Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 91 of 91

Thread: Set aside CCJ help!

  • Share
  • Thread Tools
  • Display
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    Will post more info later when I'm home.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    So the judge mostly didn't like that I was saying the claimant should have searched for my address given the length of time. She didn't agree that it wasn't properly served. I argued that but she didn't like it. She didn't even really like my defence against the claim, she didn't like anything much i said in regards to the old case. Or that i would argue about the whole contract thing etc but i suppose couldn't really say it wasn't legitimate. So she set it aside on the grounds i had a real prospect of successfully defending it. I just said to her that i wouldn't have gone to all the trouble and cost of trying to set it aside if i didn't think i could defend it. So glad she did though. Hard part over i hope.

    See attached the original claim form. CEL are on there which is interesting though not surprising i suppose. Hopefully this should be quite easy to defend against as it's a fairly standard letter by the looks of it.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails IMG_20170407_133120.jpg   IMG_20170407_133222.jpg  

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    Is there a time limit on applying to have a CCJ set aside?


    or time limit to respond to a High court Notice of enforcement and get that set aside?

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    Quote Originally Posted by jameslsmith85 View Post
    So the judge mostly didn't like that I was saying the claimant should have searched for my address given the length of time. She didn't agree that it wasn't properly served. I argued that but she didn't like it. She didn't even really like my defence against the claim, she didn't like anything much i said in regards to the old case. Or that i would argue about the whole contract thing etc but i suppose couldn't really say it wasn't legitimate. So she set it aside on the grounds i had a real prospect of successfully defending it. I just said to her that i wouldn't have gone to all the trouble and cost of trying to set it aside if i didn't think i could defend it. So glad she did though. Hard part over i hope.

    See attached the original claim form. CEL are on there which is interesting though not surprising i suppose. Hopefully this should be quite easy to defend against as it's a fairly standard letter by the looks of it.
    @mystery1 did you get a chance to take a look at the particulars of the claim I attached yet? What do you think my chances are of defending this? I also still have my old defence but i know that it's a bit out of date since Bevis... Do you think you might be able to cast an eye over it and let me know what i could change to make it work?

    Thanks.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,862
    Mentioned
    786 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    What is the deadline ?

    M1
    ********************************Signature********* ************************

    Private messages are off as all help on this site is on board.

    Please note i am now pretty much without access/time to help 5 days a week. Others will hopefully help you.


    I can only help with what you tell me. Post up information (other than names and addresses!).

    I NEVER enter any appeals or court documentation on your behalf. This is your responsibility.

    Upload images to your thread like this .Email kati@legalbeagles.info if you can't upload images/documents. She doesn't own a crystal ball as far as i'm aware so link to your thread or tell her how to find it !

    If you want to tell someone YOU were driving, go to confession.

    I,I,I,I,I,I should be avoided unless you are Jim Diamond.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    I had 28 days as of Friday gone. However I'm very keen to try and get everything posted off ASAP because as far as I can tell as soon as I get my defence in they'll look at it, plus I just want this over as soon as possible.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,917
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    Quote Originally Posted by jameslsmith85 View Post
    I had 28 days as of Friday gone. However I'm very keen to try and get everything posted off ASAP because as far as I can tell as soon as I get my defence in they'll look at it, plus I just want this over as soon as possible.
    slow down too much rush = mistakes

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    Quote Originally Posted by MIKE770 View Post
    slow down too much rush = mistakes

    Tbh I think this should be fairly straight forward. I know the judge wont accept that the claim wasn't properly served so I have to ditch that argument at all. But to be fair now the ccj is set aside and I am just fighting the original claim I don't need that anyway. I'm hoping my old defence that worked once should be fine to use again with some tweaking (it's the same car park and the same parking company). See attached
    Attached Files Attached Files

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,917
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    mystery1 will be along soon

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    Hey @mystery1, did you get a chance to look at my old defence at all yet? Sorry to keep on I just really want to get this defence in sooner rather than later. I need this weight lifted

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    Hey guys. Any help on this would be great. I have under 2 weeks to get this defence sent out now and I'm seriously starting to panic. Thanks in advance.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,862
    Mentioned
    786 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    I still intend to do this but have a trial this week and at least 2 defences and my own employment tribunal matter to sort before your deadline. If your PPP thread gets a result let me know that i am no longer needed

    M1
    ********************************Signature********* ************************

    Private messages are off as all help on this site is on board.

    Please note i am now pretty much without access/time to help 5 days a week. Others will hopefully help you.


    I can only help with what you tell me. Post up information (other than names and addresses!).

    I NEVER enter any appeals or court documentation on your behalf. This is your responsibility.

