2x CCJ's - Civil Enforcement Limited - Private Parking Violation

Coupon-mad

That's good. 

RedOrchid

Can I email DCB Legal and CEL tomorrow to call off the minions? 

Coupon-mad

Only once you are sure it is logged!

Not CEL. They aren't even involved in this aggression, despite the fact they are the Claimant.. 

RedOrchid

I've now received a court hearing date for my latest CCJ (The one that never arrived at my correct address), this is scheduled to happen on the 14th March. Is there any discussions that I can take a look at in terms of preparation for such hearing? 

Coupon-mad

@hallie28

@Jack5656

@parkingpains1

@Zbubuman

@Mega_Maniac

...are all CCJ threads that are completed or already past the first hearing stage and worth a thorough read of their account of how they prepared and how the CCJ hearing went.

RedOrchid

I just received an email from DCBL with the following - Do I need to do anything? She asks that if I want to include anything else, to send it to her by the 7th March. 

I, - , will state as follows: -

 

1.     I am an employee of DCB Legal Ltd of Direct House, Greenwood Drive, Manor Park, Runcorn, WA7 1UG. I am duly authorised to make this Witness Statement on behalf of the Claimant. I make this witness statement in response to the Defendant’s application to set aside Judgment.

 

2.     The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

3.     I confirm I have reviewed case management systems operated by Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited (“DCBL”) and my company. I have also reviewed documents provided by the Claimant. All of which are contemporaneous records of incoming and outgoing correspondence and telephone calls. I am able to make this Witness Statement from my review.

 

Background

 

4.     The Claimant offers private car park management services to private landowners; primarily to manage the way in which motorists are permitted to park whilst on their private land. The Claimant’s services can include issuing parking charge notices to any vehicles parked in a way the private landowner does not permit. The Defendant is the recipient of a Parking Charge Notice(s) (“PCN(s)”) issued by the Claimant.

 

5.     At all material times, the Claimant was accredited by the British Parking Association. In order to obtain Registered Keeper details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (“DVLA”) it is a requirement that the operator be a member of one of the two ATA’s, of which each has a Code of

Practice (COP). It is therefore essential that the Claimant’s business ensures compliance with the COP.

 

6.     As no payment was received, the Claimant took the necessary steps to recover the debt. The Claimant initially instructed Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited to commence debt recovery action and letters were sent to the Defendant.

 

7.     The letters referred to above were not returned undelivered, however, due to no contact being received from the Defendant a TRACE was conducted prior to the Letter of Claim being sent and the Claim being issued. The TRACE confirmed that the address at which the claim was issued was most likely to be the Defendant’s residential address at that time.

 

8.     A Letter of Claim was served on 09/08/2024. The Defendant responded and engaged in pre-action dispute resolution. However, as the matter could not be settled, the Claim was issued on 17/10/2024, and as the Defendant did not respond to the Claim, Judgment in default was entered on 11/11/2024.

 

9.     Due to non-compliance with the Judgment, the Claimant then instructed DCBL in execution of a High Court Writ. The Claimant has incurred the costs of obtaining the Writ and further costs have been incurred in attempt to recover the debt. The costs are addressed later in this statement.

Defendant’s Application to set aside Judgment

 

10.  The Defendant has subsequently filed an Application, dated 20/11/2024 to set aside Judgment. On the basis that:-

 

·  They did not become aware of the Claim until 11/09/2024 upon receipt of the Judgment letter;

·  The Claim Form ‘never arrived’;

·  They have a strong Defence against the Claim issued;

·  The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR and Practice Direction 16;

·  The Defendant has been issued two separate Claims by the Claimant.

 

CPR 6.9 – Service of Proceedings

 

11.  For the avoidance of doubt, the Claim Form was correctly served at the Defendant’s last known address pursuant to CPR 6.9. Further, in accordance with CPR 6.9(3), the Claimant took all reasonable steps to ascertain the Defendant’s current address by conducting a trace and this result provided the Claimant with ‘knowledge’ of the Defendant’s address. Furthermore, my firm have not been made aware by the Court that the Claim Form has been returned as undelivered or “gone away”.

