Text from Empira Ltd (Gladstones) - CCJ

Coupon-mad · 18 January 2024 at 6:42PM

Get rid of 13 & 14. Adds nothing.

Add a comment observing how easily Empira (connected to Gladstones who filed the claim) were able to contact you after the CCJ. A clear abuse, to only do a soft trace and/or try alternative contact after firebombing a motorist's credit rating. Bulk litigators for parking firms are using and abusing the court service as nothing more than a sausage machine to CCJs with a few clicks of MCOL buttons. Then those wrongfully served CCJs are used as leverage to scare people into paying inflated claims that would never have passed a proper ADR or hearing.

These are fine to attach and would not be immediately dated the same month as the move:

Bank statements, DBS, credit card statements, dental letters etc available, however."

tunm153 · 19 January 2024 at 11:45AM

I've removed 13/14 and added the comment you mentioned at number 7. I'm guessing I wouldn't need evidence showing the claim form with the old address?

For my address evidence, I've got a DBS dated XX April 2022, HMRC Tax calculation dated XX June 2022, an email exchange with my employer at the time asking for an address change, dated XX April 2022. An order confirmation for an item to my current address, dated XX March 2022. An email from XX April 2022 confirming delivery of an item to my current address. I'm guessing the first 2 will be ok, however not sure about the other 3.

Should I mention ' I first discovered there was a default County Court Judgement against me when I received a text from Empira on the 10th January.' for my 2nd CCJ WS too even though it only applies to the first one?

Section 4. DRAFT ORDER

Upon reading the defendant’s application dated XXX

It is ordered that:

1. The default judgment dated the XX March 2023 / XX April 2023 be set aside on the grounds that the defendant has not been validly served, as the claim form was not received.

2. The claim is hereby struck out due to the claim form having not been served within 4 months of issue.

OR

The claim is hereby struck out due to the Claimant's failure to particularise the contractual term relied upon or the alleged breach, this being the same Claimant and inadequate Particulars of Claim as seen in Civil Enforcement v Chan (a persuasive recent appeal relating to a mirror image CCJ set aside case).

3. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.

Section 10. WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am XXX and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated XXX requesting to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated XX March / April 2023.

b. Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

c. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.

2. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration XXXXXXX at the time of the alleged event.

3. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on XX April 2023. I am aware that the Claimant is District Enforcment Limited / UK Parking Control, and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from (dates to be entered)

4. I first discovered there was a default County Court Judgement against me when I received a text from Empira on the 10th January. I then checked my credit report on Clearscore and noticed 2 CCJ's. The claim form was not served at my current address, and I was therefore not aware of the Default Judgment

5. The address on the claim is XXXX. I moved out of this address on XX January 2022 and moved into XXXX on the same date. In support of this, EXHIBIT A shows a DBS dated XX April 2022, EXHIBIT B shows an HMRC Tax calculation dated XX June 2022, EXHIBIT C shows an email exchange with my employer at the time asking for an address change, dated XX April 2022. EXHIBIT D shows an order confirmation for an item to my current address, dated XX March 2022. EXHIBIT E shows an email from XX April 2022 confirming delivery of an item to my current address.

PRELIMINARY MATTER: THE CLAIM SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT

6. I would like to draw the attention of the court to the fact that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim. I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

7. It is apparent that Empira (linked to Gladstones who lodged the claim) had no difficulty in reaching out to me after the CCJ. It is evident that conducting a mere superficial investigation (a soft trace) and/or attempting alternative means of communication following a deliberate act of damaging a driver's credit score is a blatant form of abuse.

8. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The Chan judgment was made in a County Court Judgment set aside application case, which had been wrongly refused by the first Judge. [EXHIBIT C – CEL v Chan transcript]

9. Given that more than 4 months has passed from issue of proceeding and service of claim was defective (as it was never served), I submit that this claim should be struck out and the period for service cannot be extended by this application process. I have no details of this claim beyond a very brief particular, therefore, if the Claimant believes there is a cause of action, then the correct procedure would be to file a claim afresh and to the correct address, after presenting me with the information required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims.

10. There are several authorities for this, including the judgment in Boxwood [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC), which is a reminder of the strictness of the requirements of CPR 7.6 and how difficult it is to use other parts of the Civil Procedure Rules to rectify a failure to serve the claim form within the requisite period. ‘A claimant is not entitled to rely on the wide, general powers under CPR 3.10 or CPR 3.9 to circumvent the specific conditions set out in CPR 7.6(3) for extending the period of for service of a claim form. [INSERT - Boxwood 2021 transcript URL]

11. In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 2 the Court of Appeal considered whether any extension of time should be granted under CPR 7.6 in circumstances where the defendant had been notified of the issue of a claim form but the claim form had not been served within four months as required by CPR 7.5 and the application was made after expiry of that period. The court refused to grant relief on the basis that it did not have power to do so.

