VCS - DCBL - Own Space - 2 Claims - 1 CCJ

icy_fox · 12 September 2024 at 3:03PM

I've contacted my local court this morning while expressing the urgency as advised. Overall events and outcomes are as below.

Call Flow

Following a variety of automated voice prompts (as is the way these days), the call was redirected to a national line.
Eventually I got through to the appropriate team to discuss Civil Matters
Provided the facts of the situation (2 almost identical claims, not present during initial claim, discovered CCJ, etc.)
Stated the utmost urgency and concern - especially re. possibility of HCEO's coming
- Doing everything I can to complete the application ASAP - however it's also crucial for me to include all of the necessary details for my case.
- Concerns re. CNBC delays, lost paperwork relating to my urgent case.
- Desire to communicate everything to the local court.

Key Takeaways

No warrant has been produced yet
Until a warrant is produced, no bailiffs / HCEO's are expected to knock on the door (or approach my car)
No warrant is expected for at least one month (per the Judgment letter)
Following that month timeline, the claimant will still need get an appointment to instruct a bailiff)

Additional Context - Judgment letter received (on 10/09/2024)

I've now received a letter confirming the Judgement, which contains the following key details:
The letter is dated 06/09/2024
- This date is only listed once, so I assume this applies to the CCJ (as we know) and the date the letter was sent.
- I received this on 10/09/2024
Timeframe for response on the letter states: "If you pay in full within one month, you can ask the court to cancel the entry on the Register"

Requested for Manchester County Court to take the case:

Spoke to them about the concerns re. CNBC and their backlog. Specifically: "How can I be assured that with the 5 week delay at the CNBC and other known delays / backlogs at other courts, that this will be handled in a timely enough manner to ensure bailiffs won't be coming to my door in future?"
Was advised:
- I'm not sending the N244 to the CNBC - Must send to my local Court (Manchester Civil)
- The lady on the helpline cannot advise of the exact timeframe in which they'll review because her dept looks after 80+ courts (Not sure exactly where this office is located, though I heard a strong West Mids accent.)
  - Despite the backlog they should get back to me (was advised that it's nothing like as bad as in the London courts)

So what I take from this is:

Good news - No bailiffs / HCEO's expected in the immediate future (no warrant at this stage)
Bad news - Still need to submit the N244 application - would this still come with the £303 fee?

Next Steps (once application is complete)

The below relate to submitting the N244 Application & supplementary evidence. While sending via post is an option, I'm also thinking of attempting to hand it over in person. I've once had success with that approach in the past for another matter.

The lady suggested to email the Civil Court:

This also proves a date and time of the application being sent (if needed in future re. bailiffs / HCEO, etc.)
Email Address ManchesterCivil@Justice.gov.uk
To Include
- Key Items
  - Subject line: URGENT - JUDGEMENT BY DEFAULT - 06/09/2024
  - Advise of full situation: Want to get this done prior to the bailiff stage, etc.
  - N244 Application
  - Supplementary Evidence
    - (A concern for me here - I'd generally prefer not to include important items in an email over clear text)
- Extra Items
  - Mobile Contact Number
  - Full Availability (Times I'm not contactable due to work / out of the country, etc.)

Once the email is sent:

I receive an automated response
Somebody will fully review the application prior to contacting me

Coupon-mad · 12 September 2024 at 3:11PM

Still need to submit the N244 application - would this still come with the £303 fee?

Yes unless Manchester take it as an application to stay a Writ, in which case they'll ask for £14 if you get lucky! Once it's in, it's in.

A writ can be applied for now. Don't believe the month. DCB Group don't have to apply for a bailiff; they have their own HCEOs and have got writs within days in cases like this. YOU MUST get it in this week.

Ring Manchester court once you are ready to email it and send it while talking. Then pay over the phone in the same call.

Put URGENT and the Claim Number in the title. DO IT TODAY OR TOMORROW BEFORE 4pm. Ask for an email receipt.

icy_fox · 12 September 2024 at 4:00PM

Envelope

Coupon-mad said:

Did you check the envelope to see if there's any clue about whether the CNBC sent this or both claims 2nd class? Dynamite if they did.