 

12.  In any event, DCB Legal Ltd issued a Letter of Claim (“LOC”) to the Defendant on 09/08/2024, outlining that a Claim would be issued should they fail to respond with their disputes or make payment of the amount stated within 30 days. The Defendant responded by way of email therefore

it is clear that the Defendant was receiving the correspondence issued, and was adequately placed on notice that a Claim may issue.

 

13.  The Court ought to note that the Defendant has confirmed their address for service within their Application, as the same address that all documentation was served to. However, the Defendant did not respond to the Claim Form, which the Claimant believes is unreasonable conduct.

 

CPR 12 & 13 – Setting aside or varying default Judgment

 

14.  CPR 13.2 states that a court must set aside a default Judgment which was wrongly entered because of one or more of the following reasons:-

 

(a)  in the case of a judgment in default of an acknowledgment of service, any of the conditions in rule

(1) and 12.3(3) was not satisfied;

(b)  in the case of a judgment in default of a defence, any of the conditions in rule 12.3(2) and 12.3(3) was not satisfied; or

(c)  the whole of the claim was satisfied before judgment was entered.

 

15.  None of these conditions apply to this matter and as such I now refer to CPR 13.3 which applies the following tests in order to successfully set aside a Judgment: -

 

(1)  In any other case, the court may set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12 if –

(a)  the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; or

(b)  it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why –

(i)  the judgment should be set aside or varied; or

(ii)  the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.

(2)   In considering whether to set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12, the matters to which the court must have regard include whether the person seeking to set aside the judgment made an application to do so promptly.

 

15.  I will attempt to deal with each test under CPR 13.1 on an individual basis to hopefully provide consistency and clarity. In turning first to CPR 13.3(1)(a)(b), I would respectfully submit that the Defendant has no real prospects of successfully Defending this claim, on the basis that:-

 

·       The Defendant’s vehicle [NUMBER PLATE] (“the Vehicle”) was captured at Car Park At 108 Leagrave Road Luton LU4 8HX (“the Land”) on the material dates without having made a valid payment for their respective stays. The Terms and Conditions were therefore breached and subsequent Charges were issued accordingly.

 

·       The Defendant has failed to provide a draft Defence to the Claim as they allege the same has only been partially prepared. The Claimant therefore cannot address any specificities in regards to the alleged Defence.

 

16.  Turning now to CPR 13.3(1)(b)(i)(ii), I respectfully submit that there is no other good reason as to why Judgment ought to be set aside, on the basis that:-

·       The Defendant was correctly served the Claim Form pursuant to CPR 6.9. The Court ought to note that the Defendant has confirmed their address for service within their Application, as the same address that all documentation was served to. The Defendant chose to respond to the LOC however failed to respond to the Claim Form, resulting in a correct Judgment in default. The Defendant has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate their allegation that the Claim Form was not received.

 

·       The Claimant refers to the case of Link Parking Ltd v Mr David Ian Blaney and Michael Blaney (2017) in this regard. DJ Pratt stated “it seems to me that, on the balance of probabilities, letter(s) do not go missing as a matter of course, and, on the balance of probabilities [the Defendant] would have received the letters”. It would therefore be unreasonable of the Defendant to suggests that they did not receive the letters due to the amount of correspondence that has been issued to the address.

 

·       It is denied that the Defendant did not become aware of the Claim until 11/09/2024 upon receipt of the Judgment letter. The Defendant was aware of legal proceedings upon confirmed receipt of the LOC dated 09/08/2024 and a Claim was not issued until 17/10/2024. The Defendant would not have received the Judgment letter until after 11/11/2024 therefore the Defendant’s submission here is disproved.

 

·       The Defendant alleges that the Particulars of Claim are defective and liable to be struck out. I submit that the Claim was issued via the Civil National Business Centre and in this regard, I refer to Practice Direction 7C, which specifically provides the guidelines for doing so. I respectfully submit that the Particulars of Claim are in keeping with the Practice Direction. The following sections of relevance are:-

 

 

5.2(1) provides a limited character count for the Particulars of Claim; and

 

5.2A stipulates that the requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims started using an online claim form;

 

·       It is the Claimants position that the Particulars were sufficient to allow the Defendant to identify the subject matter of the Claim. The Defendant could not have submitted an Application with the detail it contains if the Particulars were so insufficient as to prevent them from understanding the claim. Moreover, if the Defendant is alleging not to have received the Claim Form, the Claimant questions how the Defendant is aware of the Particulars of Claim?

