CCJ for Parking Ticket while I was overseas years ago

kleinbaas

Back in 2022 I was on holiday overseas while someone I used to know looked after my house (and car).

I recently received a letter from DCB Legal Ltd saying they "have written to me previously" and I "should already be aware a CCJ has now been entered against" me, with a date which is just over a month ago. They invited me to pay (almost £400) within 30 days to avoid it "seriously affecting" me.

I looked for any correspondence from them, but found only a "Parking Charge Reminder" sent from Group Nexus, with a "Date of Issue" from mid 2022 (that date being just over a month after the parking incident).

I could not find any letters from DCB Legal and there was only one letter from Group Nexus (from 2022) which I did not reply to - I was abroad when it happened so I suspected it was a scam/unlikely to succeed at the time.

I have spent days going over the Newbie section and the various posts it links to. I have noticed that the NTK (the "reminder") did not comply with PoFA for a number or reasons. I am unsure if the signage met requirements as I have never been to that car park.

1. I am not sure if I was the keeper or if the person who looked after my car while I was away was the keeper, or if it matters?
2. As I understand, what I should do now is send a N244 (Set Aside Application) to the court. I am unsure if I should first try a "With consent" set aside or if there's no point at this stage?
   If it is with consent I guess I can't claim for costs? I have spent days on this and it has been very stressful - I have not been able to think of anything else and that would not have happened if DCB Legal wrote to me as they say they did, surely they should pay not just court costs but for my time as I was not the driver and have no contract with them?
3. It seems not to matter what the individual PoFA issues were or that they took over a month to "issue" the thing, and write to me, for the purposes of the N244, as I am applying on other grounds or have I misunderstood? If so, will the PoFA issues come into play at a later date/trial?

I would be grateful for answers to those questions and for any other guidance or advice about how to proceed.

Gr1pr

1) what matters is that you have a default CCJ against you as keeper and as defendant,  the core pcn details and who was driving are moot points, the correctly addressed claim form pack and subsequent CCJ are the issues here

2) you could try for a contested set aside costing £303 with little chance of reimbursement due to you not dealing with the claim at the time, a legal reason would be required,  not excuses ( sorry to be blunt   )

You may be able to obtain the cheaper set aside with consent,  which will cost you around £108 plus the ccj total etc, credit cleansing 

3 ) if you obtain a contested set aside,  the original NTK PCN letter plus POFA2012  plus the court claim are all back in play. If they complied with POFA then you may still be liable as keeper 

kleinbaas

Gr1pr said:

1) what matters is that you have a default CCJ against you as keeper and as defendant,  the core pcn details and who was driving are moot points, the correctly addressed claim form pack and subsequent CCJ are the issues here

It's hard to believe that if you open a claim pack late that there is no legal recourse (or way to get the CCJ removed from your credit score/file). Are you saying that unless they agree to a set aside with consent there's nothing I can do?

Would things have been different if I didn't receive the Claim Pack, even if the court has on record that they sent it?

Gr1pr said:

2) you could try for a contested set aside costing £303 with little chance of reimbursement due to you not dealing with the claim at the time, a legal reason would be required,  not excuses ( sorry to be blunt   )

I see. Is there a list of possible legal reasons anywhere you know of?

Gr1pr said:

You may be able to obtain the cheaper set aside with consent,  which will cost you around £108 plus the ccj total etc, credit cleansing 

Noted. Why would DCB Legal accept a set aside with consent? Would I need to provide them with a reason/excuse and would that prejudice me regarding any other recourse?

Gr1pr said:

3 ) if you obtain a contested set aside,  the original NTK PCN letter plus POFA2012  plus the court claim are all back in play. If they complied with POFA then you may still be liable as keeper 

OK, so for those reasons a set aside with consent is better. But I would still be out of pocket as in that case I have to pay their fees and I can't counter claim? I wasn't even in the country when someone else parked in their car park without my knowledge or consent, it seems very injust.

