Notice of Discontinuance & Court Costs

Porkypie_2

I was served a parking fine from Civil Enforcement for putting a digit from my number plate in incorrectly, i appealed this charge and it was rejected, leading the fine to go up to £90. I have argued this and seeked legal advice and was advised it's a minor keying error and is an unfair charge. So I stood my ground and argued it. My car was parked in the lines and I paid for parking, so felt this was unjustified.
I sent back a form to state my statement and apparently it wasn't received. I was then issued a CCJ, to which I also fought, i applied for a set aside judgement this cost £239, I won this and the CCJ was removed and not shown as ever on my credit report. A new court hearing has been set and I've just received an email with Notice of Discontinuance, case has now been marked as discontinued and the hearing has been vacated.
This has been going on for 3 years now, I have been bombarded with bailiff threats, every 2 week for a year and the bill has gone up to £370. I have called and contacted them to resolve but nothing, no response.
So... this email- Notice of Discontinuance, is that the end of all this?
Do/Can I claim the £239 back?  Or should i just leave it here, £239 out of pocket, for 50p parking for 2 hours and 3 years of stress. Half of me wants to show CE that they can't treat people like this and fight it, other half of me wants it finished.. 

molerat

I have reported this to be moved to the parking tickets board where the experts will be more likely to see it.

MSE_ForumTeam5

Moved as per @molerat's suggestion

Umkomaas

Who has the notice of discontinuation come from?

Coupon-mad

And did you keep proof of posting of the lost defence? If you did post it to the right address with the right claim number clearly on the paperwork, then losing it was the CNBC's fault.  You should be complaining to them and should never have had to fill in a N244 application. Not needed and nor was the fee.

Le_Kirk

Notwithstanding what others have said, when you applied for the set-aside using the N244, did you submit a draft order detailing what you wanted if claimant were to discontinue?

Porkypie_2

The notice of discontinuation is from the Court and I have had it confirmed that it is now a closed case.
I haven't mentioned that I wanted court costs back at all, it just as you say wasn't needed nor was the fee. I also have proof of all postage and emails are saved. 

Coupon-mad

Porkypie_2 said:

The notice of discontinuation is from the Court and I have had it confirmed that it is now a closed case.
I haven't mentioned that I wanted court costs back at all, it just as you say wasn't needed nor was the fee. I also have proof of all postage and emails are saved. 

Right.

So now send a formal complaint with that evidence to the complaints email for the CNBC because it is their fault that you are out of pocket. Instead of admitting their error in losing the posted defence, the CNBC staff wrongly told you that you had to fill in form N244 and pay a massive fee to right the wrong. The Claimant has - of course - now discontinued (as expected) because most roboclaim parking firms/legals merely use and abuse the court service to gain CCJs and they just discontinue most defended cases.

But the wasted fee caused by the CNBC maladministration remains outstanding.  The Interpretation Act applies:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7#:~:text=Where%20an%20Act%20authorises%20or,and%20posting%20a%20letter%20containing

"References to service by post.

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

Proof of posting is attached.  The N244 fee was unnecessary expense caused by the CNBC (not even a hearing was needed to reverse the wrongful CCJ which could and should have been offered by a proper officer of the CNBC at the time) and compensation for the sum of £xxx is now required, and an apology.

Porkypie_2

Thank you for this information, I'll go for it and see how i get on. Appreciate your responses and advice so much. Thank you.