Default CCJ after AOS and defence submitted, was I too late?

imranjan94

The situation

1. Claim issued by DCB Legal on 19/03/24
2. Submitted AOS 25/03/2024 at 09:22:27
3. AOS received 25/03/2024 at 12:05:10
4. Defence submitted via email to the CCBC on 13/04/2024 @ 17:26
5. Default judgement issued against 24/04/2024 at 19:06:58.


Just need some clarification was I too late with the AOS or defence? I thought the AOS was 14+5 so I was in time and even the same then with my defence? 

If so then could I have advice on either

- if in time then how to go about letting the court know this judgement was served in error and I timely submitted the documentation?


-if too late how would I go about setting aside the judgement/paying the fine and having it removed?

Thanks for your help in advance.

Castle

Did the CNBC acknowledge receipt of your defence?

imranjan94

imranjan94 said:

The situation

1. Claim issued by DCB Legal on 19/03/24
2. Submitted AOS 25/03/2024 at 09:22:27
3. AOS received 25/03/2024 at 12:05:10
4. Defence submitted via email to the CCBC on 13/04/2024 @ 17:26
5. Default judgement issued against 24/04/2024 at 19:06:58.


Just need some clarification was I too late with the AOS or defence? I thought the AOS was 14+5 so I was in time and even the same then with my defence? 

If so then could I have advice on either

- if in time then how to go about letting the court know this judgement was served in error and I timely submitted the documentation?


-if too late how would I go about setting aside the judgement/paying the fine and having it removed?

Thanks for your help in advance.

I received the standard autoresponse but didn't received a direct response. I have previous had claims and sent via email and never received any direct response however, always the automated one and everything has proceeded fine to the next stage though

Gr1pr

Same problem as this one 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6520005/dcb-legal-a-judgment-has-been-entered-against-you-you-cannot-respond-to-the-claim-but-you-may-appl/p1

Follow the same advice, assuming that the fault lies with the CNBC. ? , so complain etc

KeithP

Can you please have a look at your MCOL Claim History and perhaps cot and paste the detail here.

I suspect that there is no confirmation in your MCOL Claim History of your Defence having been received.

imranjan94

KeithP said:

Can you please have a look at your MCOL Claim History and perhaps cot and paste the detail here.

I suspect that there is no confirmation in your MCOL Claim History of your Defence having been received.

Sure here it is

"Claim History

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 25/03/2024 at 09:22:27

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 25/03/2024 at 12:05:10

A judgment was issued against you on 24/04/2024 at 19:06:58"

KeithP

On another thread you have written...

imranjan94 said:
I believe because I sent across the email to the wrong address ...

So, to what email address did you sent your Defence and why haven't you mentioned that discrepancy on this thread?

Also, have another look at the email receipt when you attempted to file a Defence.
You said "I received the standard autoresponse", but did you perhaps receive a response that said you had sent your Defence to the wrong place?

imranjan94

KeithP said:

On another thread you have written...

imranjan94 said:
I believe because I sent across the email to the wrong address ...

So, to what email address did you sent your Defence and why haven't you mentioned that discrepancy on this thread?

Apologies will edit, I wasnt aware the email address had changed at the time of posting until I read another thread attached. I sent to ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk however still received autoconfirmation response at the time not something along the lines of our mailbox has changed.

nopcns

imranjan94 said:

KeithP said:

On another thread you have written...

imranjan94 said:
I believe because I sent across the email to the wrong address ...

So, to what email address did you sent your Defence and why haven't you mentioned that discrepancy on this thread?

Apologies will edit, I wasnt aware the email address had changed at the time of posting until I read another thread attached. I sent to ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk however still received autoconfirmation response at the time not something along the lines of our mailbox has changed.

Your auto response will tell you the facts. Why are we speculating here? The auto response will either acknowledge receipt of your email or it will tell you that you email was not received and that you need to resend to a different email address.

Carefully read that auto response and tell us whether it is one or the other. That will determine your next step.

Have you tried calling the CNBC and having this escalated to a manager, followed up in writing/email?

Coupon-mad

Yes just complain to the CNBC.

Looks like you sent your defence to the old Directions Questionnaire email address but they should have recognised it and logged it as a defence.

1baldtyre

Along the lines of complaints to CNBC, I wonder if we all ought to anticipate 'failures' of filing since CNBC seems to have an admin problem and we now ought to take more precautions to 'prove' service?

Recently a 'default judgement' for 'non-receipt' of Defence landed on me, although there'd been no breach of timelines. I always hand deliver hard copy docs (imaged) to CNBC and receive by post.

Previous experience (another successful rebuttal thanks to MSE forum) had revealed that their admin is *very* chaotic. So as a precaution I'd also sent a copy, proof of posting, cert of service, directly to the claimant (although this part of service is down to the CNBC).

If I've understood this correctly, if CNBC 'loses' a document saying it has not received it, it cannot then serve it on the claimant. 

An abundance of proof may be required when trying to put things right, re-submitting docs and proofs of dates etc. I don't yet know if a complaint will remove a default judgement or if it attracts compensation.

Non-received docs raise concerns about their loss, the organisation's data protection, and is a shoo-in as a delaying tactic when CNBC are overwhelmed and not meeting admin targets.