Unexpected CCJ - Recovery of Debt letter from DCBL

KeithP

fair2everyone said:

Am I correct in thinking that the defence to be filed and served now will not include references to exhibits and that we will need to submit another WS (a new one, not a continuation of the one for the set-aside), with Exhibits once a hearing date is issued?

That's correct.

fair2everyone

Second version of Defence (removing the paragraph about the letter to Elms being instructed to re-serve)

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. The Defendant was indeed unable to respond to the POC as he first became aware of it on receipt of a letter from a Debt Collector, informing him of a Default CCJ. The Defendant did not receive any letters regarding this incident, and once he had determined what the POC were, had to pay £275 to set aside this wrongly served, unfair CCJ.

4. The Defendant did use the car park at the Berkeley Centre to shop at Tesco. He did not purchase a parking ticket as he did not believe one was necessary. The signs have changed since the date of the event and, in fact, the Claimant is no longer the agent for that site, having been replaced with another company by the landowner, but images can be found that indicate the first hour is free and no ticket is required for that hour and at the time the Defendant did not think he had stayed beyond the hour.

Is this enough?  I can't think of anything more to defend - other than the increase in the charges - which I believe is dealt with further down in the template - I thought about including a calculation showing how little the interest charge generates but would that be something to include in the WS?  We could also include a statement about the fact that the landowner replaced Excel due to being fed up with the number of complaints/newspaper articles about their behaviour - but again is that for the WS?

Coupon-mad

I liked this paragraph a lot. Shows unreasonable conduct in litigation:

5. During the process of the set-aside mentioned above, the defendant received (via a SAR) a copy of a letter to the Solicitor representing the Claimant from the Civil National Business Centre stating that the original claim had been unserved and instructing the Solicitor to ensure the address of the Defendant was correct and if not, to re-serve the claim. This letter was received by the Claimant’s Solicitor on 28 November 2023, at which point, all parties would be aware of the Defendant’s correct address, as the letter from the Debt Collector was dated 16 November 2023. Preventing the need for the Defendant to pay a £275 fee for the set-aside hearing and spend many hours of time on preparing for this.

fair2everyone

Oh thank you - my son messaged earlier saying he felt that was important to his defence.  I will put that back in.  Can just ask - in that letter the court tells the Solicitor to re-serve - does that mean re-serve the original PCN i.e. the NTK letter?  

Umkomaas

fair2everyone said:

Oh thank you - my son messaged earlier saying he felt that was important to his defence.  I will put that back in.  Can just ask - in that letter the court tells the Solicitor to re-serve - does that mean re-serve the original PCN i.e. the NTK letter?  

Re-serve the court claim to the correct address. 

fair2everyone

Umkomaas said:

Re-serve the court claim to the correct address. 

So basically we would have been at the point we’re at now but without the need to set-aside the CCJ?

Umkomaas

fair2everyone said:

Umkomaas said:

Re-serve the court claim to the correct address. 

So basically we would have been at the point we’re at now but without the need to set-aside the CCJ?

Seems that way, but I've not read back through almost 100 posts on the thread for complete context. 

Coupon-mad

fair2everyone said:

Umkomaas said:

Re-serve the court claim to the correct address. 

So basically we would have been at the point we’re at now but without the need to set-aside the CCJ?

Yes. But the reason to raise it is to show they ignored the CCBC's instructions, and denied him the right to defend and cost him £275 as a result. AND misled the previous Judge with a mock-up consent order, despite being warned not to do exactly that, by Cilex in 2023.

If ever there was a course of unreasonable conduct in litigation, there it is right there.

fair2everyone

Thanks @Coupon-mad, I wasn't going to leave it out, I just wanted to be sure I understood what it meant, as at first, both my son and I thought it meant the whole thing would revert back to the first NTK letter i.e. effectively turn back the clock to April/May 2023. In case he (or I, I'm thinking of being his Lay Rep this time) is asked to explain that paragraph.

Coupon-mad

 I thought it meant the whole thing would revert back to the first NTK letter i.e. effectively turn back the clock to April/May 2023.

No it doesn't mean that.