I did check this, frustratingly I don't have that to hand:

icy_fox said:

CNBC Admin Centre Envelope
Unfortunately I was so focused on the Claim itself upon receipt that I've already thrown out the envelope. If I somehow receive yet more wonderful correspondence from the claimant in future, I'll be sure to keep an eye out for it.

Timeframes - Claim 1 vs Claim 2

Coupon-mad said:

Delete your para 2 and change it to:

2. I learnt of the existence of this claim on the 07/09/2024, after opening my post and finding the Claim Form. I had received two near-duplicate claim forms in my absence from this same Claimant, and I went online to acknowledge them both. I was shocked to find that this one had had a judgment entered already, which I later calculated was premature.

This not strictly true. Perhaps I should've been clearer in highlighting the finer details during my original post for Claim 1:

Claim 1 Issue Date: 17/06/2024
Claim 1 Acknowledgement Date: 26/06/2024

Incidentally the DQ for this was also actually sent to me on 06/09, which I've now received. Perhaps the CCJ for the second claim somehow expedited that.

Ultimately the rest of this remains true and I don't think that should change too much. So perhaps I should reword this to:
2. I learnt of the existence of this claim on the 07/09/2024, after opening my post and finding the Claim Form. I received this second claim in my absence from this same Claimant, and I went online to acknowledge it. I was shocked to find that it had had a judgment entered already, which I later calculated was premature.

VCS vs Carr

I've applied the other simpler update / error corrections to my WS (thanks again). Having had a closer look at the VCS vs Carr case, I've picked out the below reasons as being most relevant to my my own. This is despite the fundamental differences of the timeframe (2 years) and reasons for not responding to the judgment (moved address).

A question here, can I select the key snippets of the below reasons presented by the judge where they are specifically relevant to my case? Or could that be considered as an attempt by me to take things wrongly out of context just to suit my own agenda?

VCS vs Carr - Key Points of Interest

Avoiding injustice:

8. However, the purpose of the power under CPR 13.3 is to avoid injustice, and although a lack of “promptness” in applying to set aside is a mandatory consideration, the rule makes it clear that the overriding objective is paramount. It is far from clear that the Circuit Judge approached the matter from that perspective. I find it telling that there is no mention in her judgement of the overriding objective nor of what the justice of the case required.

Assessing a Judgment in Default (Denton):

9. Even in a case of relief from sanctions where the delay is lengthy and there is no excuse for it, the court is required to consider all the circumstances of the case, in order to deal justly with the matter: Denton v White. This court has confirmed that the approach in Denton applies in the context of setting aside a judgment in default: FXF v English Karate Federation [2023] EWCA Civ 891

The following is relevant, albeit where the default judgment was obtained after sending to a separate address:

10. The starting point of the analysis must be that the defendant, who at all material times lived at the property where his car was parked, was being served with parking enforcement notices by the claimant because through no fault of his own and despite making every effort to get one, he could not display a parking permit to prove to them that he had the right to park his car in that space. He had tried without success to ‘explain this to the claimant, who in substance said it was not their problem and he should take it up with the letting agent/landlord. The claimant then obtained a default judgment for a sum in excess of £10,000 in respect of the accumulated parking charges after they had sent all relevant correspondence to and served the proceedings at an address where the defendant no longer lived. The Circuit Judge rightly found that he could not be criticised for failing to respond to a claim form which he never in fact received.

Real prospect of a successful defence:

11. Given the Circuit Judge's finding (which the claimant realistically does not seek to challenge) that there was a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, in my judgment it is arguable with a real prospect of success that she did not properly carry out the holistic evaluation she should have done at the third ‘stage of the Denton test, despite expressly acknowledging that she had to take all the circumstances into consideration. As a result she placed too much weight on the delay after the defendant became aware of the default judgment, which she said she regarded as the most important factor.

No opportunity to defend (albeit a different address casing a "failure to respond"):

15. There also appears to have been no specific consideration at the third stage of the fact that in practical terms this defendant has never had an opportunity to advance his valid defence irrespective of whether service was property effected at his former address. That is related to but different from the point that he cannot be blamed for failure to respond to the claim form because he never received it.

