We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Need help! Unlawful claim by PE
Comments
-
Such a fundamental change to the document, yet the CCBC have accepted the original claimant's (ZZPS) name to be scratched out and substituted with a handwritten substitute. Were any checks done on this, given the significant change?
@OP - why not complain to your MP, who might be able to add some weight to this.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.#Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Ordered from 11th April.
https://ibb.co/hwDm8z
If Judgement is paid and subsequently set aside will I get the money back?
Thanks.0 -
Let me be very clear again-
2016 default judgement with zzps limited as claimant
April 2018 judgement was set aside as claimant name was wrong.
May 2018 updated claim with new claimant details but 2016 issue date.
July 18- default judgement again0 -
So what did you do between May 2018 andMay 2018 updated claim with new claimant details but 2016 issue date.
Did you acknowledge the claim, then defend it?July 18- default judgement againPlease note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.#Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Before April I have been speaking to ccbc helpline and they said to me that a new claim will need to served by premier park. Given that, It wasn’t clear that I have to acknowledge to this claim as they used old claim number and old dates.
I was under impression that they will serve a new claim with new number and new dates.
How can they use the same claim number and old dates where as the judgement for old claim has been set aside? How did ccbc allowed it to happen.0 -
Sorry just realise that I did not reply to your question.
I did not do anything after may as I was expecting a new claim form with correct dates.0 -
Thanks for confirmation on that. I fully understand why you might have anticipated fresh papers, not old rehashes with scratchings out and handwritten wholesale changes.
As MCOL is what it says 'On Line' you would hardly expect to have a partially handwritten document served on you. But I'm at the end of my knowledge spectrum on this now, hopefully one of the legally experienced people (Johnersh, Loc123 or IaE) will pick up the thread and offer some further advice.
Hope it works out for you.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.#Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
If you successfully Set Aside the judgement AND won any case (or they discontinued it) you would of course get your money back.
to be honest I would look to get this set aside. this was not a properly served claim, and as such no judgement is possible. CCBC being their sterling selves again.0 -
FWIW I would say it's confusing. Just opinion though.
It also makes a difference that it isn't actually PE. We know PE don't currently enforce. Premier are a bit of an unknown quantity. They tend to not be as organised as PE though which makes a set aside marginally easier.0 -
Then PE sent me a letter saying that they will continue to be the claimant and sent an amended claim form dated 2016.
Did they send you a response pack with the amended claim form containing the forms set out at this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n9-response-pack
No response pack, no guidance notes, no form can be returned to the court = "some other good reason" to set aside the judgment. That is to say there are still no guarantees, but this would be a particular failing that the court can take into account.
If you had a response pack and failed to do a response, then that is rather different and may be more of an uphill struggle.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455K Spending & Discounts
- 246.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178K Life & Family
- 260.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards