CCJ - Issued to an old PO box

Johnersh

... That said, I can see that before the most pragmatic of DJs there is an issue asserting that a PO Box is not valid service if that is (as the PPC now suggest) the same address being used to defend the claim.

Coupon-mad

Johnersh said:

... That said, I can see that before the most pragmatic of DJs there is an issue asserting that a PO Box is not valid service if that is (as the PPC now suggest) the same address being used to defend the claim.

Surely it isn't? The claim went unserved due to using a PO Box. A CCJ by default had to be set aside because of it.

If the Defendant is a company(?) can't they just defend using their geographical address and still mention this point about the PO Box meaning the claim was never properly served, as part and parcel of demonstrating a course of unreasonable conduct in litigation?

They should certainly signal intent to claim full costs on the indemnity basis now, by enclosing a costs schedule too and citing the new Orton v Barclaycard case which was about a late discontinuance and suggested a potential 4-stage framework to guide future assessments of unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Every chance this case might go the same way, so it's about building evidence now within the defence (as well as defending).

Johnersh

Not disagreeing, but flagging that Cs letter to the court maintains D is defending the claim actively using the same po box address. Was wondering if that was correct, since it undermines the point somewhat.

subzero1988

Something like this ? -

Updated Costs Paragraph (18):

18. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

(a) reimbursement of the £303 court fee for the successful set aside application;

(b) standard witness costs for attendance at any hearing, pursuant to CPR 27.14; and

(c) a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant under CPR 27.14(2)(g), with costs awarded on the indemnity basis where appropriate. The Claimant's conduct, including poor service of the original claim to a PO Box, exaggerated and vague particulars of claim, and continued pursuit of a claim where no genuine cause of action has been established, demonstrates a pattern of unreasonable behaviour.

The Defendant specifically refers to the County Court judgment in Orton v Barclays Bank UK PLC [2023] EW Misc 9 (CC), where Deputy District Judge Joseph outlined a four-stage framework for assessing unreasonable conduct and late discontinuance. The Defendant reserves the right to produce a formal costs schedule and pursue indemnity costs should the Claimant discontinue or fail to engage with litigation proportionately or fairly

Coupon-mad

"reimbursement of the £303 court fee for the successful set aside application;"

Only if the first judge reserved costs.

And say 'improper service, not 'poor'.

And don't use the PO address!

Is the Defendant a company? Remind us what the PCN was for and did the company appeal, not giving the PO box address? Why is the C saying the D is using that PO box now?

subzero1988

First judge did reserve the costs and said that the next judge who the defence gets passed onto will decide if I'm due my fees back or not.

So originally the PCN was for parking in a carpark without consent (I believe, it was over a year now). PCN is addressed to an individual.

What happened was, as stated by the C, PCNs were issued to a residential address (the individuals actual address, and that registered with the DVLA).

The C's solicitors said there was no response, therefore they ran a credit check and found another address (the PO box address) on file.

From here the solicitors issued the LBC, then court proceedings continued using the PO box address. The Defendant did not receive any of this, and was only alerted to the CCJ when it appeared on credit file.

subzero1988

What do you think about something like this ? I'll move it up into para 4 -

4. The Claimant demonstrated improper service of the claim by sending it to a commercial PO Box which has never been the Defendant’s residential address, nor has it ever been linked to the DVLA. The Defendant has lived at their current address since 2019 and has remained traceable. The PO Box was closed and inactive for months before the claim was issued and had not been used for personal or legal correspondence. This failure to serve the claim correctly resulted in a default CCJ being entered without the Defendant’s knowledge.

5. The Defendant subsequently applied to set aside the default judgment, which was successful. A court fee of £303 was incurred to remedy the Claimant's procedural error. The Defendant notes this cost and respectfully reserves the right to raise the issue in any future costs submissions, should the Court consider it appropriate.

h2g2

Johnersh said:

... That said, I can see that before the most pragmatic of DJs there is an issue asserting that a PO Box is not valid service if that is (as the PPC now suggest) the same address being used to defend the claim.

Is this based on this?

subzero1988 said:

If it is, it would appear that:

"Notices were sent to the Defendant at the address held by the DVLA. The Notices were sent to "[redacted]" which is the same address as the Defendant has confirmed as their serviceable address ..."

So the PO Box address is not the one they sent legal action to. It looks like they didn't get any response from the actual address; did a trace, and then issued legal proceedings against the PO Box address.

subzero1988

They only sent legal action to the PO box.

They said they said "notices", nothing legal went to the residential address. Only the PO box.

Johnersh

I was concerned that D may then have used the PO Box to correspond in the case. If not, this is straightforward.

1. Case law is clear (as is the white book) that a PO box isn't a service address. A law firm ought to know that.
2. Further case law establishes that an address D has *never* resided at cannot be a usual residential address for service. Unless he's a hobbit, D will not live in his PO Box.