CCJ if the case is lost

OnePost

Hi folks - can someone please clarify once and for all for me the CCJ situation suppose I lose a case.

I've heard a few conflicting scenarios and I'd like to be clear.

I want to fight my case, but a CCJ is out of the question due to line of work.

Is it correct that if I were to lose - the CCJ *immediately* gets registered - but then gets removed if I pay up within a certain deadline?

And what is the process for ensuring that the Court is aware that payment was made? Is it down to me to prove I made payment, so that the CCJ isn't registered?

I just have this recurring nightmare of having the CCJ registered despite making payment due to some administrative snafu.

KeithP

Do you have a parking issue you would like help with?

If so, surely you are planning to win any court case.  

Umkomaas

Is it correct that if I were to lose - the CCJ *immediately* gets registered - but then gets removed if I pay up within a certain deadline?

Correct - payment to be made usually within 1 month. 

The Claimant's solicitors should inform the court of the settlement, but you could do a belt and braces and inform the court (with proof of payment) that it has been paid. 

Which solicitors and which parking firm are they representing?  Are you sure this will reach a hearing?  Are you properly defending the claim?

Gr1pr

You pay the claimants lawyers   ( or claimant if no lawyers are involved   ) in full  ( as Martin would say  ) as soon as possible,  certainly within 30 days of the judgment,  to satisfy the judgment and to expunge it, no effect on the credit record or file,  no effect on any job

Paid in full, within the grace period,  job done,  like it never happened 

The lawyers  ( or claimant   ) should inform the court that its paid and satisfied in full

OnePost

KeithP said:

Do you have a parking issue you would like help with?

If so, surely you are planning to win any court case.  

I am in fact currently defending what may be the grand daddy of cases - 20 x PCNs.

POC



I am at the Notice of Allocation to Small Claims Track (Hearing) stage.

However, I'm concerned that while the order states that the case was transferred to my local court, it doesn't state a hearing date.

I'm worried about missing the Witness Statement submission - should I be getting on with this - and wait for a follow up letter which states the date?

ChirpyChicken

20 pcns and what defence did you log
This is the kind of case that needs dealing with slightly different in my view
Please post up the exact defence.

OnePost

ChirpyChicken said:

20 pcns and what defence did you log
This is the kind of case that needs dealing with slightly different in my view
Please post up the exact defence.

Below is the meat of the Defence filed - I'm omitting the usual top and tailing 

The facts known to the Defendant: 

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver. 
 
3. The Defendant vehemently disputes this claim for the following principal reasons: 
 
Unclear Particulars of Claim: The Claimant’s statement of case is wholly unclear and does not meet the standard that would warrant the Court’s consideration. From the sparse statement provided, the Defendant gathers that over a period of circa 20 consecutive days between December 2023 to January 2024, the vehicle in question was parked at the Sandwell and Dudley Rail station in a Disabled Parking space for the purpose of utilising the rail services as is absolutely permitted by the station and land owner – allegedly without displaying a badge. This claim is entirely false and the Defendant intends to categorically disprove this allegation. 
 
The Claimant offers absolutely no breakdown or description of the relief being sought and appears to be plucking a random but egregiously high amount out of thin air. 
  
Disabled badge on display: The Defendant is able to demonstrate through visual evidence by the Claimant’s operators that a disabled badge was in fact on display at all times during the alleged period. There is ample photographic evidence to show that this is the case. 
 
 
Impact of Covid backlog on DWP / PIP: The Claimant is attempting to seize on the notion that the date on the clearly evident badge was invalid. However, there are valid Government backed exceptions to this, that serve as important context which invalidates this notion. The disabled badge on display is granted to the keeper as a result of mobility challenges suffered from a hip replacement. These badges are issued by the Local Authority and are linked to the DWP’s PIP health assessment and documentation.  
 
During the period in question, the DWP was experiencing severe delays in processing renewals of PIP claims (and thus issuance of new and renewed disabled badges), leading to the expiry dates of said badges to lapse without replacement badges arriving in time. Importantly, the DWP and Government very clearly advised that existing badges remained valid – pending the arrival of renewed badges (so long as these had been applied for – which was the case in this instance). 
 
