Claim Form received at non-residential address for parking ticket from 2019

Coupon-mad

All good but just checking: why have you put "cc DCBL" (do you mean you are sending it to DCB Legal and just copying in DCB Ltd? If so, that's fine.

Or was the claim filed by UKPC in-house?

DO NOT "instruct a solicitor" and don't say you will (it suggests weakness on your part; gives away that you aren't confident to do this yourself and are unsure of the position).  You really really DO NOT need to pay a solicitor to apply to set aside a CCJ.

We help non-legally minded people to do this same stuff successfully every day.

And the 'wrong address' issue means this is a mandatory set aside under CPR 13.2 so a Judge has no power to refuse it. Easy application for a lay person. Template copy & paste stuff that we will help you to do.

Worse than that, some solicitors wrongly advise PPC roboclaim victims to pay off the CCJ when applying to set aside a CCJ.  That's completely wrong in a parking case!  Don't let a solicitor anywhere near this.  They don't have experience of the nuances of parking cases.

You won't be paying the PCN/claim.

an1bc

Coupon-mad said:

All good but just checking: why have you put "cc DCBL" (do you mean you are sending it to DCB Legal and just copying in DCB Ltd? If so, that's fine.

Or was the claim filed by UKPC in-house?

DO NOT "instruct a solicitor" and don't say you will (it suggests weakness on your part; gives away that you aren't confident to do this yourself and are unsure of the position).  You really really DO NOT need to pay a solicitor to apply to set aside a CCJ.

We help non-legally minded people to do this same stuff successfully every day.

And the 'wrong address' issue means this is a mandatory set aside under CPR 13.2 so a Judge has no power to refuse it. Easy application for a lay person. Template copy & paste stuff that we will help you to do.

Worse than that, some solicitors wrongly advise PPC roboclaim victims to pay off the CCJ when applying to set aside a CCJ.  That's completely wrong in a parking case!  Don't let a solicitor anywhere near this.  They don't have experience of the nuances of parking cases.

You won't be paying the PCN/claim.

Thank you very much & apologies for my ignorance - I copied & pasted the template texts (including cc DCBL & instructing solicitor).

I have updated the letter (below) & deleted the text about instructing solicitor & cc remark. 

One final question if you dont mind please - is this letter to be emailed to DCBL directly? & is it worth including CNBC@justice.gov.uk on cc at this stage?



Updated letter:

Dear Sirs,

UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED (THE ‘CLAIMANT’)  V [                        ] CLAIM REFERENCE [             ]

On 24 April 2024, I received the attached letter dated 18/04/2024 from Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited (‘DCBL’). This came as a tremendous shock as it is the first and only communication I have received from the Claimant or any organisation representing the Claimant in relation to this claim.   

I made immediate enquiries of the CNBC from which I was able to establish that: 

1.       the claim relates to an alleged parking event in September 2019;

2.       the claim form was sent to an address where my business is registered, at which I do not reside or visit frequently; and 

3.       if I had been given the opportunity to do so, I would have successfully defended the claim.

I did not receive any pre-claim correspondence, not even a letter of claim as required by the PAP. Nor did I receive the claim form or any particulars of claim and was thus deprived of the ability to defend the claim. The Claimant is well aware that people’s business address may differ from their primary residential address. They also know that I did not respond to any communications sent to me at my business address.

This situation is explicitly dealt with in the Civil Procedure Rules which provide at CPR 6.9(3):

 (3) Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant … is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’). 

The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association (the ‘BPA’) and is bound by the BPA’s Code of Practice which gives voice to CPR 6.9(3) in the following terms:

 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.

 If the Claimant had taken the actions required by the Civil Procedure Rules and the Code of Practice, my current address would have been found easily which is obviously what DCBL did before sending their letter dated [                ].  If those actions had been performed at the correct time rather than after judgment, I would not have been deprived of the ability to defend the claim. 

By reason of the Claimant’s breach of the Civil Procedure Rules, which amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court, the claim form was never properly served and the judgment must be set aside at the Claimant’s expense and the claim dismissed because it is now too late for the particulars of claim to be re-served.

In view of the foregoing, I invite the Claimant to join with me in an application to set aside the judgment and dismiss the claim, with the Claimant paying the court fee and no order as to costs.

Please respond to the above offer as soon as possible so that, if the offer is acceptable to the Claimant, we can work together to right the wrong that the Claimant has done to me. 

