assets.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk/g-cloud-12/documents/700542/435094443943409-pricing-document-2020-07-13-1541.pdf

Under 30p soft trace in bulk.  Confirmed by the parking industry to be cheap as chips, because Excel Parking told the DLUHC that the cost including admin time is just £1.50. This figure is a matter of public record, as it's stated in the draft Impact Assessment here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64b6666a0ea2cb001315e47b/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

Is it necessary to refer to the document when mentioning the 28 pence price?

Coupon-mad

No.

But it gives you the background to prove it and say "it's in the public domain on Gov.uk webpages", if your Judge reckons you are mad to say bulk traces cost peanuts. Judges assume "all this costs money" but that presumption is simply untrue because it's automated simple stuff for bulk operators.

Excel Parking confirmed that it's cheaper than a DVLA look-up and the Government put that £1.50 into the Impact Assessment this Summer.

BikingBud

gdexr said:

Coupon-mad said:

The POC only says: 'PARKWAY RETAIL PARK' (no town)?

Copy the BPA one by @CliveTreeHorn as he has the BPA CoP words and the CEL v Chan case too.

Yes indeed, The POC does not mention a town, I only redacted the car numplate and the PCN number digits.

Does this add value to, and should be included in Para 8?

8. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. It remains uncertain whether the claim pertains to my alleged parking outside of a designated bay, failure to remain on the premises, incorrect bay parking, overstaying the allotted time, or perhaps a technicality associated with the entry process at the kiosk. This lack of specificity places me, the defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

The specifics of this case lack clarity, as the location of the alleged breach has not been fully identified and no..........

 Options for Parkway Retail Parks:
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/617504

https://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/business/first-new-unit-in-a-decade-to-be-built-at-corbys-phoenix-parkway-retail-park-2883369

https://www.wsbproperty.co.uk/adminimages/1wsb%20detailsu4parkwaycentralrpsheffield.pdf

There is also one in Limerick but it may be too extreme to consider that as a possible location.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's all good.