No Opportunity to contest (first sentence):

16. Standing back and looking at the bigger picture, if the defendant has a viable defence, then by reason of a judgment to which it was not entitled, and which he had no opportunity to contest before it was entered, the claimant will be unjustly enriched at his expense. Visiting those consequences upon him simply because of a 2-year delay in seeking to set the judgment aside during a period when he was undergoing a divorce and his parents became ill might be regarded as falling outside the generous ambit of decisions that were reasonably open to the court when that and all other relevant factors are weighed together.

--

Evidence - Witness Statement

One more question re. this evidence exhibit in the meantime:

XX-02 Statement from Family member whom I stayed with while travelling south for business between 18/08/2024 and 25/08/2024.

Do you know whether this approach has been used previously for this? If so, would there happen to be a format I/we should follow?

Coupon-mad · 12 September 2024 at 5:36PM

Good use of excerpts from VCS v Carr. That approach is perfectly OK. You can use case law excerpts that support your case: that's what contested litigation is about!

Also append the transcript itself because it is unreported (we got it direct from the Defendant's barrister and it is a copy of the true findings). A Judge won't know about it and may not be able to otherwise see the transcript.

Incidentally the DQ for this was also actually sent to me on 06/09, which I've now received.

Ah OK.

Good news that THIS rogue claim is the second one, therefore THIS one should be argued to be struck out, per the doctrine of cause of action estoppel.

On your DQ (send it later in September, only AFTER this application is in) state that there is another duplicate claim number xxxxxxx which is the subject of an application and the same allocating Judge should look at both cases together and not just list this one for a hearing. In your covering email put TWO DUPLICATE FACTS CLAIMS in the Subject line and the two refs, and in the body of the email, say again that the same Manchester Judge who is considering the N244 application re claim ref xxxxxxx should be allocated in box-work, this DQ for claim ref xxxxxxx in the interests of the Overriding Objective.

In your WS change para 2 to this:

2. I learnt of the existence of this claim on the 07/09/2024, after opening my post and finding the paperwork. This Claimant had already issued a near-duplicate Claim for PCNs at this site (Issue Date: 17/06/2024) and I was expecting my N180 Directions Questionnaire for that claim (which coincidentally arrived a few days later). At first glance I took it to be relating to the June Claim (because surely a Claimant must make their whole case in one claim) which I had defended. This demonstrates that I am not someone who would ignore a court claim. I went straight online to see how to respond to the latest letter from the CNBC. I was shocked to find that this was in fact a second claim, and that it had had a judgment entered already, the day before. I later calculated that the CCJ was premature, as explained below.

icy_fox · 12 September 2024 at 11:30PM

My primary focus ahead of tomorrow's deadline has been on the Witness Statement initially. The latest version is as below and I've highlighted the key changes and (hopefully final) queries for the WS I have on the back of it.

Following Paragraph 4 update:

Paragraph 5 is now arguably redundant by the updates to 4.
Paragraphs 27-28 are arguably also covered by 4. Though perhaps it's worth keeping them in there to reiterate the points?

Additional changes made:

Added additional wording to the Denton test section to highlight the relevance to Default Judgments
Brought Denton section before VCS vs Carr to "set the scene" initially
Corrected the second "twofold" point (ii) for VCS vs Carr
Added the VCS vs Carr exhibits - renumbered where required
Added Lease Wording section to highlight key arguments of the Defence (didn't include the "No Loss" for the Claimant point - can add if worthwhile).

Remaining WS questions:

When quoting the judges "reasons" from VCS vs Carr, can I use a similar formatting to the below?
- I'd like to leave the numbering in there to make it as easy as possible for the judge to find them - hopefully not confusing with my own WS' original numbering.
Regarding EXHIBIT XX-02, if I have a family member write & sign another statement to confirm that I was with them during the first week's absence (18-25/08), is there anything else I need to do to get this validated?
- Ultimately it will be present as an exhibit which I submit and have also confirmed I'll swear under oath to validate these facts if required.
If I can claim that this second rogue claim should be struck out, should I update my Draft Order & WS to include something to the effect of:

The claim to be struck out as this Claimant had already issued a near-duplicate Claim for PCNs at this site (Issue Date: 17/06/2024), which has already been acknowledged and defended.