Gr1pr

The legal recourse is the set aside,  of which there are 2 types,  contested and with consent,  its one or the other,  or live with the CCJ affecting you for 6 years following the CCJ date 

You pay the money and take your chances with a judge,  obtaining the money back depends on what the judge decides, nothing to do with us. It may seem unfair but we are all stuck with the system as it currently is, with this type of credit clamping.  Those issues are between you and your MP and the legal system

The claim pack is presumed to be delivered correctly 2 business days after the CNBC sent it,  to the address on the pack, obtained from the claimant.  There is no requirement to ensure correct delivery,  just  correct sending.  Ergo if the name and address were correct,  your argument has no legs 

Incorrect service of papers,  usually to an old address,  is a common legal reason to obtain a set aside,  I have no list of good reasons,  this is a consumer advice forum,  not a legal aid forum,  my advice is free,  from one lay person to another,  no guarantees

A with consent gets the total judgment paid with you paying for everything,  a win win for the claimant,  so why wouldn't they  ?  I certainly would let you do all the work and pay everything,  including the CCJ total 

We are talking here about the set aside,  there is no counter claim that I know of to the set aside stage,  unless you go down the contested route,  plus you would need a good legal reason for your counter claim 

kleinbaas

Gr1pr said:

The legal recourse is the set aside, ... plus you would need a good legal reason for your counter claim 

Thanks Gr1pr.

I wasn't complaining about this forum or advice, rather the fact that the way the system is set up seems unfair. It's hard to believe this is how it works - that you can claim money from someone and if they are late in responding they have to pay and there is no way for them to correct things.
Personally I have been diagnosed with severe depression and severe anxiety which makes me procrastinate and dissociate. It means that anyone can take advantage of that and exploit me if this is how it works.

I've called them (to see if I pay now if they will remove the CCJ - they said it's too late), and they said if I email them and ask for a set aside with reasons they will consider it if I also pay in full plus fees etc. Any advice about what to say in that email would be appreciated.

I'm going to do some more Googling and see if I can claim my money back from them after I've agreed a set aside and paid them (or will getting a set aside with consent mean I can't then claim from them?).

Gr1pr

Its a done deal if you choose the with consent option, at your expense , I doubt that you could claim it back, or win in court if you consented to a mutually agreed set aside 

Nobody on here and other forum ps likes the current system,  a recent survey by the Justice Department only closed a few weeks ago.  By all means complain about it to your local MP,  but meanwhile you are stuck with the system 

No they won't just reverse the ccj, no incentive for them 

Yes its unfair,  we all agree,  so move on,  moaning about it to the people offering free advice here doesn't help you one iota

I am telling you what I think I know about it 

I wont be providing template letters etc , IANAL 

LDast

Not quite correct...

When a claim is issued via Money Claim Online (MCOL) or other bulk processing systems, CNBC is responsible for printing and posting the N1SDT Claim Form. This means CNBC must be able to prove the date of dispatch if challenged.

Interpretation Act 1978 – Rebuttable Presumption

If CNBC claims the N1SDT was posted on a certain date, it is presumed to have been delivered two working days later (if first-class post was used). However, this presumption can be rebutted if:

• CNBC cannot prove when it actually entered the postal system.
• CNBC used a bulk mailing consolidator, which may introduce a delay between printing and actual postal dispatch.
• There is no evidence of actual posting, such as a franked envelope, Royal Mail proof of postage, or dispatch log.

I would probably bet that the CNBC cannot provide sufficient proof of the date the letter actually entered the postal system. A proof of mailing by hybrid mail from a consolidator is not evidence of the actual date it was entered into the postal system, only of the date it was received by the consolidator.

The same can apply to every disputed NtK that it was actually received within the 14 days from the alleged contravention, especially those that supposedly are only deemed given a day or so before the deadline. Most consolidators do not use first class post and their hybrid mail will suggest delivery within 2-3 working days, not the 1-2 days for first class post.

ThorOdinson

So what do you do if Royal Mail lost the form and you never got it?

Gr1pr

ThorOdinson said:

So what do you do if Royal Mail lost the form and you never got it?

You would apply for a set aside and try to convince the judge that the scenario above was true

Once there is a CCJ, only a judge can issue a set aside,  until that happens,  the rest is irrelevant 

Coupon-mad

I suggest you apply to set aside the CCJ (£303 fee - going up on 1st April so get it in now) and DON'T enter into a consent arrangement as that will cost more in total and it lines the pockets of scammers.

kleinbaas

Coupon-mad said:

I suggest you apply to set aside the CCJ (£303 fee - going up on 1st April so get it in now) and DON'T enter into a consent arrangement as that will cost more in total and it lines the pockets of scammers.

Thanks, I'm doing that now. I have set out my reasons, but I'm still unsure if I should (also) say that I was not the keeper at the time, and if so how to word that without annoying the Judge?
They have claimed that I was the driver and "in the alternative" that I was the keeper pursuant to POFA.