CCJ re Stansted Mcdonalds - Help Please *CLAIM DISMISSED*

Blueshift313

Thank you 1505grandad, well spotted.

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

When rereading this statement from the draft order I suppose it does still apply.

Blueshift313

So the N244 was submitted yesterday afternoon (19th) and automatic reply emails received from both CNBC and DCBL, with payment made over the phone prior. This morning a letter arrived from DCBL dated 11th Jan; Notice of Intended Enforcement Action.

Will this be put on hold now that the Set Aside form has been issued to both parties, or is there now a risk of further court action? Will the court see the Set Aside form linked to the Claim number and withhold any further action?

Coupon-mad

Blueshift313 said:

Thank you 1505grandad, well spotted.

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

When rereading this statement from the draft order I suppose it does still apply.

Of course it does!

No breach is stated in the POC. Could be:

- overstaying free time
- parked outside of a bay
- leaving a shopping park on foot (non patron)
- parked in a blue badge bay
- no permit
- failure to pay
- failure to display
- not inputting your VRM on a keypad
- failing to get a free first hour ticket at a kiosk
- unauthorised parking
- parking on double yellows
- parked in a parent & child gimmick bay

etc.

Blueshift313

Update:

Received a letter today dated 25th January from DCB legal stating the following:

"We act for MET Parking Services Ltd. We are in receipt of your application to set Judgment aside and note that you allege you were not residing at (old address) at the time the Claim Form was served on you. 
So that we may review this further, we kindly ask that you provide us with evidence of the same. Please provide this within the next 14 days.
Please not that the matter will proceed in the meantime, and you should continue to adhere to all Court direction.
We look forward to hearing from you."

The evidence that the defendant had changed address prior to the date of the Claim form being issued was bank statements showing the current address dated almost two months prior, and were attached to the N244 submission and referenced as exhibits in the witness statements.

Surely the fact that they were able to follow up with a letter of debt collection to the current address almost immediately after the claim was raised without any other information being provided means they were aware of the bank account details to determine the new address, so why are they now asking for this? Would it help to resend those bank statements separately again to DCBL?

What impact would this have on any court proceedings?

Coupon-mad

No impact.  I'd reply by email:


Dear Sirs,

Re CCJ set aside of unserved claim no xxxxxx 

The evidence supplied already shows that I had changed address prior to the date of the Claim form being issued. Bank statements showing the current address (dated almost two months prior) were attached to the N244 and referenced as exhibits in the witness statement.

Did you lose interest reading it, or just not bother?

Surely the fact that DCB Group were able to follow up with a letter of debt collection to the current address almost immediately after the claim was raised (without any other information being provided) means that DCB Group had already determined the new address. Your Group holds this information.

So why are you now asking for this?  I suggest you ask your mates at the next desk (DCB Ltd) how they managed to trace me, and ask yourselves why you didn't bother.

It's a clear breach of para 24.1 of the BPA Code of Practice that you did not attempt a soft trace before litigation. Why did you not?

Kindly answer that, and supply the following:

I require a screenshot of the 'case history' dates and actions held by DCB Legal about this claim - pre and post litigation - on your ‘case management system' (personal data of employees redacted).

In particular, all case history notes about addresses (pre and post action) and any notes about any letters that were returned to sender, including but not limited to the claim form.

If the CNBC told you that it had not been served/had perhaps been 'returned to sender', I want to see that letter if you received one.

If DCB Ltd reported back to you, or updated the system, that they'd traced my new address post-CCJ, I want to see the records held about that and what DCB Legal did (if anything) to address the fact that you then knew, or should have concluded, that the claim had been improperly served?

The only information (apart from names/contact details) that can be properly redacted is actual legal advice given to your client, of course.

This is a Subject Access Request to you, DCB Legal, not your client.  I look forward to a timely and full response within 30 days or I will report your company to the SRA and the ICO.

Finally, do not file a misleading draft 'Consent Order' (trying to wriggle out of being held liable for my £275 fee) because I will be seeking my costs in full at the hearing.  

yours faithfully,

Blueshift313

Update:

DCB Legal have replied to the GDPR request with nothing but two addresses (current and previous), an email address and the vehicle reg. They mention that they "also hold a copy of the Letter of Claim issued to you on 12th August 2023; Any email correspondence you will already have copies of due to being either the sender or recipient of the correspondence." Should a copy of this letter not be attached to their email...in fact, all correspondence should be attached anyway included emails?

Also the previous address had received a Notice of Hearing of Application in the post from the local county court, even though the N244 application referred to the current address for all documentation to be sent. The kicker is that the hearing won't be until August 2024?! Is the local court the best to contact to make sure that all future letters are sent to the up-to-date address as stated on the N244?

Coupon-mad

Yes and ask the local court as well, why an application is not being prioritised?  Then Claimants' solicitors make applications they get action and hearings far quicker, so why are consumer Defendants with CCJs not being prioritised for a fast-track hearing?

Blueshift313

Update *CLAIM DISMISSED*

The hearing was yesterday at county court, but ended up being virtual anyway because CNBC had incorrectly stated in the Notice of Hearing letter that it was at Hertford, when it was actually booked in at Watford! Both defendant and claimant's lawyer arrived and were nearly turned away to await a rebooked date. Luckily they were able to arrange a last minute virtual hearing with the Judge in Watford. 

The lawyer for the claimant agreed that they could not prove that the Notice of Intended Court Action was sent to the correct address and so agreed to have the claim set aside and dismissed, but with the cost for the N244 form application not to be reimbursed. The Judge agreed with this, and suggested it would otherwise require another hearing later on to allow for the "workings" to be figured out (?). Not sure exactly what that meant, but our defendant accepted this as a small cost relative to the impact it was having on their ability to get a mortgage. They're now waiting on the letter of dismissal in the post so that they can apply to have the defaulted judgement removed from their credit record.

Without your guidance and advice the newly married defendant would be looking forward to 6 more years of bad credit. It's felt like a long process, but thank you so much to everyone who has helped out.

Coupon-mad

That's such good news!  Well done.

I'm shocked that this local court area did these three unacceptable things:

1. The courr made a CCJ set aside applicant wait some seven months for what is meant to be a priority hearing (an urgent application affecting their credit, their life, and their social mobility choices);

2.  The court actually posted the Notice of Hearing of Application to the old address (for goodness sake...!);

3.  The court told the parties to attend in person at Hertford but the Judge was sitting in Watford. If a fuss had not been made (no doubt swayed by the rhetoric of the C's lawyer?), the victim would have been fobbed off to await another hearing - more months wasted with a CCJ.

It was also wrong - unjust - not to grant the applicant's costs under the circumstances of the C's rogue conduct: a failure to do a bulk 'soft trace' for 29 pence (which they then did easily, straight after snaffling the CCJ they aimed to get). If the UK Courts cannot see this pattern by now they need to open their eyes to this serial abuse by parking firm roboclaim legals. Surely some Judges have grasped it?

I think a formal letter of complaint to Watford Court circuit is in order, setting out the above and stating how seriously this series of delays and errors affected the D this year (making the whole experience far worse) and asking for an escalation of the complaint to the court manager, an apology and compensation.