Exhibits (sugggested)

EXHIBIT XX-01 Screenshot from MCOL confirming the claim [CLAIM-02-REF] resulting in a CCJ (dated 06/09/2024).
EXHIBIT XX-02 Statement from Family member whom I stayed with while travelling south for business between 18/08/2024 and 25/08/2024.
EXHIBIT XX-03 Booking confirmation for the flights used for travel outside of the UK during absence from 25/08/2024.
EXHIBIT XX-04 Hotel Booking confirmation (01) for travel outside of the UK during absence.
EXHIBIT XX-05 Hotel Booking confirmation (02) for travel outside of the UK during absence.
EXHIBIT XX-06 Flight Tracker image displaying delay for the corresponding return flight not returning to the UK until 05/09/2024.
EXHIBIT XX-07 Taxi Receipt to confirm arrival back home on 05/09/2024
EXHIBIT XX-08 Property Lease wording regarding the parking space for the defendants address EXHIBIT XX-09 Transcript VCS vs Carr - Reference: CA-2024-001179

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, [MY NAME] of [MY ADDRESS], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;

I make this Witness Statement in support of the application for an order that the judgment in this case (Claim No. [CLAIM-02-REF] Judgment dated 06/09/2024) be set aside.
I learnt of the existence of this claim on the 07/09/2024, after opening my post and finding the paperwork. This Claimant had already issued a near-duplicate Claim for PCNs at this site (Issue Date: 17/06/2024) and I was expecting my N180 Directions Questionnaire for that claim (which coincidentally arrived a few days later). At first glance I took it to be relating to the June Claim (because surely a Claimant must make their whole case in one claim) which I had defended. This demonstrates that I am not someone who would ignore a court claim. I went straight online to see how to respond to the latest letter from the CNBC. I was shocked to find that this was in fact a second claim, and that it had had a judgment entered already, the day before. I later calculated that the CCJ was premature, as explained below.
I was away from home between 18/08/2024 and 05/09/2024. This was for business between 18/08/2024 and 25/08/2024 (EXHIBIT XX-02), followed by a trip outside the United Kingdom between 25/08/2024 and 05/09/2024 (EXHIBIT XX-03 && (EXHIBIT XX-04).
The very earliest that the Claim Form could possibly have arrived at my home was Monday 19th August because (and I will swear on oath if required) it had not arrived by the day I left (Sunday 18th). This is vital information because the statutory 19 days (adding 14 +5 after the date of service) to acknowledge or defend the claim had not started until Monday 19th August at the earliest, and thus this period did not expire until the end of 7th September (albeit that was a Saturday). Accordingly, the judgment dated 6th September was entered prematurely.
I will swear on oath to the above facts if required, therefore as a matter of fact and law, the 14 days from the date of actual service had not expired by Friday 6th September.
I believe that I have a strong defence to the claim, and should it not be dismissed despite the wealth of case law below that supports the claim being dismissed at the set aside hearing, I should (at the very least) have the opportunity to defend it properly. My application relies upon the 'mandatory set aside' rule in CPR 13.2 (in the alternative, 13.3) in light of the above facts. This application also relies upon CPR 11 (but due to the lack of service when I was present at my home, I was unable to acknowledge the service, which that rule assumes a defendant can).
I have set out the grounds for my application in the attached draft order.

DENTON TESTS

8. In instances of a default judgment being issued, a 3-stage Denton test was established in Denton v TH White Limited [2014]. which requires the court to:

(i) identify and assess the seriousness and significance of the non-compliance

(ii) consider why the breach occurred

(iii) evaluate all circumstances of the case so the application is dealt with fairly

9. To confirm, no breach has occurred at all in this instance because the CCJ was premature. Service can only have taken place in the Defendant's absence (from 18/08/2024) and not sooner than Monday (19/08/2024). As such, the defendant was not in breach on Friday 6th September 2024, when the County Court Judgement has been issued.

