Unexpected CCJ - Recovery of Debt letter from DCBL

Coupon-mad

Yes, that's a very reasonable request.

fair2everyone

My son got this reply to his email:

Good Afternoon,
Upon checking the court record, and the file I can confirm that the Claimant filed a Directions Questionnaire with the Court on 6 March 2024.

The matter has now been listed for a hearing on 13 August 2024.  An order confirming this including further directions which must be complied with has been sent out to both parties, you should receive this in the coming days.

Many Thanks



Please could you advise his next step - should he reply to this email, stating that he still has not received a copy of their DQ - I'm slightly confused by the date quoted above because 6 March is 1 week before the Claimant contacted him by letter a) informing that were no longer using Elms and b) offering a reduced payment of £195.  And 1 week before the local Court wrote to him with a Court Order for him to file and serve a Defence.  The Court Order for the Directions Questionnaire was dated 17 April 2024 which instructed the Claimant and the Defendant to file a DQ with the Court. So they filed their DQ before they were asked for one?  And either they didn't bother sending one to my son, or they emailed one and it went to spam and has now disappeared.  

I'm unsure how important this is - the DQ form itself states "You must send a copy to all other parties". 

Coupon-mad

Yes they'd already filed the DQ to the CNBC in Northampton (after his N244 application) and it seems, didn't bother to copy him in.  Unfortunately the court won't be interested, even though the Claimants should have sent him a copy.  Maybe they did and it got lost.

Await the Hearing Order as that will be his chance to set out his story and evidence, 

fair2everyone

Thanks for the quick reply.  I'll let him know to leave it for now and let me see the Hearing Order as soon as it arrives.  Great news about the progress of the DLUHC - fingers crossed it brings about the regulations everyone has worked so hard to achieve.

fair2everyone

The Hearing Order arrived last week and a video hearing is set for 13th August, with a request for documents to arrive no later than 14 days before.  So plenty of time to finalise WS etc.  Although, this is almost complete, as we've been working on it since submitting the defence back in March.  However, I presume there is nothing to be gained by sending things in much earlier? 

My son also received a letter today from Excel:



Slight concern here regarding the threat of £220 additional costs - can we be confident that this is just a bullying tactic?  

Coupon-mad

Yes.  It is untrue.  They can't have that.

fair2everyone

I just have a couple more questions on what will be required before the hearing but here is a quick update of the case so far:
1. My son got a default CCJ in October 23 (all letters were sent to old address), applied for a set-aside December 23, this was granted Feb 24 but, due to ELMS attempt to fool the court into an order stating "No order as to costs", my son panicked at the hearing and agreed to their "so-called" Consent Order.  
2. The case has been transferred to the small claims track and a defence was filed and served March 24 and DQ filed April 24.  Letters of "reduced offer" received March 24 and May 24.
3. Hearing (remote video) set for Aug 24.  WS and exhibits due towards the end of July.

So, my questions are:
1. Does the WS/Exhibits still need to show the proof of when the change of address took place - the original documents for the set-aside had all of that but all parties are now aware of the new address?
2. We haven't produced a Draft Order for this hearing - should we be sending one?
3. With reference to the two "reduced offer" letters from Excel, my son has completely ignored both letters.  In view of some recent posts (e.g. @Khayman) where the PPC are trying to show the defendant has behaved unreasonably - does ignoring letters constitute unreasonable behaviour?  I ask this because one of our arguments for my son's case is that they should have realised they had the wrong address when they got no response to any of the original PCN letters.

Coupon-mad

1. No. Pretend the wring address issue and CCJ never happened. This is a WS about defending the PCN.

2.  No.

3. Good point. Probably better to respond and he could reasonably say he'll only settle if he pays Excel nothing and they pay his £275 fee that their fake Consent Order caused the court not to otherwise order.

fair2everyone

Does this sound ok (reasonable)?

Dear Sir/Madam

With reference to your letter dated xxxxx,  where you state: "we are mindful that under the Civil Procedure Rules litigants are expected to try and resolve their disputes wherever possible. Therefore, we are prepared to offer a reduced settlement charge of £200.00."  I am writing to say this is not an acceptable offer. 

You will be aware from my Defence, filed and served on xxxx, that I intend to bring to the court's attention the "so-called" Consent Order drafted and sent to the court by, your then representatives, ELMS Legal Ltd on xxxx.  However, in the interest of avoiding wasting any more of the court's time on this matter, I would be willing to settle if you agree to pay the £275 fee that this "so-called" Consent Order caused the court to not otherwise order and for the claim against me to be dropped in its entirety.

I look forward to hearing from you, and hope that the matter can be resolved without the need to take up further of the court's time.

Yours Faithfully,

Coupon-mad

Looks good. Needs a heading:

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SAVE AS TO COSTS

They won't agree, but he can show these negotiations at the END of the hearing when it comes to costs and ask for that outstanding £275 to be awarded due to their wholly unreasonable conduct.

He might not get it (might not be legally possible now) as the first Judge was fooled by it and he agreed to the Order at the hearing.  But no harm asking.