 

·       The Defendant refers to unrelated Claims issued by the Claimant. These Claims bear no relevance to the current Claim as are completely separate proceedings. The Defendant has continued to breach the Claimant’s Terms and Conditions of parking therefore multiple Charges have been issued. The Claimant cannot be prevented from issuing Claims on the basis that the Defendant may continue to breach the Terms and Conditions and be awarded further Charges which may need litigating as a last resort.

CPR 3.9 – Relief from sanction

 

17.  Having therefore considered all criteria as identified in CPR 13.3, the Court may wish to turn their attention in particular to the three-stage test in Denton, the consideration of which was also affirmed by the Court of Appeal in the recent decision of FXF v English Karate Federation Ltd & Anor [2023], whereby it was confirmed that the Denton principles do apply to Set Aside Applications. As the Defendant has failed to respond to the Claim Form, an application ought to have been made for relief from sanctions, as set out in Redbourne Group Ltd -v- Fairgate Development Limited [2017] EWHC 1223 (TCC). No such application has been made.

 

18.  CPR 3.9(1) provides that the court ought to have regard to the overriding objective, and the need to deal with such matters fairly and proportionately. Further, in terms of ‘promptness’ of the Application, I would argue that the same needs to be looked, at not specifically just in terms of the Application but in the broader context, this also gives rise to consideration of the blatant disregard of the filing of any Acknowledgment of Service or any Defence to the proceedings.

 

19.  In considering the case of Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, is a three-stage test to be applied to any application for relief from sanctions. The test applied is as follows:-

 

i.     The seriousness or significance of the breach.

 

ii.     The reason why the failure or default occurred.

 

iii.     All circumstances of the case.

 

20.  In turning to the first test being the ‘significance of the breach’, I would respectfully aver that any breach is serious and significant and as a result of which, the second and third ‘Denton’ tests are triggered. I would submit that the Defendant’s blatant disregard to respond to the Claim is a serious one. It is anticipated that the Defendant will suggest that as a litigant in person, they cannot be expected to understand what is required of them, however, the Court is respectfully referred to the case of Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC12 and Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation v Hardy [2021] EWHC817 (Ch) whereby in both cases it was held that litigants in person cannot expect special treatment.

 

21.  The second test is for this court to consider why the failures/breaches occurred. The Defendant has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate their allegation that the Claim Form was the on;y correspondence not received.

 

22.  The third test is for this Court to consider all of the circumstances to enable it to deal justly with the application. The failures/breaches committed by the Defendant will have prevented the Court and the Parties from conducting this litigation efficiently and at proportionate cost. Not only has Court and Judicial time been expended but the Parties have now been put to additional expense. This Court must bear in mind the need for compliance with rules, practice directions and Orders. There has been a fundamental failure by the defendant to act in accordance with that need.

 

Costs

23.  I respectfully seek an Order that the Defendant do pay the Claimant’s legal costs incurred as a result of the Application made on the basis of their unreasonable conduct to date. Had the Defendant responded, these costs could have been avoided. The costs of opposing this application are £156, which is £130 + VAT for the advocate’s fee for attending the hearing.

 

24.  The Court is minded to consider the regulated costs incurred by the High Court Enforcement Officers when making any Order in relation to costs, this being £126.75.

 

Conclusion

 

25.  For all of the reasons outlined in this Witness Statement, I believe that the Defendant’s application to set aside Judgment should be dismissed and the Defendant be ordered to pay the Claimant’s costs.

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

 

I 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

I think you need a draft defence added, if the Claim Form didn't go to an old address. You'll need to rely on CPR 13.3 (discretionary set aside) which isn't guaranteed. You need to tip the balance with the usual Chan & Akande version of defence IF the POC (that you got from the CNBC?) didn't plead the breach.

RedOrchid

Do you recall any examples of draft defences in this forum for a similar situation @Coupon-mad?

Coupon-mad

RedOrchid said:

Do you recall any examples of draft defences in this forum for a similar situation @Coupon-mad?

But that's already written for you in the Template Defence thread, including a link to a Chan/Akande version in the first post.

RedOrchid

I've seen the defence template but I was wondering whether or not to fight some points present in DCB Legal's bundle?