10. If it is decided at this stage that the breach in question is neither serious nor significant then there is no need to consider the other 2 stages or to issue an application. In light of the above facts, there is no need to consider the final 2 stages of the Denton test.

VCS VS CARR

8. I respectfully request that the judge reviews the largely similar case referencing the same claimant (VCS vs Carr - Reference: CA-2024-001179) to be heard at the Court of Appeal this year, which is appended within EXHIBIT XX-05. The relevance of VCS vs Carr to this case `is twofold`:

(i) The case related to multi PCN examples of predatory ticketing at the Defendant's own home, a new scheme started attempting to enforce an unfair imposition of a permit obligation, which was impossible to fulfil and interfered with the resident's rights.

(ii) The CoA's initial preliminary finding is that in cases where the D did not see the claim and has good prospects of successful defence, it is only right and in the interests of justice for the court to set aside a CCJ because the D has not had a chance to defend. And was a resident with very strong defence arguments

9. Below I have highlighted key excerpts from the transcript of VCS vs Carr in which the Judge provides their reasons for granting a second appeal.

10. The following excerpt highlights that "The purpose of CPR 13.3 is to avoid injustice". Furthermore the key difference between this example case and my own, is that I've had the opportunity to respond promptly having learned about this CCJ being issued one day later:

8. However, the purpose of the power under CPR 13.3 is to avoid injustice, and although a lack of “promptness” in applying to set aside is a mandatory consideration, the rule makes it clear that the overriding objective is paramount. It is far from clear that the Circuit Judge approached the matter from that perspective. I find it telling that there is no mention in her judgement of the overriding objective nor of what the justice of the case required.

11. The following excerpt highlights the importance in highlighting the Denton approach in the context of setting aside a judgment:

9. Even in a case of relief from sanctions where the delay is lengthy and there is no excuse for it, the court is required to consider all the circumstances of the case, in order to deal justly with the matter: Denton v White. This court has confirmed that the approach in Denton applies in the context of setting aside a judgment in default: FXF v English Karate Federation [2023] EWCA Civ 891

12. The following excerpt highlights the defendant in this case "who at all material times lived at the property where his car was parked". A key similarity is the involvement of a new scheme started with no notice (unfair imposition of a permit obligation that was impossible to fulfil and interfered with residents' rights):

10. The starting point of the analysis must be that the defendant, who at all material times lived at the property where his car was parked, was being served with parking enforcement notices by the claimant because through no fault of his own and despite making every effort to get one, he could not display a parking permit to prove to them that he had the right to park his car in that space. He had tried without success to ‘explain this to the claimant, who in substance said it was not their problem and he should take it up with the letting agent/landlord. The claimant then obtained a default judgment for a sum in excess of £10,000 in respect of the accumulated parking charges after they had sent all relevant correspondence to and served the proceedings at an address where the defendant no longer lived. The Circuit Judge rightly found that he could not be criticised for failing to respond to a claim form which he never in fact received.

13. In light of the above points, it is recognised "that there was a real prospect of successfully defending the claim", along with the relevance to "the third ‘stage of the Denton test", which itself states the need to "evaluate all circumstances of the case so the application is dealt with fairly":

11. Given the Circuit Judge's finding (which the claimant realistically does not seek to challenge) that there was a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, in my judgment it is arguable with a real prospect of success that she did not properly carry out the holistic evaluation she should have done at the third ‘stage of the Denton test, despite expressly acknowledging that she had to take all the circumstances into consideration. As a result she placed too much weight on the delay after the defendant became aware of the default judgment, which she said she regarded as the most important factor.

14. Another similarity in this instance highlights that the defendant "has never had an opportunity to advance his valid defence", while further stating "he cannot be blamed for failure to respond to the claim form because he never received it":

15. There also appears to have been no specific consideration at the third stage of the fact that in practical terms this defendant has never had an opportunity to advance his valid defence irrespective of whether service was property effected at his former address. That is related to but different from the point that he cannot be blamed for failure to respond to the claim form because he never received it.

