**NEWBIE** CCJ Set Aside Application and breach of Data by CEL/DVLA

StealthLady

Coupon-mad said:

I disagree that the OP should make the first point an excuse for missing the defence deadline.  Unimportant.  Mention it but not front & centre.

Under the circumstances there is clearly 'some good reason' (CPR 13.3) to set aside this CCJ.

- Wrong car. And the C and their useless legals (both) knew, or should have known, this.

- This involves illegally or negligently obtained DVLA data. Breach of the DPA 2018.

- then, illegally processed and shared data AFTER CEL had been told in the appeal that this wasn't his/her car;

- Unlawfully and negligently issued court claim AFTER DCB group had been informed on the phone at pre-action stage that this was the wrong car;

- in all the circumstances, this is indisputably wholly unreasonable conduct in litigation and the C must be liable for all the D's costs and be ordered to respond to the counterclaim.

I would put in the N180 Order box:

An order is sought under CPR 13.3 to:

(a) set aside the CCJ, having read the Defendant's application and their attached defence and counterclaim, applying the Denton principles and Overriding Objective and therefore granting relief from sanctions for the minor delay in filing same;

(b) the Defendant's defence and counterclaim do stand filed and served; 

(c) the Claimant do file and serve a Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim by DATE

(d) the Claimant do pay the Defendant the costs of the application and attendance costs (in the alternative, the wholly unreasonable conduct of the Claimant - who knew, or should have known, at pre-action stage that they had made an error with the VRM - is noted by the court and the Defendant's costs be reserved). 

Coupon-mad said:

I disagree that the OP should make the first point an excuse for missing the defence deadline.  Unimportant.  Mention it but not front & centre.

Under the circumstances there is clearly 'some good reason' (CPR 13.3) to set aside this CCJ.

- Wrong car. And the C and their useless legals (both) knew, or should have known, this.

- This involves illegally or negligently obtained DVLA data. Breach of the DPA 2018.

- then, illegally processed and shared data AFTER CEL had been told in the appeal that this wasn't his/her car;

- Unlawfully and negligently issued court claim AFTER DCB group had been informed on the phone at pre-action stage that this was the wrong car;

- in all the circumstances, this is indisputably wholly unreasonable conduct in litigation and the C must be liable for all the D's costs and be ordered to respond to the counterclaim.

I would put in the N180 Order box:

An order is sought under CPR 13.3 to:

(a) set aside the CCJ, having read the Defendant's application and their attached defence and counterclaim, applying the Denton principles and Overriding Objective and therefore granting relief from sanctions for the minor delay in filing same;

(b) the Defendant's defence and counterclaim do stand filed and served; 

(c) the Claimant do file and serve a Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim by DATE

(d) the Claimant do pay the Defendant the costs of the application and attendance costs (in the alternative, the wholly unreasonable conduct of the Claimant - who knew, or should have known, at pre-action stage that they had made an error with the VRM - is noted by the court and the Defendant's costs be reserved). 

Thank you so very much. I will be leaving work earlier tomorrow to fill in the N244. I don't think I am allowed to attach files as yet as I am new here but I will copy and paste. 

StealthLady

LDast said:

A slight problem here is that you did not file a defence after you submitted your AoS. You will need to address this head-on in your WS and demonstrate to the judge that your failure to file a defence on time was a genuine mistake. You’ll need to focus on persuading the judge that setting aside the judgment is in line with the Overriding Objective of fairness and justice, which underpins the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

Ignorance of the law or, in this case, miscalculating when your defence was due by, is no excuse. However, if you are persuasive enough in your application WS, which we have not seen yet, you should be able to get this rectified.

Trying to recover the costs of the N244 application is more problematic because the claimant did nothing wrong by applying for the default CCJ when the did as the claim had not been defended. Of course, if the case can be argued that you have been wronged because of the claimants original failure to do their job properly and they have acted unreasonably throughout (except for the default CCJ application) then there is a good chance that you will get your costs back.

Here is a suggested outline of what your WS (or SWS) should include as points:

1. I am the Defendant in this matter and make this witness statement in support of my application to set aside the default judgment entered against me on [insert date of judgment] under CPR 13.2 or, alternatively, under CPR 13.3.

