Need advice with a CCJ letter

gdexr

BikingBud said:

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.

Yes, I considered adding this, but then left it out since I'm just aiming to address the CCJ for now. I may use that in the defense later on, I guess?

gdexr

BikingBud said:

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.

Hmm.. thinking about it now... I reckon I should add something to that paragraph there to mentnion that "the alleged contract has no clear location stated in POC and it isn't possible to tell which contract has been breached"

Coupon-mad

Yes.  All makes sense. 

gdexr

Change some of the facts there to tell the story a bit better (I hope):

1.  First, I state that there's been a 1 year gap - not sure I if I need to explicitly put dates, as I do in the timeline above?
2. Then, I state that they failed to take steps required by BPA to verify address (in this 1 year)
3. Then, I state that there hasn't been any response to any letters sent
   
4. Then, I state that they're breaching CPR 6.9, by not confirming that I live at the address, when sending all these documents
   
5. Then, I state that if they adhered to their obligation of doing (para 2 maybe I should mention that again?) I would've also received the claim on time on my address and not only the debt collection letter.
6. I state the same as above... may merge both, I just don't know yet how to correctly mention CPR 13.2(a) and CPR 13.3 here as I think I must emphasize on those?
7. I state that this type of case is known and it's not unique.

Any feedback is appreciated! Constructing a sensible WS is more challenging than I initially thought, please excuse my ignorance, it's my first time.

---

THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE THE CLAIM

1. I would like to highlight that a duration of one year transpired between the issuance of threatening letters from DCB and the subsequent filing of the court claim. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held my correct contact details at the time of the claim.

2. It is evident that the Claimant, by waiting a year before filing a court claim, assumed the responsibility to renew their 28 pence address search in Summer 2023. This action was necessary to align with the provisions outlined in the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice - clause 24.1c - see [this document] to the BPA CoP 2020. British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Code of Practice mandates the execution of a soft trace, a step that the Claimant failed to undertake.

3. 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. BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice - clause 32.1b - see [this document] states: “Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.”

4. Notably, the Claimant's obligation to ascertain the Defendant's correct address became evident, particularly in light of the lack of a response in 2022 and the existence of two potential addresses (A and B ). The delay in initiating the search after such a substantial period and with the availability of multiple addresses raises questions about the Claimant's diligence and indicates that the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3)

5. Had the Claimant adhered to their obligation, they would have discovered Address C. This is not merely a probability but a certainty. Address C, easily traceable in 2023, was overlooked before the court claim was filed. The absence of a proactive address search before the claim contradicts the ease with which DCB promptly traced Address C immediately after the CCJ was issued. This neglect raises concerns about the thoroughness of the initial address search performed before filing the claim.
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 letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd at my current address. This constitutes a breach of CPR 13.2(a), as the claim form was never served to my current address. 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).

6. 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.

    

UncleThomasCobley

gdexr said:

I state the same as above... may merge both, I just don't know yet how to correctly mention CPR 13.2(a) and CPR 13.3 here as I think I must emphasize on those?

5. 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 letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd at my current address. This constitutes a breach of CPR 13.2(a), as the claim form was never served to my current address. 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).  

You need to understand which CPR applies to your situation. Have a read. They are not difficult to understand.

CPR 13.2 is a mandatory set aside. CPR 13.3 is a discretionary set aside. You are relying on 13.2 but you should include 13.3 as. fall back as the claim has a good possibility of being defended successfully.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part13

gdexr

UncleThomasCobley said:

gdexr said:

I state the same as above... may merge both, I just don't know yet how to correctly mention CPR 13.2(a) and CPR 13.3 here as I think I must emphasize on those?

5. 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 letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd at my current address. This constitutes a breach of CPR 13.2(a), as the claim form was never served to my current address. 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).  

You need to understand which CPR applies to your situation. Have a read. They are not difficult to understand.

CPR 13.2 is a mandatory set aside. CPR 13.3 is a discretionary set aside. You are relying on 13.2 but you should include 13.3 as. fall back as the claim has a good possibility of being defended successfully.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part13

Yes, thank you for the comment! I understand the difference and I know that I aim for 13.2 and 13.3 as a fallback, however, I'm not sure how to use them properly with words and now trying to wrap my head around them.

I'll try to break them down below:

CPR 13.2 must set aside

• If 12.3(1) or 12.3(3) is UNSATISIFIED
• or
• if (any conditions in 12.3(2) is UNSATISFIED) and 12.3(3) is UNSATISFIED
  

12.3(1) - SATISFIED???

• (a) The claimant may obtain judgment in default of an acknowledgment of service only if at the date on which judgment is entered - the defendant has not filed an acknowledgment of service or a defence to the claim - [I have not filed an acknowledgment or defence, does this mean this point is satisfied?]
• (b) The claimant may obtain judgment in default of an acknowledgment of service only if at the date on which judgment is entered  - the relevant time for doing so has expired. [time has expired - satisfied?]

12.3(2) - UNSATISFIED???

• (a) Judgment in default of defence (or any document intended to be a defence) may be obtained only where an acknowledgement of service has been filed but, at the date on which judgment is entered, a defence has not been filed; - [I have not filled any acknowledgement or defence, hence unsatisified?]
  