15. The final excerpt I will highlight in this instance is that ultimately, the claimant has been "unjustly enriched" when "not entitled", specifically at the "expense" of the defendant who "had no opportunity to contest before it was entered":

16. Standing back and looking at the bigger picture, if the defendant has a viable defence, then by reason of a judgment to which it was not entitled, and which he had no opportunity to contest before it was entered, the claimant will be unjustly enriched at his expense. Visiting those consequences upon him simply because of a 2-year delay in seeking to set the judgment aside during a period when he was undergoing a divorce and his parents became ill might be regarded as falling outside the generous ambit of decisions that were reasonably open to the court when that and all other relevant factors are weighed together.

ESTOPPEL

16. The claimant has inexplicably made this second claim despite the set of circumstances have striking similarities to their previous claim ([CLAIM-01-REF]), including the same particulars, same car park, same vehicle and same reasons provided. The final date of this second claim ([CLAIM-02-REF]) is within one day of the PCN's referenced within [CLAIM-01-REF].

17. Being legally represented, the Claimant knows, or should know, that by detaching or allowing to remain detached, elements of alleged debts and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process.

18. By filing two separate claims (for parking charges with exact same facts, issued within days of each other), the claimants have doubled the costs and court time wasted. This can also be considered as a tactic for double intimidation against myself. Having only recently learned of the second (near duplicate) POC, I have reproduced them below:

[CLAIM-01-REF]

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle [VEHICLE REG] at [RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS].

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 30/12/2023, 31/12/2023.

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:94) Parked Without Displaying A Valid Ticket/permit.

4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £340 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.06 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

[CLAIM-02-REF]

The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle [VEHICLE REG] at [RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS].
The PCN(s) were issued on 19/08/2023, 22/08/2023, 01/09/2023, 02/09/2023, 01/01/2024.
The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:94) Parked Without Displaying A Valid Ticket/permit,
In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

£850 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 4984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.11 until judgment or sooner payment.
Costs and court fees

19. In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”

20. In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:

(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;

(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;

(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

21. Two claims were raised on behalf of the claimant where one would have sufficed; which has doubled the waste to court time.

22. The Claimant filing the first claim and failing to advance the whole case, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact Parking Charges against the Defendant. The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same.

23. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss the second claim under the grounds of cause of action estoppel. In the alternative, the Court is respectfully invited to consolidate the claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

DEFENCE - LEASE WORDING

24. While a defence for the corresponding claim has already been issued within [CLAIM-01-REF], I wish to highlight here all key wording from the signed Property Lease from the defendants address (Schedule 04 of EXHIBIT XX-05). This contains the following exact wording:

7. Parking

7.1 Not to leave or park on any part of the Common Parts (excluding the Parking Space) any motor vehicle, motor cycle, bicycle or other vehicle, trailer, caravan or boat other than in accordance with the rights granted within this Lease.

7.2 Not to carry out upon the Common Parts, any repairs or servicing to any motor vehicle, except in case of an emergency.

7.3 Promptly to clean up any spillages of petrol oil or other substances on the Common Parts.

25. It should be noted that there are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of a permit.

26. Through the Lease, the Defendant had primacy of contract, therefore no third-party contract between the Claimant and the landlord could supersede or alter the rights granted to the Defendant, without their prior agreement.

SET ASIDE APPLICATION WAS MADE PROMPTLY

27. I have responded to this matter as promptly as possible. I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the 7th September 2024. After immediately seeking guidance, today on `13th September 2024` I have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgement and fairly present my case.

28. Considering all of the above, I was unable to defend myself against this claim. I believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus I therefore respectfully request that the Court sets aside the judgment in this claim and allows the defence that I have filed and served for the duplicate claim to stand as my defence for this claim (with the later claim of the two either being dismissed due to cause of action estoppel, or consolidated with this one if the court sees fit to allow both claims to continue).

Statement of Truth

29. I believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be 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.

Signed: ________________________________

Dated: 13/09/2024

icy_fox · 12 September 2024 at 11:32PM

Next Steps

To clarify the next steps once everything is ready to go.