To give you a reasonable time to take instructions and for us to agree a suite of documents for the Court, I am willing to defer making a unilateral application to set aside the judgment until 4 pm on 10 May 2024. If a joint application has not been made by that time, I intend to instruct a solicitor to apply to the Court unilaterally for an order setting the judgment aside, striking out the particulars of claim, dismissing the claim and awarding costs against the Claimant on a full indemnity basis.

Pease respond by immediate return.

Yours faithfully,

 

Coupon-mad

One final question if you dont mind please - is this letter to be emailed to DCBL directly? & is it worth including CNBC@justice.gov.uk on cc at this stage?

Never cc in the CNBC to this sort of communication because you haven't made an application yet so there's nothing 'live' that the CNBC are involved in.

And nothing goes to DCB Ltd.  You keep talking about DCBL and we need to know who you mean: do you mean the solicitor because you are not meant to send this to the aggressive bailiff arm who wrote to you.

They can't issue consent orders.  A solicitor can.

You are emailing whoever (legal team) actually filed the claim and are named on the claim form.  Was that DCB Legal?  

an1bc

Coupon-mad said:

One final question if you dont mind please - is this letter to be emailed to DCBL directly? & is it worth including CNBC@justice.gov.uk on cc at this stage?

Never cc in the CNBC to this sort of communication because you haven't made an application yet so there's nothing 'live' that the CNBC are involved in.

And nothing goes to DCB Ltd.  You keep talking about DCBL and we need to know who you mean: do you mean the solicitor because you are not meant to send this to the aggressive bailiff arm who wrote to you.

They can't issue consent orders.  A solicitor can.

You are emailing whoever (legal team) actually filed the claim and are named on the claim form.  Was that DCB Legal?  

Sorry for the ambiguity. UK Parking Control Limited has nominated DCB Legal, who are then using Direct Bailiffs Ltd (DCBL). I'm assuming DCB Legal & DCBL are owned by the same parent company, as even the logo is identical.

I will email the above letter to DCB Legal solely & will keep you updated on any progress in this thread.

Thank you again for your help.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's the right recipient then: DCB Legal.

an1bc

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that's the right recipient then: DCB Legal.

Hi, I have now received an email reply (below) from DCB legal in relation to my CCJ set-aside letter. In summary, they've asked me to answer security question by providing name and address. I am a bit skeptical replying as I do not trust how they may use this information - especially with my primary residential address.

Should I just respond with the address where they have sent the correspondences to?
I assume this is the address on their record, therefore should be sufficient to pass security. 

Would appreciate your feedback on this.

Thank you

___________

Dear Sirs,

 

'We thank you for your recent email.

 

We take the confidentiality of our matters very seriously and as a result, we ask you to answer the following security questions in full before we can correspond with you via email.

Please could you confirm:

  
• Your full name

   

   

• First line of your address

   

   

• Postcode

   

By responding to this email, you consent for us to use this email address for communication in relation to your case, this may contain information that is personal to you. When communicating by email, please remember that it may be ‘unsecure’. If at any time, you no longer wish for your personal information to be communicated by email, or you no longer have access to this mailbox, please notify us immediately.

 

Should you prefer to discuss this matter on the telephone, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0203 434 0437.'

Coupon-mad

Of course you must show you are the correct data subject.

an1bc

Coupon-mad said:

Of course you must show you are the correct data subject.

I confirmed the security check a week ago (as discussed above), however no response yet in regards to a response from my initial letter.

The response deadline of two weeks, as per my initial letter - has now passed, so I was wondering whether to wait further for a response or initiate the set aside appeal with the court directly?

Would really appreciate your advice on the best course of action.

Thank you & sorry to bombard you with so many messages.

Coupon-mad

Follow it up by email tomorrow and give then until Thursday to reply to your first email because you will otherwise prepare and file a N244 on Friday 17th May which will expose them to facing refunding your £303 in court fees plus hearing attendance costs.  Replying by Thursday, admitting their claim service and POC failure, providing a consent order (and agreeing that their client pays the £119 fee to resolve the CCJ they caused) has value to their client and a response by return is now expected, given the time first stated has expired.

an1bc

Coupon-mad said:

Follow it up by email tomorrow and give then until Thursday to reply to your first email because you will otherwise prepare and file a N244 on Friday 17th May which will expose them to facing refunding your £303 in court fees plus hearing attendance costs.  Replying by Thursday, admitting their claim service and POC failure, providing a consent order (and agreeing that their client pays the £119 fee to resolve the CCJ they caused) has value to their client and a response by return is now expected, given the time first stated has expired.

Thank you! I have sent a follow-up email.. will keep you posted on any further developments.