CCJ set-aside. Now Small Claims & Draft Defence.

Khayman

LDast said:

You’re getting all tied up in knots about the sum of the claim. I did ask that you show us the numbers and dates in the original PoC but you have ignored that.

Apologies. The details are sparse as I don't believe I've had an actual POC, just a copy of the letters sent to the wrong address, which amount to the following:

1. CN Letter, NTK: Issue Date 11 May 2023. Event date April 2023. Amount of charge: £100. Reason: 46) Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited. Site: Leeds Bradford Roadways. 
   Images of car, followed by small print about getting my details drom DVLA. Early payment of £60 within 14 days. Notice that if not paid within 28 days further charges up to £70 will be added.
2. CN Letter, Final Reminder: Issue date 09 June 2023. Amount of charge: £100. Basically the same letter but that early payment option lapsed.
3. Demand for payment: Date: 26 June 2023. Outstanding balance: £170. Deadline for action 10 July 2023. Letter indicating debt collection costs of £70 added to original charge and if not fully paid by deadline they may commence legal proceedings "We will also be seeking recovery of the associated court fees, solicitor's costs, and statutory interest"
4. Final demand: Date 11 July 2023. Outstanding balance: £170. Deadline for action 18 July 2023. Giving me a final opportunity to pay within 7 days, otherwise as above.
5. Letter before Claim: Dated 21 July 2023. Matter passed to legal department in order to recover sum of £170. Should balance not be settled by 20 August 2023 we will commence legal proceedings. Fees broken down as: Principal debt: £170. Estimated Court Fees: £35. Plus interest at 8% per annum.
   

My first letter was from DCBL: Dated 20 November 2023. Unpaid CCJ £277.

So it looks like there's some very creative accounting going on?!

KeithP

Khayman said:
I don't believe I've had an actual POC...

POC = Particulars of Claim = the contents of the box entitled Particulars of Claim on your Claim Form.

LDast

At any stage in this whole process have you contacted the CNBC to request a copy of the Particulars of Claim (PoC) that were the basis of the claimants case against you?

I would suggest an email to DCB Legal along these lines should make them and their vermin client scramble around and force them to show their mendaciousness:

Dear Sirs,

REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION UNDER CPR 18

I am writing to request further information and clarification regarding your claim, pursuant to CPR 18. Specifically, I request the following information:

1. A detailed breakdown of the sum claimed. What element is the principal and what element is "damages".
2. Detailed information regarding the "damages" mentioned in the claim form, including a breakdown of what these damages consist of, the basis on which they were calculated and any supporting documentation.
3. A detailed breakdown and explanation of the calculation of the interest claimed, including the start date and end date for the interest period, the rate applied, and the method of calculation.

Please provide this information within 7 days of receipt of this email. Failure to respond or refusal to provide the requested information, will result in an application to the court for an order requesting sanctions compelling you to do so and render you liable for any costs.

Yours faithfully,

Khayman

KeithP said:

Khayman said:
I don't believe I've had an actual POC...

POC = Particulars of Claim = the contents of the box entitled Particulars of Claim on your Claim Form.

Never had a Claim Form?

LDast said:

At any stage in this whole process have you contacted the CNBC to request a copy of the Particulars of Claim (PoC) that were the basis of the claimants case against you?

Right at the beginning, when I first learnt of the CCJ, I called the CCBC twice and got no answer. I also emailed them to ask for details on the claim, but despite an automated reply, I never got a response. I must confess once I got going with the N244 application and the hearings etc. I completely forgot all about the lack of response from CCBC, and obviously hoped that I would get the claim struck-out by order of lack of service. It's only now that I'm looking at draft defences that I realise I've not had anything about the claim other than the WS from VCS with the copies of the letters sent. 

As I have until the 9th to submit my defence, is it still worth contacting DCBL? They've not been involved since I asked VCS to tell them to stop sending me letters until the court hearings were resolved. Or should I send that correspondence to VCS direct?

LDast

You send that request to the claimant or their solicitor, if they're using one. You give them 7 days to respond, so you have time.

I can't understand how you can defend a claim when you have absolutely no idea what was in the claim in the first place.

Coupon-mad

Phone the CNBC to email you the POC.

Khayman

I will try to call the CNBC this week and get the POC. I won't hold my breath though!

In the meantime, here is my draft defence based on what I've found on the forum:

[usual headers per template]

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name at a site where statutory parking penalties would apply instead.

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 has not provided any Particulars of Claim (POC). The Defendant is therefore unable to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued. The Defendant has been furnished with an inaccurate copy of the contract (sign) as part of the Claimant’s Witness Statement. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

3. The Defendant confirms that the vehicle was used by the driver to drop off at Leeds Bradford Airport on the date of the alleged breach of contract. The Defendant denies being the driver and declines to name the driver which is not an obligation, as confirmed by appeal cases cited below.

4. It is noted that the Charge Notice (CN) states that "the driver of the above vehicle is liable for the Charge". The Defendant categorically denies being the driver and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise. As the alleged contravention occurred on land under statutory control (not relevant land as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') and a place where airport bylaws and/or the Traffic Management Act applies, the registered keeper cannot be held liable.

[Points 5 - 13 per Coupon-Mad's reply here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80675026#Comment_80675026?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=Airport+Traffic+defence+VCS+ ]

[Points 14  - 40 (renumbered from 4 - 30) per the template]

I will read through the entire thing but get the impression no changes are needed beyond the first few paragraphs I've provided above? I'm also assuming even if I get the POC not much will need to change.

In honesty I'm just hoping to settle before having to bother going to court again, so just want to have a defence ready to send by the deadline and go from there.

Thanks all.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, as long as it's true that you were not the driver.  The word deny can only be used if you were not. Can you say where you were instead?

Khayman

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine, as long as it's true that you were not the driver.  The word deny can only be used if you were not. Can you say where you were instead?

I was actually the passenger who got out of the car... so wasn't sure whether to add that detail! Hence keeping it vague, other than to say I wasn't the driver. Happy to take any advice on wording that bit!

Coupon-mad

Add that detail. A passenger is NOT liable.