To be done by 16:00 on Friday 13th (..) September at the absolute latest:

Complete the N244 form
- Key points re. N244 Wording:
  - Must cite 'CPR 13.2 and in the alternative CPR 13.3'
  - Order wording matches EXACTLY with the Draft Order
- Tick that this application requires a hearing before a District Judge. Estimate 30 mins.
- Submit to Manchester Civil Court, with
  - Subject: TWO DUPLICATE FACTS CLAIMS [CLAIM-01-REF] [CLAIM-02-REF] - URGENT - JUDGEMENT BY DEFAULT - 06/09/2024
    - Would this subject be too long? It also contains the key recommendations from my call to the Civil court earlier
  - Body of email
    - State that the same Manchester Judge who is considering the N244 application re claim ref xxxxxxx should be allocated in box-work, this DQ for claim ref xxxxxxx in the interests of the Overriding Objective.
Provide Key files
- WS
  - All supplementary evidence (triple check files & numbering)
- Draft Order
Defence to not be submitted
- Based on my request in the WS & Draft Order for the original defence to also be used here.
Phone Manchester Civil Court
- Confirm whether Manchester Civil Court will accept this as an application to stay a Writ
- Pay over the phone while talking
- Request an Email receipt once submitted

Once the N244 full application has been submitted:

Contact DCB Group not to pass the case to HCEOs and to retrieve it sharpish

To be done later in September:

Complete N180 DQ
State that there is another duplicate claim number [CLAIM-01-REF] which is the subject of an application and the same allocating Judge should look at both cases together and not just list this one for a hearing.

--

One question re. the process for the next steps. When calling Manchester Civil Court this morning, the automated phone number & voice prompts connected me via a national line to what seems like a call centre (I think in the West Mids) which handles 80+ courts.

I'm obviously happy to do this if needed, though I'm not 100% sure the people I speak to will have visibility. Would it also be worth visiting the court in an attempt to do this?
Or checking for an alternative (undisclosed) number? (I can't find anything on SayNoTo0870).

Coupon-mad · 13 September 2024 at 12:49AM

I don't know about the phone number I'm afraid.

The planned email subject line for the DQ isn't too long IMHO.

Don't put inverted commas around the phrase 'is twofold' (= normal phrase IMHO!).

Regarding EXHIBIT XX-02, if I have a family member write & sign another statement to confirm that I was with them during the first week's absence (18-25/08), is there anything else I need to do to get this validated?

No. It just needs to have the same headers and statement of truth as yours and be signed & dated. A photo of their signature & date on a piece of white paper (then cropped & added to their statement) then saved as a PDF is OK.

Everything is a PDF except the Draft Order. That stays as an attached Word Document.

If I can claim that this second rogue claim should be struck out, should I update my Draft Order & WS to include something to the effect of:

The claim to be struck out as this Claimant had already issued a near-duplicate Claim for PCNs at this site (Issue Date: 17/06/2024), which has already been acknowledged and defended.

Yes.

By the way, have you included in the Draft order, a line about the C to pay the D his/her wasted costs including the application fee of £303 and cost of attendance at hearing(s), due to the C's unreasonable conduct of filing two duplicate facts claims?

Ask for that. There's scope for a strike out and your costs here, due to the abuse of two claims.

icy_fox · 13 September 2024 at 11:35AM

Coupon-mad said:
Don't put inverted commas around the phrase 'is twofold' (= normal phrase IMHO!).

Absolutely agree, the backticks were just to highlight key focus points during the editing phase within my text editing application and I'd forgotten to remove them.

Coupon-mad said:

Everything is a PDF except the Draft Order. That stays as an attached Word Document.

Would it also be worth attaching this in PDF format? Just to show exactly what I've intended to place in a manner which cannot (theoretically) be edited?

Coupon-mad said:

By the way, have you included in the Draft order, a line about the C to pay the D his/her wasted costs including the application fee of £303 and cost of attendance at hearing(s), due to the C's unreasonable conduct of filing two duplicate facts claims?

Ask for that. There's scope for a strike out and your costs here, due to the abuse of two claims.

I believe this part is covered in the draft order by the 3rd "UPON" statement, along with the the 4th order statement of the Draft order (hopefully this will stand out enough?).

