CCJ SET ASIDE - NO INFORMATION ON THE PCN IN QUESTION

bendybackpanda

Thank you - I will revise ! 

Do you know if PCM is part of BPA ? 

Coupon-mad

No - IPC - so don't mention the CoP.

Surely your name & address was provided by the lease firm (relating to the date you first leased the car) therefore stuff about the DVLA is a red herring?


You might want to add this:

8.  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.

9.  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 xx – CEL v Chan transcript]

10. 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.

11. 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]

12. 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.

13. 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." 

14. 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.”

bendybackpanda

I’m really sorry the forum isn’t working very well today for me it keeps timing out and I can’t find the transcripts for Boxwood and CEL and CHAN 

please could you let me know the URL to find them easily? 

Coupon-mad

Boxwood you can Google because that's where we found it in the first place.

CEL v Chan (and other supportive judgements) is linked in the NEWBIES thread in the exhibits a-f list.

bendybackpanda

Thanks - couple more questions. 

The 25 page limit for attachments is that PER attachment? 

For the N244 form- which court do you put on the top of the form? Your local County Court? 

Coupon-mad

No, it's not per attachment.  So you might want to send the authorities bundle separately by post to the local court & Claimant's solicitor, later on before the hearing.

In your WS you could say 'authorities bundle to be served separately prior to the hearing'.

bendybackpanda

Sent everything off but then tried to call and pay the fee and was on hold so long I then passed the time they process and take payments !!!
so frustrating and will have to try in the morning first thing! 

bendybackpanda

Paid on the 14th March. Still not heard anything back? Is this normal? 

Coupon-mad

You could ring to chase it.

bendybackpanda

We have received our hearing date but the letter says (see images attached) that bundles should not be sent before 3 days prior and skeleton arguments should be emailed. 

I had seen that other people had mentioned 14 days prior at least? 

Also I am slightly confused should I be delivering my documents as a bundle by hand or emailing as a skeleton argument ?