Genuine Mistake in Filing a Defence

2. I acknowledge that, after submitting my Acknowledgment of Service (AoS), I failed to file a defence within the prescribed timeframe. This was a genuine and honest mistake on my part, due to a miscalculation of when my defence was due. I mistakenly believed that I had additional time to submit my defence, which was based on a misunderstanding of the court's deadlines.

3. While I appreciate that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, I ask the court to take into account that I acted in good faith throughout the process. Upon realising the default judgment had been entered, I promptly took action by paying the £303 fee to apply for this set aside. I have always intended to defend the claim vigorously.

Overriding Objective

4. I respectfully submit that it would be unjust to allow the default judgment to stand in this case, given that the claim is based on a clear misidentification of my vehicle. The Overriding Objective of the Civil Procedure Rules is to deal with cases justly and proportionately. In this instance, I have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as demonstrated below, and setting aside the default judgment is necessary to ensure fairness.

The Vehicle in the PCN is Not Mine

5. The claim arises from four Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd. Two of these PCNs are accompanied by photographs of a vehicle that does not belong to me. The vehicle in question is of a different make and manufacturer, although it shares the same colour as my car. Upon closer inspection, it is clear that the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) in the photographs is not mine. A copy of my vehicle’s V5C logbook is attached (Exhibit A) as proof of my correct VRM.

Unlawful Access to My Data

6. Given that the vehicle in the PCNs does not belong to me, Civil Enforcement Ltd unlawfully requested my personal data from the DVLA. The misidentification of the VRM means that the Claimant did not have 'reasonable cause' to request my keeper details, in breach of both the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR. This amounts to unlawful processing of my personal data, causing significant distress.

Failure in the Appeal Process

7. I submitted an appeal to Civil Enforcement Ltd in relation to these PCNs, but I did not receive any further communication or details regarding an independent appeal process (POPLA). Despite this, Civil Enforcement Ltd escalated the matter to debt collection and applied for a County Court Judgment (CCJ) without proper consideration of the facts, which I intended to defend.

Costs of the N244 Application

8. While I acknowledge that the Claimant was entitled to apply for a default judgment, it was their original failure to identify the correct vehicle and their unreasonable behaviour throughout the process (including ignoring my appeal and unlawfully accessing my data) that has caused this situation. Therefore, I respectfully request that the court consider ordering the Claimant to reimburse me for the £303 fee for the N244 application, as their unreasonable actions necessitated this application.

Conclusion

9. I respectfully request that the court set aside the default judgment entered against me, either under CPR 13.2 on the grounds that the judgment was irregularly obtained, or under CPR 13.3 as I have a real prospect of successfully defending this claim. I also ask that the court consider awarding me the costs of the N244 application in light of the Claimant's unreasonable conduct.

Regarding the two NtKs that were without images, have you tried logging in to the appeal website and seeing if they have photographic evidence online? You really need to double check for any evidential images and if they are available online, make sure you download copies of them.

I will log on once home and check and download. They weren't available when I looked last year and I haven't checked since. 
I truly appreciate from the bottom of my heart, the detail you have gone to with not only helping me but not treating me like my IQ is a single digit. I would not know what to do in this case because like many before and after me, it's only when it happens do you find out how to action things. I have been proud of my then credit history and these imbeciles have ruined it with absolutely no justification.

I shall complete the N244 tomorrow evening and post it back here.

Thank you again. 

Coupon-mad

But you also need a defence and counterclaim as well as a 'Draft Order' and short Witness Statement saying why relief from sanctions should be granted and the CCJ set aside.

StealthLady

Coupon-mad said:

But you also need a defence and counterclaim as well as a 'Draft Order' and short Witness Statement saying why relief from sanctions should be granted and the CCJ set aside.

Is this sent along with the N244? 

Coupon-mad

Yes, as I said.

DO NOT USE THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE.

Your case requires a bespoke defence and counterclaim to get the application over the line because the claim was properly served and the defence timing error was yours.

Your application bundle asks for 'relief from sanctions' for your oversight and so it needs to tip the balance in your favour.  You need to show a compelling case as to why the court should intervene and set aside the (on the face of it properly obtained) CCJ.

And you need to get a shift on or you will see HCEOs at the door.

StealthLady

I have done the Witness Statement. Can you let me know what to amend please?

 

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

 

1. I am the Defendant in this matter and make this witness statement in support of my application to set aside the default judgment entered against me on **/**/2024, under CPR 13.2 or, alternatively, under CPR 13.3.