The Defendant will demonstrate that the existing badge was still valid per the Government’s guidance – despite the expiry date on the clearly displayed badge lapsing. For this reason alone, the badge displayed was valid and means the Claimant’s allegations are void. 
 
Single contravention/allegation being erroneously multiplied: The Claimant is attempting to bulk up and convert one single purported contravention over the stated period into multiple separate allegations. The evidence confirms that the vehicle in question was continuously parked and unmoved from the first instance of this Claim to the last instance in time.  
 
The Claimant is categorically unable to provide any contractual terms that would imply that the passage of dates or time would result in an incremental violation or contravention. Therefore, the Defendant’s position is that even if the false Claim were to be true, the Claimant is entitled only to one period’s (i.e., one day’s) worth of contravention penalty. 
 
Unreasonably exaggerated and excessive Claim: The Claimant is seeking relief in the amount of £3,830.80. In light of all the evidence already mentioned, no reasonable persons can conclude that this is a fair amount to impose for what is one single alleged contravention. The Claimant has not suffered any such loss or damage even remotely close to this amount. Therefore, attempting to claim such relief amounts to sheer thievery and the Court should not permit such conduct. 
 
Reneged on prior agreed settlement: The defence above regarding the exaggerated and excessive Claim is bolstered by the fact that, in seeking to protect the Courts precious time, costs and resources, the Defendant painstakingly previously sought to arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement. The Claimant was agreeable to a full and final settlement of £340.00 – which represented a more factual claim of any potential loss suffered. This agreement was reneged upon in a greedy attempt to extort further monies from the Defendant. Despite this agreement being without prejudice, the Claimant’s agreement to this settlement implies a more accurate indication of the any kind of reasonable relief. The Court should chastise this Claimant for this shocking breach of conduct. 
 
Pattern of harassment and fraudulent conduct: Finally, the Defendant will demonstrate a pattern of reprehensible conduct bordering on fraud by this Claimant which essentially represents chancing and extortion. The Defendant will present evidence of over 20 such cases where this Claimant and its operators have issued false, frivolous and invalid claims of contraventions to this Defendant – solely in the hope that a payment will be made unchallenged. Only when challenged, does the Claimant then immediately cancel the purported charge. The Defendant will demonstrate a campaign of persistent targeted harassment by this Claimant upon this Defendant – a fact alone which should nullify the merit of this Claim. 
 

Coupon-mad

Wow! This one needs the popcorn out.

You will not get a CCJ and you will know when your WS is due, so no more nightmares!

However for this sum I would ask Jackson Yamba at Contestor Legal if they will write your witness statement and attend the hearing for you. It'll cost a bit but this claim is high, and Jsckson will argue for the C to pay all your costs, at the hearing.

https://www.contestorlegal.co.uk/

Let us know how you get on in the end, if you do go off-grid for a while.

OnePost

Thanks - will keep you posted.

I don't post often, but I read the boards and will stick around to update you.

tincombe

As per coupon-mad, a robust defence in the form of an amended template would normally lead to DCBL discontinuing a claim. As I understand it, this is really more to do with their approach to the use of resources than to the merits of any substantive defence when the amount claimed is relatively low, say <£500. 

Yours is in a class of its own and would likely lead to them pursuing this matter to a hearing. 

Your vehicle was parked continuously for at least 20 days. This needs fleshing out. 

The parking place was reserved to vehicles displaying a valid disabled person's badge, implicitly as required i.e. correct side upwards and clearly visible from outside the car? Prima facie the displayed badge was not valid by virtue of its expiry date having passed .You claim that you applied for a replacement in time but that this was not received but that the government had passed temporary legislation to amend that which applied to the expiry of badges such that these continued to be valid notwithstanding that the expiry date had passed. All of this would need to be evidenced, so you might as well get your paperwork together now even if you use an external advisor. 

ChirpyChicken

100% this case will go to a hearing