12. In judgment of Deputy Master Marsh in Croke & Anor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch) 3 the claimant was one day late in properly serving the Particulars of Claim to the Defendant and the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was refused. In section 65 of the transcript of the trial Deputy Master Marsh stated “The defendants were entitled to know within the four-month period specified in the CPR whether a claim had been made against them and to be able to understand that claim. [...] Unless an extension of time is granted, the claim will cease to have any validity and will be struck out."

13. In Piepenbrock-v-Associated News Limited [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB) 4 the High Court refused the Claimant’s application for a retrospective extension of time to serve a Claim Form after the Claimant failed to demonstrate they took all reasonable steps to serve the Claim form in the period of its validity.

“Ultimately, the problem was that the Claimant had made no attempt to serve in accordance with the rules…Although I sympathise with the Claimant that the consequences for him of the error of not validly serving the Claim Form will be serious, there is nothing that really separates his case from many others who have made similar mistakes when attempting to serve a Claim Form…I am afraid, in this case, the responsibility for the failure validly to serve the Claim Form rests solely with the Claimant’s side…

In light of my conclusions above, having refused the applications made under CPR 7.6, 6.15 and 6.16, there is not a residual self-standing power available under CPR 3.9 to relieve the claimant of the “sanction” that, as a result of his failure to validly to serve the Claim Form during its period of validity, it has now lapsed. The term “sanction” is inapt because it would, in theory, be possible for the Claimant to issue and validly serve a fresh Claim Form. The obstacle standing in the way of a claim is not any sanction imposed by the Court but the fact that the limitation period for defamation and malicious falsehood has expired…

Finally, the Claimant seeks an order under CPR 3.10 remedying his error in not validly serving the Claim Form. The Defendants submit that CPR 3.10 cannot rescue the Claimant. This general provision does not enable the Court to do what CPR 7.6(3) forbids: Vinos -v- Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784; [2001] CP Rep 12 [20].”

Mr Justice Nicklin concluded, “The Claim Form was not served during its period of validity. In consequence, the Court has no jurisdiction over the Claimant’s claim. It follows that I should also formally dismiss the Claimant’s application for summary judgment.”

FACTS AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

For UK Parking:

14. The fact that there was no response from myself to a series of letters sent to my previous address should have alerted the Claimant to the possibility that I was not residing there. It is evident that the Claimant failed to carry out a soft trace prior to filing the claim. This action was necessary to align with the regulations outlined in the British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice - Clause 24.1c: “Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.”

For district enforcement:

The fact that there was no response from myself to a series of letters sent to my previous address should have alerted the Claimant to the possibility that I was not residing there. It is evident that the Claimant failed to carry out a soft trace prior to filing the claim.This action was necessary to align with the regulations outlined in the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice version 9 - Clause 22.1: “Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the Motorist’s details are still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court proceedings”

15. The absence of a proactive address search before the claim contradicts the ease with which DCBL promptly traced my current address immediately after the County Court Judgment was issued. This neglect raises concerns about the thoroughness of any address search performed before filing the claim.

16. The claim form was not served at my current address, and as a result, I was unaware of the Default Judgment. This constitutes a breach of CPR 13.2(a), as the claim form was never served to my current address. Due to this, the judgment was wrongly entered as I was unable to submit an acknowledgment of service in the absence of notification of the case.

17. Under CPR 13.2 the court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered. Given that CPR 6.9 (3) was not met, CPR 13.2 applies and the CCJ must be set aside. In the alternative, CPR 13.3 applies due to the circumstances, which represent good reasons to set the CCJ aside, and in view of the fact that the Defendant acted within a reasonable time period and has good prospects of defending the claim.

18. According to publicly available information, my circumstances are far from unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses of results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

19. In addition to the above, it should be highlighted that the integrity and law-abiding intention of the Defendant should be taken into consideration on the basis of the below.

20. I first discovered there was a default County Court Judgement against me when I received a text from Empira on the 10th January. I then checked my credit report and noticed 2 CCJ's.

21. On 16 January 2024, I contacted the Civil National Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgment.

22. On XX January 2024 I submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH:

I, XXX, the Defendant, believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth

Coupon-mad · 20 January 2024 at 7:49PM

You don't need to append the claim form that you never received. Financial statements like a bank statement and/or phone contract showing the new address is good evidence that you were there to be found.

This is not the usual start to a SoT:

"I, XXX, the Defendant, believe "

tunm153 · 23 January 2024 at 7:34PM

Updated the statement of truth.

I've called my credit card companies and I'm struggling to get something dated from that month. I usually receive everything online and the statements don't seem to go back to March 2022 on the online portal. When requesting one from previous years from a credit card company / bank, it appears that they put your current address on it regardless of where you lived at the time, which would do the job, however not sure if it would count if courts are aware of that. I've ordered a few more paper statements, so just waiting on them.