 

Overriding Objective

2. I respectfully submit that it would be unjust to allow the default judgment to stand in this case, given that the claim is based on a clear misidentification of my vehicle. The Overriding Objective of the Civil Procedure Rules is to deal with cases justly and proportionately. In this instance, I have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as demonstrated below, and setting aside the default judgment is necessary to ensure fairness.

 

Genuine Mistake in Filing a Defence

3. I acknowledge that, after submitting my Acknowledgment of Service (AoS) as soon as it was received on 30/09/2024, I failed to file a defence within the prescribed timeframe. This was a genuine and honest mistake on my part, due to a miscalculation of when my defence was due. I mistakenly believed that I had additional time to submit my defence, which was based on a misunderstanding of the court's deadlines.

4. While I appreciate that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, I ask the court to take into account that I acted in good faith throughout the process. Upon realising the default judgment had been entered, I promptly took action the next morning by phoning the courts and paying the £303 fee to apply for this set aside. I have always intended to defend the claim vigorously.

 

The Vehicle in the PCNs is Not Mine

5. The claim arises from four Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd. Two of these PCNs are accompanied by photographs of a vehicle that does not belong to me. The vehicle in question is of a different make and manufacturer, although it shares the same colour as my car [Exhibit A]. Upon closer inspection, it is clear that the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) in the photographs on these PCNs is not mine. Attached is a photograph obtained of the actual vehicle subject to these PCNs [Exhibit B]. A copy of my vehicle’s V5C logbook is attached along with photographs of my vehicle [Exhibit C and C(i)] as proof of my correct VRM.

 

Unlawful Access to My Data

6. Given that the vehicle in the PCNs does not belong to me, Civil Enforcement Ltd unlawfully requested my personal data from the DVLA and on more than one occasion. The misidentification of the VRM means that the Claimant did not have 'reasonable cause' to request my keeper details, in breach of both the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR. After I advised them the vehicle in question was not my vehicle, the Claimants negligently and illegally processed and then shared my data. The Claimant then unlawfully and negligently issued a court claim against me AFTER I advised DCB Group by phone at the pre-action stage that is was not my vehicle. This amounts to unlawful processing of my personal data, causing me significant distress for over a year now.

 

Failure in the Appeal Process

7. I submitted an appeal to Civil Enforcement Ltd in relation to these PCNs, but I did not receive any further communication until weeks after and the Claimant only referred to one of the PCNs. They ignored the actual reasons for my appeal never giving me an answer to it and instead gave me a number for me to make payment on. The Claimant failed to provide me with any details regarding an independent appeal process (POPLA) [see Exhibit D]. Despite this, Civil Enforcement Ltd escalated the matter to debt collection. I contacted their debt collection agents and told them that the vehicle was not mine and that I had made the Claimants aware that the vehicle is not mine. The debt collectors advised that they can only go by what the Claimant has given to them. The Claimant then applied for a County Court Judgment (CCJ) without proper consideration of the facts, which I intended to defend.

 

Letter Before Action

8. The Claimant issued 4 ‘Letter Before Action’ (LBA) to me. The Claimant however, issued two identical ones for one PCN Number: 1********3 [Exhibit E] and two identical ones for one PCN Number: 1********3 [Exhibits F and G]. You will note on the PCN’s that I have highlighted their reference above my address and you will see that these numbers differ. The Claimant has no telephone number of which to call them on to connect with them to discuss any of these issues, only a payment line phone number. I do not see how I can receive an LBA for the same PCN twice – and that error made twice - and I equally do not know if the actual claim was for these duplicate LBA PCNs or not as this was not made clear in the Claim against me.

 

The Claimants Application under **********

9. This claim did not detail the actual numbers of the PCNs in question but gave only dates. Due to Point 9 above, I have no idea if these are for two x the same PCNs of four separate PCNs. The Claimant advises they are pursuing me in Point 3 of the Particulars of Claim as “The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Permit Holders Only.”  And in point 4 of their claim “In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4. This cannot be upheld nor apply as I was not the driver nor keeper of the vehicle. There is no contract between the Claimants and myself. The Claimant also advises they are seeking damages, but fails to mention what these damages are and where they occurred.