    Upload images to your thread like this .Email kati@legalbeagles.info if you can't upload images/documents. She doesn't own a crystal ball as far as i'm aware so link to your thread or tell her how to find it !

    If you want to tell someone YOU were driving, go to confession.

    I,I,I,I,I,I should be avoided unless you are Jim Diamond.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    Thanks @mystery1 I'll let you know. I'm just worrying is all. This has been hanging over me so long I don't want to let it slip away from me after everything.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    Hey guys and @mystery1

    How does this look? Some bits in bold I'm unsure about.

    I removed the part about the amount persued exceeding £100

    In the Isle of Wight County Court
    Claim Number ****
    Between:
    Debt Enforcement & Action Limited v ******
    Defence Statement

    I am ******* the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle *****. I currently reside at ***.

    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim issued on 20/11/2014 for each and every one of the following reasons:

    1/ 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. None of this applies in this material case.

    2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
    (a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’.
    (b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
    (c) 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.

    3/ The Defendant was the Registered Keeper only and has not admitted to being the driver.
    As this was an alleged incident prior to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no automatic transfer of debt to the keeper and the keeper is under no obligation to name who it may have been. Due to the excessive length of time in bringing this claim there is no certainty of who may have driven. It is unreasonable to expect someone to remember something from such a long time ago. Even the Police limit there own actions to a period of 14 days on a Notice of Intended Prosecution to avoid any potential miscarriage of justice.
    The Claimant is put to strict proof of the true identity of the driver and cannot rely on Elliot v Loake as this was a criminal case where the police had actual irrefutable evidence that the driver was the keeper.

    4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) 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.
    (b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (c) 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.
    (d) 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.

    5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (b) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

    6/ 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.

    7/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    8/ 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.

    9/ 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.

    10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge.. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    (a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 20/11/2014
    (b) not got planning permission from the local council to use the ANPR machine or erect their signage in the car park.

    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 believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

    Signed
    Date
    Last edited by jameslsmith85; 28th April 2017 at 07:45:AM.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    Hey all,


    So I posted my defence's off today so that they get to where they need to before Friday's cut off.


    This is what I went with in the end. I'll let you all know if it's successful in the hope that it could be useful to others in the future. Thanks to all for the help.


    In the Isle of Wight County Court
    Claim Number *****
    Between:
    Debt Enforcement & Action Limited v *****
    Defence Statement


    I am **** (Previously **** at the time of the claim) the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle *****. I currently reside at *****


    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim issued on 20/11/2014 for each and every one of the following reasons:


    1/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
    (a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’.
    (b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
    (c) 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.


    2/ The Defendant was the Registered Keeper only and has not admitted to being the driver.
    As this was an alleged incident prior to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no automatic transfer of debt to the keeper and the keeper is under no obligation to name who it may have been. Due to the excessive length of time in bringing this claim there is no certainty of who may have driven. It is unreasonable to expect someone to remember an unremarkable journey from such a long time ago. Even the Police limit there own actions to a period of 14 days on a Notice of Intended Prosecution to avoid any potential miscarriage of justice.
    The Claimant is put to strict proof of the true identity of the driver and cannot rely on Elliot v Loake as this was a criminal case where the police had actual irrefutable evidence that the driver was the keeper.


    3/ This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied 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. None of this applies in this material case.


    4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) 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.
    (b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (c) 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.
    (d) 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.
    5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (b) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.


    6/ 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.


    7/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is well known that this Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as 'revenge claims' and the defendant submits that this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.


    8/ 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.


    9/ 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.


    10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.


    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    (a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 20/11/2014
    (b) Failed to identify the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged incident.


    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 believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.


    Signed




    Date

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Set aside CCJ help!

    Hey all,

    I wanted to give an update. It's been a little while.

    So After sending my defence off the court then sent through the N180 small claims track questionaire which I filled in and returned.

    I didn't hear anything from the court for a long time so called them on Monday just gone. I was told the judge would be looking at the file on Tuesday....

    I phoned back today and the claim has been struck out! I've won!!!

    The claimant DEAL hadn't updated the court with their latest address and as such all of the documentation the court was sending to them was being returned. So the judge just threw it out!

    Well chuffed!!

    Now to send off a letter listing my costs! nothing to lose now.

    Thanks everyone!

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Contact Us



© Celame (UK) Ltd 2016
Hosted by Lodge Information Services Ltd
LegalBeagles® are DPA Registered No. ZA158014
LegalBeagles® is the trading name of CELAME (UK) LIMITED ( 09220332 )
Registered Address: 25 Moorgate, London, England, EC2R 6AY
VAT registration number 206 9740 02
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.3 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Celame (UK) Ltd Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

To find out more about managing your money and getting free advice, visit the Money Advice Service,an independent service set up to help people manage their money.

TOP