Unexpected CCJ - Recovery of Debt letter from DCBL

fair2everyone

My son sent his N244 form, along with all attachments yesterday by email.  This morning phoned the payment line to pay. Then later this morning, as I was glancing over it all, noticed a typo in his telephone number on the final page of the N244!!!  Is there any easy way to get this amended?  Is it necessary to get it amended - he has provided his email address. 

fair2everyone

My son is still awaiting a "set aside" hearing date - form submitted on 4th December, letter informing him application has been transferred to Doncaster arrived on 14th December.  No further details so far.  However. he received a reply to his SAR requests from Excel Parking providing all the details of the PCN and subsequent letters and just this from ELMS Legal - just this one sheet so not sure what the second page says.  I'm just wondering if this might help his case as it was written after my son got the letter from DCBL (with his correct address, dated 16th November).  This seems to suggest that they should re-serve the claim if they know the original was served to a wrong address - have I understood that correctly and should he request the 2nd page - I'm assuming they only have to send him anything with his name on it?   My son did only update his address with ELMS on 5th December when requesting his SAR but surely,  DCBL will have informed their clients (ELMS) of his new address? (tongue in cheek!) 

Coupon-mad

I'm just wondering if this might help his case as it was written after my son got the letter from DCBL (with his correct address, dated 16th November).  This seems to suggest that they should re-serve the claim if they know the original was served to a wrong address - have I understood that correctly and should he request the 2nd page - I'm assuming they only have to send him anything with his name on it?   My son did only update his address with ELMS on 5th December when requesting his SAR but surely,  DCBL will have informed their clients (ELMS) of his new address? (tongue in cheek!) 

Yes to all of the above.

Very very useful for his case.

I don't think you need page 2.

When he gets a hearing date he should file & serve that letter attached to a short Supplementary WS, stating that it is clear this claim should be struck out, not re-served, due to a clear abuse of the court process.  The claim was de facto improperly served and the Claimants knew it.  Looks like Elms Legal failed to carry out a 28 pence 'soft search' as required pre-litigation, and the Claimant/Elms (who arguably act 'in-house' because VCS & Elms share a legal employee, Mr Shoreman-Lawson) knew or should have known the address was old. Further, they would have known the existence of a new address from their agent DCB, who traced the Defendant in a nano-second.  Elms appear to have then ignored the court letter, didn't bother to re-serve the claim despite knowing this meant the claim was indeed un-served as a matter of fact and law. 

Interesting...

Never seen a letter like that from the CNBC before and it makes me think sending a SAR to the solicitor in 'wrong address' CCJ cases should be standard advice.  It might flush out more cases where claim forms were returned un-served. Not delaying the N244 but doing a SAR like your son has, to the solicitors to find any letters or comms from the court or DCB about new addresses or returned claim packs.

fair2everyone

Thank you for this useful advice - I suggested sending the SAR to ELMS as well as Excel Parking as I wasn't sure which of them would have sent the Letter Before Claim (that came from Excel Parking, Mark Robinson, Litigation Department) - this letter was sent after the 30 days post the Judgment date (13/10/23). Does that change anything you suggest above?

One thing I haven't mentioned is that he contacted the person now living at the old address (who is not the nicest of fellows) to ask if when he received any post for him, what he did with it.  He said (in a not very polite manner) that he wrote "not at this address" and was fed up of having to re-post them.  This has me wondering whether the CNBC received such a returned letter - I assume they are the ones who send the hearing date for the original case? Is it worth sending a SAR to CNBC at this late stage - he only asked for the POC from them?  He didn't request a SAR from DCBL as they obviously had found him - but maybe he should do this now? 

Coupon-mad

You could send a SAR to the CNBC asking for an image of the returned letter in its envelope marked 'not at this address'. Yes that is why they wrote to Elms Legal because the guy returned the letter. He did you a favour, proved the fact the claim wasn't served and makes the set aside easier to argue.

None of the above changes my earlier advice.

