Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • eakmed
    • By eakmed 9th Jan 18, 1:57 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 1Thanks
    eakmed
    County Court Business Centre
    • #1
    • 9th Jan 18, 1:57 PM
    County Court Business Centre 9th Jan 18 at 1:57 PM
    Hello, I have received a letter from CCBC on in regards to a PCN dated 11/16. I have been ignoring all their letters from PCM and now it has come down to this. They are asking for around 250 including court fees and legal representative costs. (I didn't want to add exact figure in case they can identify my case). My first time getting this, I am worried to be honest. Any sort of help/guidance would be appreciated.

    THANKS!
Page 1
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 9th Jan 18, 3:13 PM
    • 2,471 Posts
    • 3,018 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #2
    • 9th Jan 18, 3:13 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Jan 18, 3:13 PM
    Have you read the newbies thread?
    Post 2 of it

    Its the only one saying" newbies" in the name, on the first page about 3 threads from the top

    It will tell you to acknowledge the claim ONLINE.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Jan 18, 5:56 PM
    • 7,186 Posts
    • 6,670 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #3
    • 9th Jan 18, 5:56 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Jan 18, 5:56 PM
    Is this thread related to either of your other two threads?

    Looks like it might be a continuation of this saga.
    .
    • eakmed
    • By eakmed 26th Feb 18, 2:41 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    eakmed
    • #4
    • 26th Feb 18, 2:41 PM
    thanks for your reply keith and others
    • #4
    • 26th Feb 18, 2:41 PM
    Yes this is a follow up from gladstones solicitors.

    following up from this CCBC I ignored this.

    Today I received a letter from DCBL. titled 'NOTICE OF DEBT RECOVERY'

    they have given me a CCJ number demanding a fee of 360.59

    i have been given 14 days otherwise they will add costs as well as legal recovery.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 26th Feb 18, 2:45 PM
    • 7,186 Posts
    • 6,670 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #5
    • 26th Feb 18, 2:45 PM
    • #5
    • 26th Feb 18, 2:45 PM
    Yes this is a follow up from gladstones solicitors.

    following up from this CCBC I ignored this.

    Today I received a letter from DCBL. titled 'NOTICE OF DEBT RECOVERY'

    they have given me a CCJ number demanding a fee of 360.59

    i have been given 14 days otherwise they will add costs as well as legal recovery.
    Originally posted by eakmed
    Why on earth did you ignore the official court claim form?
    What is the date of the County Court Judgement?
    Last edited by KeithP; 26-02-2018 at 2:53 PM.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Feb 18, 2:48 PM
    • 57,449 Posts
    • 71,029 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 26th Feb 18, 2:48 PM
    • #6
    • 26th Feb 18, 2:48 PM
    following up from this CCBC I ignored this.
    You IGNORED a court claim?!
    OMG why?

    We said:
    Have you read the newbies thread?
    Post 2 of it


    Its the only one saying" newbies" in the name, on the first page about 3 threads from the top

    It will tell you to acknowledge the claim ONLINE.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    Time for you to go back to the NEWBIES FAQ stick thread.
    This time read post #4.
    Nope, he has ignored a County Court Claim & not defended it. He will now have to pay the thing in time or the CCJ remains. OMG!

    The OP was directed to read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, where it's clear how to defend.

    OUCH.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 06-03-2018 at 7:34 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 26th Feb 18, 3:50 PM
    • 35,595 Posts
    • 19,810 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #7
    • 26th Feb 18, 3:50 PM
    • #7
    • 26th Feb 18, 3:50 PM

    Today I received a letter from DCBL. titled 'NOTICE OF DEBT RECOVERY'

    they have given me a CCJ number demanding a fee of 360.59

    i have been given 14 days otherwise they will add costs as well as legal recovery.
    Originally posted by eakmed

    You can ignore DCBL


    BUT you need to deal with the ccj NOW - the claimant can start proper enforcement proceedings now all at your extra expense (eg bailiffs/attachment of earnings etc)


    As already asked - what date was the CCJ given against you?


    If less than a month has passed you can at least prevent it blighting your credit files for the next 6 years by paying NOW
    • eakmed
    • By eakmed 6th Mar 18, 12:10 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    eakmed
    • #8
    • 6th Mar 18, 12:10 PM
    reply
    • #8
    • 6th Mar 18, 12:10 PM
    The reason I ignored it was, after doing online research everybody said COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE was a fraud.

    I got the exact same format letter as many others who ignored them on youtube.

    P.S I cannot find POST 2 on the newbies page

    really sorry for looking like a douch
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 6th Mar 18, 12:15 PM
    • 35,595 Posts
    • 19,810 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #9
    • 6th Mar 18, 12:15 PM
    • #9
    • 6th Mar 18, 12:15 PM
    All posts are numbered in each thread

    This one is#9 in your thread

    But you are too late for #2 unless you intend applying for a set aside!
    Last edited by Quentin; 06-03-2018 at 12:18 PM.
    • eakmed
    • By eakmed 6th Mar 18, 1:04 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    eakmed
    So I received a letter from zenith debt recovery for a reduced amount.

    how do I get them off my shoulders.

    Do I write this letter to them?

    I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
    The Claim Form issued on 9/10/2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by !!!8220;Civil Enforcement Limited!!!8221;.

    This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.


    There was no compliant !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217;, under the Practice Direction.

    This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

    The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

    The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217; should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction !!!8211; Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to !!!8220;take stock!!!8221;, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
    !!!8216;early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
    enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
    encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
    support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.!!!8217;

    The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

    Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
    Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
    A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
    How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
    Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
    Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
    If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
    If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.

    Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

    The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions.

    Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when it is believed that neither the signs, nor any NTK mentioned a possible additional 149.66 for outstanding debt and damages.

    The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that 50 'legal representative!!!8217;s (or even admin) costs!!!8217; were incurred.
    This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay 85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage 'contract', none of this applies in this material case.

    In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
    The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
    In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
    Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
    The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    the sum pursued exceeds 100.
    there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car over 10 months later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.


    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 9th October 2017.
    Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.


    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.
    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


    I appreciate your help!
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 6th Mar 18, 1:06 PM
    • 2,471 Posts
    • 3,018 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    What date is the default judgment? if less than one month pay the claimant DIRECTLY - NOT DCBL - and get a receipt. Ensur the COURT gets a copy of this receipt and ask them to remove the CCJ


    If it is more than a month, your credit is screwed unless you get a set aside. Given you ignored the court papers, I woul dsuggest your chances are slim.

    So despite being told explicitly what to do - NOT IGNORE -= you decided to ignore having somehow found idiots who think the CCBC isnt a real place? Seriously, rod for own back there.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 6th Mar 18, 1:08 PM
    • 2,471 Posts
    • 3,018 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    OK, do you have any clue what stage you are at????

    DO YOU HAVE A JUDGEMENT? If YES, What DATE was the judgement issued?

    Stop digging up random threads hoping they fit. FACTS are needed here.
    • eakmed
    • By eakmed 6th Mar 18, 1:17 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    eakmed
    Claimant:
    Parking control management

    Address for sending documents and payments:

    Gladstone solicistors limited.

    county court business centre (7372) in Northampton.

    issue date was: 13/Dec/2017
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 6th Mar 18, 2:58 PM
    • 2,471 Posts
    • 3,018 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    OK, so why on earth are ZZPS involved? is it for the same PCN? ZZPS are simply debt collectors, I doubt theyd be involved in collecting a CCJ

    Issue date of the claim? Or issue date of the CCJ? You do realise youre not helping yrouself here!

    Take a photo of the JUDGEMENT form sent to you. Blank out your personal details BUT LEAVE IN DATES and post it to tinypic. Then copy the IMG reference, put it here but changing "http" to "hxxp" before you hit "post" - we can then change it to a live link for you

    If the judgement was back in january then your credit is now shot for 6 years. Your best, and Id say only, bet, would be to ask the claimant NICELY for an uncontested set aside - you will have to pay them in full AND pay the court 100 AND get their agreement first AND hope the court doenst see this for what it really is - acredit washing exercise
    • eakmed
    • By eakmed 6th Mar 18, 3:59 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    eakmed
    hxxp://tinypic.com/r/2vts6l4/9

    hxxp://tinypic.com/r/2rclb9t/9

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Mar 18, 4:07 PM
    • 7,186 Posts
    • 6,670 Thanks
    KeithP
    So you haven't a County Court Judgement against you, have you?

    Just a claim.
    .
    • eakmed
    • By eakmed 6th Mar 18, 4:23 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    eakmed
    I have just checked my credit report and they have added the CCJ for 270 on the 10/01/2018.

    is there anything I can do or is it too late?

    :'(
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Mar 18, 4:37 PM
    • 7,186 Posts
    • 6,670 Thanks
    KeithP
    Earlier nosferatu1001 asked:
    Take a photo of the JUDGEMENT form sent to you. Blank out your personal details BUT LEAVE IN DATES and post it to tinypic. Then copy the IMG reference, put it here but changing "http" to "hxxp" before you hit "post" - we can then change it to a live link for you
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    Can we see that image please?


    You ask:
    is there anything I can do or is it too late?
    Originally posted by eakmed
    the last pararagraph of nosferatu1001's earlier post may help:
    If the judgement was back in january then your credit is now shot for 6 years. Your best, and Id say only, bet, would be to ask the claimant NICELY for an uncontested set aside - you will have to pay them in full AND pay the court 100 AND get their agreement first AND hope the court doesn't see this for what it really is - a credit washing exercise
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    Are you reading the suggestions you are being given?
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Mar 18, 7:40 PM
    • 57,449 Posts
    • 71,029 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So you ignored a court claim in December, and now have a CCJ that it's too late to pay & wipe out.

    You now have a ruined credit rating for 6 years, despite us telling you what to do (acknowledge the claim at the time, and read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread re defending. Instead you wandered off piste, off this forum, and to you-tube and clueless idiots on Facebook, it seems).

    Your only hope is to:

    - put up with a wrecked credit rating for 6 years, and ignore them

    or

    - pay it to mark it 'satisfied' but you'd still have a ruined credit rating for 6 years...

    or

    - pay it and ask for a set aside 'with consent' (court fee 100, plus the sum they want) but this bunch might not sign a set aside consent order - do not pay and hope...

    or

    - try a set set for 255 court fee, but how on earth will you explain to the court why it should be set aside, seeing as you did receive the claim and had all Christmas/New year time to read this forum and defend the darn thing?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 06-03-2018 at 7:42 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • eakmed
    • By eakmed 7th Mar 18, 11:20 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    eakmed
    I was going through a divorce at the time and i really should have had better control, though
    I really appreciate your help and advice.

    Your only hope is to:

    - put up with a wrecked credit rating for 6 years, and ignore them

    or

    - pay it to mark it 'satisfied' but you'd still have a ruined credit rating for 6 years...
    looks like I have to accept it if my chances of getting rid of it are very slim.

    my question is now, if I don't pay it and ignore them, will they not turn up to my home with bailiffs?

    or do I pay for it anyway?

    Thank you.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

40Posts Today

2,421Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin