Unexpected CCJ - Recovery of Debt letter from DCBL

fair2everyone

With regard to the remainder of the defence template, I understand the gist of most of it but where it references certain documents, do I need to know and understand them in detail e.g. the paras in Beavis or any of the other XvY cases referenced.  Am I likely to be quizzed by the Judge to show I understand and haven't just copied and pasted a template?  And can I assume the Judge already knows what things like  Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) means - I've just googled that so that I understand it's significance   

Le_Kirk

It would certainly help your case if you could talk about what you put in your defence but you are not a legal beagle and would not be expected to know the detail intimately.  You will be up against lawyerly types in the claimant and their solicitors and it is their day job.  There is nothing wrong with telling the judge you researched the matter and the defence is what you found.  If you had paid a solicitor who was representing you, there would be no questions asked of you!

fair2everyone

This is my latest version of the defence:

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 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.

4. The Defendant was 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 as they were all sent to an old address, and once he had determined what the POC were, had to pay £275 to set aside this wrongly served, unfair CCJ.

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.

This needs to be filed and served by Thurs 28th - so a few final questions.

Having read through a few examples this weekend, I read that the WS cannot refer to anything not mentioned in the defence.  With that in mind, I've added a bit about all letters going to an old address (para 3).  

I'd like to elaborate more on the added charges, which aren't fully explained in any of the letters, for example, the LBC only mentions £170 (already exaggerated charge) plus £35 court fee plus 0.02% daily, which only works out at about £3 up to the point of the Judgment so how did it become £277 - do I add this to the defence or could it go in the WS?

Equally, I'd like to highlight the fact that Excel were involved in the DLUHC Impact Assessment document and knew full well that relying on DVLA data was not a safe assumption.  - again, does this belong in the defence or WS?

I guess I'm just concerned I haven't added as much to the defence template that others seem to have done.

Coupon-mad

I'd like to elaborate more on the added charges, which aren't fully explained in any of the letters, for example, the LBC only mentions £170 (already exaggerated charge) plus £35 court fee plus 0.02% daily, which only works out at about £3 up to the point of the Judgment so how did it become £277 - do I add this to the defence or could it go in the WS?

Those costs are all normal and not challengeable, except for the added fake DRA fee that Excel haven't paid anyone.  The Template Defence already more than covers that.

The claim is:

£100 PCN
£70 rip-off 'fee' that the DLUHC called 'extorting money from motorists'
£35 claim filing fee
£50 capped (allowed) legal fees
£22 default judgment fee

https://www.stepchange.org/debt-info/debt-collection/court-fees.aspx

fair2everyone

Coupon-mad said:

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.

We haven't included anything here about the mock-up consent order - do you think we should?

Coupon-mad

Yes put a sub-heading:

'Clear course of the Claimant's unreasonable conduct in this litigation'

above your para 5 then add something about the mocked-up consent Order as para 6

fair2everyone

Coupon-mad said:

Yes put a sub-heading:

'Clear course of the Claimant's unreasonable conduct in this litigation'

above your para 5 then add add something about the mocked-up consent Order as para

Does this look ok, please:

Clear course of the Claimant's unreasonable conduct in this 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 un-served 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.

6. Three weeks before the set-aside hearing, the Claimant’s Solicitor sent to the court a document in the form as a Consent Form, which included the Defendant’s name, ready for his signature. The Defendant believes this was done with the intention to mislead the court. Indeed, at the set-aside hearing, the previous Judge began proceedings by reading out the contents of that 'Consent Order'.  The Defendant is aware that the Claimant’s Solicitor has used this tactic previously and was warned by their regulator CILEx Regulation Limited not to do exactly that in 2023. 

Do we need another sub-heading between this and the now para 7

7. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

Coupon-mad

You could put a sub-heading under that:

Other supporting defence points

I don't think you have made it clear that the Consent Order was misleading.  There is nothing wrong with a legal team sending a DRAFT ORDER to help the court but they didn't do that. They called it a CONSENT ORDER.

Don't put "ready for his signature".

The misleading bit was the fact they DIDN'T describe it clearly as a 'draft Order' and the covering email was designed to mislead the court into vacating the hearing the Defendant had been forced to pay for.

Your son needs to do a WS to support this defence, and attach the usual exhibits seen in the WS section of the NEWBIES thread AND the two documents that he is saying show a course of conduct which is wholly unreasonable. Oh, and append the evidence trail outlining the CiLex warning email they got last year from that other poster starting with B (name escapes me).

fair2everyone

Is this ok?

6. Three weeks before the previous hearing, the Claimant’s Solicitor sent an email to the court attaching a Consent Form, and asking the court whether the allocated hearing would go ahead or not. The Defendant believes this was done with the intention to mislead the court into vacating the hearing the Defendant had been forced to pay for. The Defendant is aware that the Claimant’s Solicitor has done this very thing previously, which did result in hearings being vacated. When this was reported to their regulator CILEx Regulation Limited in 2023, the response was that they would warn the Solicitor of the importance of ensuring they take all reasonable steps to avoid any risk of the court being misled, including unintentionally.

Coupon-mad

What they called a 'Consent Form'