 

Costs of the N244 Application

10. While I acknowledge that the Claimant was entitled to apply for a default judgment, it was their original failure to identify the correct vehicle and their unreasonable behaviour throughout the process (including ignoring my appeal and unlawfully accessing my data) that has caused this situation. Therefore, I respectfully request that the court consider ordering the Claimant to reimburse me for the £303 fee for the N244 application, as their unreasonable actions necessitated this application.

Conclusion

11. I respectfully request that the court set aside the default judgment entered against me, either under CPR 13.2 on the grounds that the judgment was irregularly obtained, or under CPR 13.3 as I have a real prospect of successfully defending this claim. I also ask that the court consider awarding me the costs of the N244 application in light of the Claimant's unreasonable conduct.

StealthLady

Draft order:

IN THE CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE

Claim No. L*******

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement Limited

(Claimant)

- and -

*****************

(Defendant)

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

DRAFT ORDER

_________________________________________________________________________________

 

UPON reading the Defendants application to set aside the Judgment by Default entered on **/**/2024

AND UPON reading the evidence in support of the application;

AND UPON the Court taking notice that the Claimant has issued and unjust, unenforceable and Illegal original Claim against the Defendant

AND UPON the Court taking note that the only way to allow the Defendant to challenge the legal legitimacy of the original claim is to set aside the Judgment entered by Default:

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1.      The Judgment entered against the Claimant on **/**/2024 is hereby set aside under CPR 13.2 and in the alternative, CPR 13.3.

2.      Any High Court Writ obtained and enforcement to be stayed, pending the outcome of the application.

3.      Costs borne by the Defendant in the amount of £303.00 to be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant in light of:

a.      The unreasonable and unlawful conduct of the Claimant in the issuing of the four PCNs that gave way to the original claim

b.      The unanswered question on whether the particulars of the original claim refer to four separate PCNs or two duplicate PCNs doubled

4.      Any application by the Claimant to withdraw the original claim is DENIED so that the Defendant can have the original case re-set in  a bid to offer their defence and subsequent counterclaim to the original claim that should never have been brought to the Courts and has wasted valuable Court time.

Please can you advise any amendments. 

StealthLady

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, as I said.

DO NOT USE THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE.

Your case requires a bespoke defence and counterclaim to get the application over the line because the claim was properly served and the defence timing error was yours.

Your application bundle asks for 'relief from sanctions' for your oversight and so it needs to tip the balance in your favour.  You need to show a compelling case as to why the court should intervene and set aside the (on the face of it properly obtained) CCJ.

And you need to get a shift on or you will see HCEOs at the door.

LDast 
Can you both give me your views on my WS and Draft Order above please?

StealthLady

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, as I said.

DO NOT USE THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE.

Your case requires a bespoke defence and counterclaim to get the application over the line because the claim was properly served and the defence timing error was yours.

Your application bundle asks for 'relief from sanctions' for your oversight and so it needs to tip the balance in your favour.  You need to show a compelling case as to why the court should intervene and set aside the (on the face of it properly obtained) CCJ.

And you need to get a shift on or you will see HCEOs at the door.

IN THE CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE

Claim No. L*******

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement Limited

(Claimant)

- and -

*****************

(Defendant)

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

DRAFT ORDER

_________________________________________________________________________________

 

An order is sought under CPR 13.3 to:

(a) set aside the CCJ, having read the Defendant's application and their attached defence and counterclaim, applying the Denton principles and Overriding Objective and therefore granting relief from sanctions for the minor delay in filing same;

(b) the Defendant's defence and counterclaim do stand filed and served;

(c) any High Court Writ obtained and/or enforcement to be stayed, pending the outcome of the application;

(d) the Claimant do file and serve a Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim by 15/11/2024;

(e) the Claimant do pay the Defendant the costs of the application and attendance costs (in the alternative, the wholly unreasonable conduct of the Claimant - who knew, or should have known by, at the very least, pre-action stage, that they had made an error with the VRM - is noted by the court and the Defendant's costs be reserved). 

 

N244 completed and signed.

WS and Order waiting for feedback but will be issued as is if none available for want of not delaying per your advice.

N180 you mention...where/what is this? I have N9B to complete on the original claim prior to the CCJ. I filed my AoS at the time online. I'm assuming all these are attached with the N244 but the Order to be attached as a Word doc not PDF as per the others?

Coupon-mad

You also need a defence and counterclaim.

This heading makes no sense because the only application is yours:

"The Claimants Application under **********