Judgement for Claimant

doubledotcom

But they have to provide evidence of sending if you challenge them. It is for them to prove they sent it. Not for you to prove that it wasn't sent!

The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) Note 2 states:

NOTE 2: A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. Therefore, parking operators MUST retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)

It's called "Rebuttable presumption". It shifts the burden of proof. The party relying on the presumption must be prepared to defend it if challenged.

IronWolf

doubledotcom said:

But they have to provide evidence of sending if you challenge them. It is for them to prove they sent it. Not for you to prove that it wasn't sent!

The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) Note 2 states:

NOTE 2: A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. Therefore, parking operators MUST retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)

It's called "Rebuttable presumption". It shifts the burden of proof. The party relying on the presumption must be prepared to defend it if challenged.

I'm a bit confused. It's not the parking company that is at fault here. It's the court. They either failed to send me the court papers telling me there was a case against me, or the delivery failed. I complained to the court but they fobbed me off saying it is considered as served. The parking company sent me the Letter of Claim as they should, then must have filed the court papers a couple of months later.

Coupon-mad

I wonder if you can sue the CNBC?

doubledotcom

Coupon-mad said:

I wonder if you can sue the CNBC?

Yes, in principle, the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) — as part of HMCTS — can be subject to legal action, but it’s not straightforward.

If the CNBC acts unlawfully, irrationally, or procedurally unfairly, you can apply for judicial review in the Administrative Court.

Common grounds would include failure to process documents properly, refusal to accept valid applications and breach of statutory duties or CPR rules.

However, before any litigation, you must exhaust internal complaints via HMCTS Complaints Procedure. If unresolved you can escalate to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman via your MP.
CNBC staff are civil servants; they have qualified immunity for actions taken in good faith. HMCTS is a public body, so damages claims are tightly constrained. Courts are reluctant to interfere with judicial functions, but administrative failures are fair game.
However, the cost of initiating a judicial review can be exorbitant, even if you try to keep costs down by limiting the scope of a review.