• (b) Judgment in default of defence (or any document intended to be a defence) may be obtained only in a counterclaim made under rule 20.4, where at the date on which judgment is entered a defence has not been filed and, in either case, the relevant time limit for doing so has expired.  - [I don't think I fully understand this entirely, I have not filed a defence, the limit expired - unsatisfied]
  

12.3(3) - UNSATISFIED

• (a) The claimant may not obtain a default judgment if at the time the court is considering the issue—the defendant has applied to have the claimant’s statement of case struck out under rule 3.4; or for summary judgment under Part 24, and, in either case, that application has not been dealt with; - [The application has been dealt with - satisfied??]
  
• (b) The defendant has satisfied the whole claim (including any claim for costs) on which the claimant is seeking judgment; - [I have not]
  

CPR 13.3 may aside

• If 13.3(1)(a) or 13.3(1)(b) or 13.3(1)(b)(i) or 13.3(1)(b)(ii) or 13.3(1)(b)(i) is SATISIFIED
• and
• if 13.3(2) is SATISFIED
  

From what I may understand I qualify for CPR 13.2 due to not having some rules satisfied, but I might be completely wrong here with my logic. I'd appreciate if someone help me understand under which rule I can rely on 13.2 being my case?

What I understand from 13.3 is that it all mostly depends on the court.

Any help appreciated!

Coupon-mad

 12.3(1) or 12.3(3) is UNSATISIFIED in cases where the claim went to an old address.

Simple as that.

So a CCJ set aside v a parking scammer should always succeed based on that, if they used an old address.

Regardless if it being complicated by the consumer being slow to update their V5C, which is in fact, irrelevant because it is incumbent upon the PPC to do the 'soft trace before litigation' that all 3 Codes of Practice say is mandatory. And why is it required? ...Because DVLA addresses are notoriously unreliable, soon out of date and keeper addresses are NOT given for litigation purposes.

Please don't forget to do the response to the Committee. I just posted this to a successful CCJ set aside applicant today:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80417330/#Comment_80417330

Sorry to ask again!  But it's evidence from CCJ victims like you & that person that will make the Committee and MoJ take notice that 'parking claims' are the main problem swamping the CNBC and single-handedly causing most of the delays in recent years.

gdexr

Coupon-mad said:

Please don't forget to do the response to the Committee. I just posted this to a successful CCJ set aside applicant today:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80417330/#Comment_80417330

Sorry to ask again!  But it's evidence from CCJ victims like you & that person that will make the Committee and MoJ take notice that 'parking claims' are the main problem swamping the CNBC and single-handedly causing most of the delays in recent years.

I will do this tonight or first thing tomorrow!

Coupon-mad said:

 12.3(1) or 12.3(3) is UNSATISIFIED in cases where the claim went to an old address.

Simple as that.

So a CCJ set aside v a parking scammer should always succeed based on that, if they used an old address.

Regardless if it being complicated by the consumer being slow to update their V5C, which is in fact, irrelevant because it is incumbent upon the PPC to do the 'soft trace before litigation' that all 3 Codes of Practice say is mandatory. And why is it required? ...Because DVLA addresses are notoriously unreliable, soon out of date and keeper addresses are NOT given for litigation purposes.

I've always wondered why PPC rely only on one source of address for these first letter deliveries, especially knowing we're much more advanced nowadays and live in an age where the majority of people are frequently moving homes. I guess it's more profit to bully people with debt collectors.

Is it appropriate to use a more aggressive paragraph such as:

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 must be set aside. In the alternative, CPR 13.3 applies due to the circumstances, which represent good reasons to set the CCJ aside, and in view of the fact that the Defendant acted promptly and has good prospects of defending the claim.

as I've only mentioned CPR 13.2 here in this paragraph:

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 letter from DCBL at my current address. This constitutes a breach of CPR 13.2(a), as the claim form was never served to my current address. 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.

Coupon-mad

Yes add that more direct paragraph citing 13.2.

gdexr

Coupon-mad said:

Yes add that more direct paragraph citing 13.2.

Done this! I think I'm getting there...

para 6 seems a bit odd... it doesn't contribute much but I like the rest.

THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE THE CLAIM

6. I would like to highlight that a duration of one year transpired between the issuance of threatening letters from DCBL and the subsequent filing of the court claim. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held my correct contact details at the time of the claim.

7. It is evident that the Claimant, by waiting a year before filing a court claim, assumed the responsibility to renew their 28 pence address search in Summer 2023. This action was necessary to align with the regulations outlined in the British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice - clause 24.1c - see [this document] which mandates the execution of a soft trace, a step that the Claimant failed to undertake.

8. 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. BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice - clause 32.1b - see [this document] states: “Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.”

9. Notably, the Claimant's obligation to ascertain the Defendant's correct address became evident, particularly in light of the lack of a response in 2022 and the existence of two potential addresses (A and B ). The delay in initiating the search after such a substantial period and with the availability of multiple addresses raises questions about the Claimant's diligence and indicates that the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3)

10. Had the Claimant adhered to their obligation, they would have discovered Address C. This is not merely a probability but a certainty. Address C, easily traceable in 2023, was overlooked before the court claim was filed. The absence of a proactive address search before the claim contradicts the ease with which DCBL promptly traced Address C immediately after the County Court Judgment was issued. This neglect raises concerns about the thoroughness of the initial address search performed before filing the claim.

11. The claim form was not served at my current address, and as a result, I was unaware of the Default Judgment. This constitutes a breach of CPR 13.2(a), as the claim form was never served to my current address. 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.

12. 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 must be set aside. In the alternative, CPR 13.3 applies due to the circumstances, which represent good reasons to set the CCJ aside, and in view of the fact that the Defendant acted promptly and has good prospects of defending the claim.

13. 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.