Unexpected CCJ - Recovery of Debt letter from DCBL

Khayman

Hi all,

Apologies for radio silence, especially to you, @fair2everyone as I have not replied to your private message, which I did receive.

I have my own hearing next Monday, so I am focussed on that at the moment. Fingers crossed for a positive outcome (I have not been expecting ELMS Legal to turn up, but perhaps they will?!)... after which I will look at organising a joint complaint to CiLex.

fair2everyone

Coupon-mad said:

He waits for directions from the court.  But as I said, they may well give up and discontinue now.

He received today - confirmation/certificate of cancellation of CCJ plus instructions to file and serve a Defence by 4pm on 28 March for the claim being allocated to the small claims track.  He also received today, a letter from Excel Parking saying that Elms Legal are no longer representing them in this case. And "Pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, insofar as litigants are expected to try and resolve their disputes wherever possible, we are willing to accept a reduced settlement charge of £195.00 payable within 14 days from the date of this letter.  This offer is made on a "without predjudice" (save as to costs) basis.  Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will continue with our Claim for the full amount claimed and bring this letter to the Courts' attention upon the question of costs. ....."  Letter signed by Litigation Department.  Date of the letter is 07/03/2024, so already 7 days of the 14 gone, even if he did want to "settle".

He has no intention of paying this but we're unsure what the "save as to costs" and "upon the question of costs" means?

Also, should he reply to this offer saying he intends to follow court instructions and defend the claim?

I'll be back after the weekend with our version paras 2 and 3 of the Defence Template.

Coupon-mad

Did you see what happened to @Khayman?  

You both need to do that joint complaint to CiLex now if you haven't already, reminding them that in 2023 they already investigated a mirror image complaint and 'reminded' Elms Legal not to mislead the courts but in fact they've repeated the SAME thing again & again and are duping Judges and consumers, getting away with fake Consent Orders left right & centre to swerve liability for costs.

fair2everyone

Yes, I did see that and was absolutely appalled! 

Sorry to repeat a question but I just want to be sure - if he completely ignores the letter above from Excel that was offering a reduction, could that go against my son at the hearing when they "bring this letter to the Court's attention upon the question of costs"?

Trainerman

fair2everyone said:

Yes, I did see that and was absolutely appalled! 

Sorry to repeat a question but I just want to be sure - if he completely ignores the letter above from Excel that was offering a reduction, could that go against my son at the hearing when they "bring this letter to the Court's attention upon the question of costs"?

It would not be relevant unless they win ..... and you won't let them, will you??

In any case, the costs they may charge are fixed, unless you behave unreasonably. Follow the advice on this Forum and you are safe !

Coupon-mad

fair2everyone said:

Yes, I did see that and was absolutely appalled! 

Sorry to repeat a question but I just want to be sure - if he completely ignores the letter above from Excel that was offering a reduction, could that go against my son at the hearing when they "bring this letter to the Court's attention upon the question of costs"?

No.  He does not have to make an offer.

fair2everyone

Good morning

I have made a start at editting the Defence Template and would appreciate any feedback/suggestions:

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 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, 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. It is not possible for him to determine whether the signs at the time were clearly displayed as the signs have changed since the date of the event and, in fact, the Claimant is no longer the agents for that site, having been replaced with another company by the landowner.

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.

The above is based on the POC as shown

Particulars of claim:  THE CLAIM IS FOR A BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR    BREACHING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET ON    PRIVATE LAND. THE DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE,       XXXXXX, WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE BERKELEY      CENTRE 24 HOUR PAY CAR PARK ON THE 26/04/2023 IN BREACH OF THE ADVERTISED TERMS AND        CONDITIONS; NAMELY PARKED WITHOUT PURCHASING A VALID PAY & DISPLAY TICKET FOR VRM. AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES THE DEFENDANT WAS THE         REGISTERED KEEPER AND/OR DRIVER. THE TERMS   AND CONDITIONS UPON ENTERING PRIVATE LAND    WERE CLEARLY DISPLAYED AT THE ENTRANCE AND IN PROMINENT LOCATIONS. THE SIGN WAS THE OFFER  AND THE ACT OF ENTERING PRIVATE LAND WAS THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER HEREBY ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT BY CONDUCT. THE SIGNS SPECIFICALLY DETAIL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND THE      CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO COMPLY, NAMELY A  PARKING CHARGE NOTICE WILL BE ISSUED, AND THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THE           OUTSTANDING LIABILITY. THE CLAIMANT SEEKS THE RECOVERY OF THE PARKING CHARGE NOTICE,       CONTRACTUAL COSTS AND INTEREST.                                   

 

I wasn't sure whether to include the details about the set-aside in this. 

Le_Kirk

As the CCJ has been set aside, this defence is about the original claim.

Coupon-mad

There was an issue with signs at the Berkeley Centre changing from VCS to Excel then possibly back again. 

Search the forum for defences re that place.

fair2everyone

I've looked through a few other posts re this car park - in particular @Albert_Arkwright.  He put up this photo of the sign

and, as his event occurred before my son's I would assume it would have still been in place in April 2023.  I also found a number of articles in the Sheffield Star about this car park, including this one showing a slight change to the sign in June 2023



So, I think we can safely assume that the sign said first hour is free (no ticket required) and therefore would assume that my son never intended to stay longer than one hour and indeed thought he had left within the hour.

I do believe there is a further article in the Star stating that the owner got fed up with the number of complaints against Excel's behaviour that he ended their employment at the car park in August 2023.

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?