I've explicitly added another line requesting the claim to be struck out, including what is essentially a repeat of the key points (duplicate claim, abuse of system, etc.)

Would striking out the second rogue claim only be expected at the hearing itself? If it's possible that this is done beforehand, perhaps I should move the "struck out" request to 3, above the "consolidate these claims" request.

Latest Draft Order being added in the next post.

N244 Questions

Having problems with fitting all the text in. Q3 where I state the orders I'm asking the court to make has a small text box, not enough for all the content for statements 1-5 of my Draft Order. Also my PDF editor doesn't allow me to use a smaller font.

Could I instead put something along the lines of:

1. The Judgment entered against the Defendant on 06/09/2024 is hereby set aside.
2. The remaining order statements (2-5) of the attached Draft Order are also acknowledged.

Or this abbreviated version (which just about fits):

1. Set Aside judgment against Defendant. 2. Any High Court writ obtained and enforcement to be stayed. 3. Consolidate duplicate claim references L8KF6A6D with L5KF5D75 to be heard at the defendants local court. 4. Claimant to pay the Defendant's wasted costs. 5. Duplicate claim L8KF6A6D to be struck out.

Also for Q9 & 9a - "Who should be served with this application?", I was going to add the Claimant & Address. However again, the text box provided (for 9.) does not allow me to add VCS' full address. 9a says "Please give the service address, (other than details of the claimant or defendant)". So presumably I don't need to add VCS' full address?

Finally for the "Level of Judge" I've added District Judge.

---

Apart from the above points, I have the content for everything else formatted and ready to go. I'll attempt to ring the Civil court again shortly when submitting this.

Just one more thing: My evidence exhibits are currently in a separate PDF (referenced within the WS). Is that okay, or should I add the evidence as appendices within the same doc?

I appreciate that I'm asking many questions which may seem trivial, though given the legal context I'd just like to ensure everything is at the best standard prior to submitting. Plus I'm only intending to ask where still unsure even after reviewing the NEWBIES or other threads.

icy_fox · 13 September 2024 at 11:36AM

Draft Order

UPON considering the application of the Defendant to set aside the Judgment by default entered on 06/09/2024;

AND UPON reading the evidence in support of the application;

AND UPON the court taking note that the claimant issued a second claim, a duplicate fact claim relating to the same measures outlined within an original claim, which the defendant had already acknowledged and responded to;

AND UPON the court taking note that the defendant was not present at home on the date that this second claim was delivered, thus not providing a full 14 days for the defendant to acknowledge;

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Judgment entered against the Defendant on 06/09/2024 is hereby set aside.
Any High Court writ obtained and enforcement to be stayed, pending the outcome of the application.
Consolidate the duplicate claim references [CLAIM-02-REF] with [CLAIM-01-REF] to be heard at the defendants local court, with the defence lodged for the other claim to stand for both cases. Serve Directions Questionnaires to both parties.
The Claimant to pay the Defendant his wasted costs including the application fee of £303 and cost of attendance at hearing(s) in light of:
(i) The judgment being requested prematurely
(ii) Unreasonable conduct by the Claimant by artificially doubling the court fees, adding multiples of disproportionate 'debt recovery fees/damages' that were not incurred and are an abuse. Also for issuing two claims for matters that turn on duplicated facts which has wasted court time and resources.
The claim [CLAIM-02-REF] to be struck out as this Claimant had already issued a near-duplicate Claim for PCNs at this site , which had already been acknowledged and defended.

icy_fox · 13 September 2024 at 4:11PM

Okay the email has been sent. I phoned through to the helpline once again (confirmed it's the HMCTS Contact Centre).

When asking whether I could submit the application specifically to stay a writ, they advised that they were unable to confirm this or provide a specific contact number for the Manchester Civil Justice Centre. So I was advised to email with the surrounding context and ask the question there, as I have done.

I'm hoping to receive confirmation on that and the associated fee(s) to be sooner rather than later. But at least it's been sent and my automated response has been received.

I'm now deciding whether to see how quickly I receive a non automated response and contact the claimant to not pass to HCEO's & retrieve now, or whether to send that information now - as the bulk of the application is indeed in.