There was no hearing. Not sure what you mean by that.

fair2everyone

Coupon-mad said:

There was no hearing. Not sure what you mean by that.

I meant the day the judgment was issued - I assumed a letter would  be sent to my son informing him to attend a court to defend the case - but I am now realising that all he would have received was the letter before claim which he didn't respond to, therefore would he have then been sent (on 13/10/23, date of judgment) a letter from NCBC to say he has 30 days to pay the charge, otherwise the judgment will be registered as a CCJ?  That makes more sense if I'm correct.

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

Interesting...

Never seen a letter like that from the CNBC before and it makes me think sending a SAR to the solicitor in 'wrong address' CCJ cases should be standard advice.  It might flush out more cases where claim forms were returned un-served. Not delaying the N244 but doing a SAR like your son has, to the solicitors to find any letters or comms from the court or DCB about new addresses or returned claim packs.

I have many times when I used to issue claims against companies/sole traders who were unlawfully buying and selling my personal data without any authority. The "unserved claim" letter would normally arrive about 2 weeks after I had applied for a Default Judgment. The reasons were normally "ceased trading" or "gone away".

We should suggest that Defendants ask/SAR the CNBC to see if the claim form was "unserved" and if any reasons were given.

Coupon-mad

Very good idea.

fair2everyone

Coupon-mad said:

When he gets a hearing date he should file & serve that letter attached to a short Supplementary WS, stating that it is clear this claim should be struck out, not re-served, due to a clear abuse of the court process.  The claim was de facto improperly served and the Claimants knew it.  Looks like Elms Legal failed to carry out a 28 pence 'soft search' as required pre-litigation, and the Claimant/Elms (who arguably act 'in-house' because VCS & Elms share a legal employee, Mr Shoreman-Lawson) knew or should have known the address was old. Further, they would have known the existence of a new address from their agent DCB, who traced the Defendant in a nano-second.  Elms appear to have then ignored the court letter, didn't bother to re-serve the claim despite knowing this meant the claim was indeed un-served as a matter of fact and law. 

My son received a letter on Wednesday saying his hearing is on 28th February but it will be a video call!!  He had requested that any hearing should be at his local court (Doncaster) not knowing that the court is currently closed to the public due to concrete issues.  He's sent the SAR in regarding the letter that may have been returned marked "Not at this address" so hopefully that will come in time for a supplementary WS to be submitted.  This letter doesn't give a deadline day for any additions, it's more about how the hearing will be conducted.  He's sent an email to the court asking how he should submit a Supplementary Witness Statement and by when.  

As well as including the letter from the court to ELMS which refers to their claim pack returned un-served, we intend to reference the DLUHC's Summer draft Impact Assessment, as suggested by you earlier, to stress that the Claimant (Excel Parking) are fully aware of the significance of the use of a 'sort trace' and have themselves indicated that it is not  an expensive process. (£1.50).  On here, it is often quoted that it only costs 28p for a 'soft trace', is there anything that would evidence that figure?

There seems to be quite a  few sections of that Draft Report that we could use e.g. use of News articles - I have a copy of an article which references the very car park my son got his PCN and the fact that the landowner has since "sacked" Excel due to many complaints - however, they have been replaced by VCS (are they the same company??)  Also, there are various sections about the need to prevent unfair escalation of charges.  

Can I just confirm though, that the purpose of this hearing is to focus on purely the reasons to "set-aside", that being that they did not make enough effort to find my son's correct address and not to argue (yet) that the charges are unfairly inflated? 

I'm not sure how much he's allowed to put in a Supplementary WS?

fair2everyone

There seems to be quite a  few sections of that Draft Report that we could use e.g. use of News articles - I have a copy of an article which references the very car park my son got his PCN and the fact that the landowner has since "sacked" Excel due to many complaints - however, they have been replaced by VCS (are they the same company??)  Also, there are various sections about the need to prevent unfair escalation of charges.  

Ignore this question - they were replaced by Retail Park Ltd - not VCS