** Received CCJ** to wrong address Options

[letsfightback]

Hi All,

help on this please.

SCS Law sent letters to an old address resulting in a CCJ against the defendant. Inquiry was made and car was parked on a land managed by UKPC, x3 PCN from 2014 & x1 PCN from 2015.

As letters arrived at an old address than the current one, would judge set aside the judgement based on this scenario?

[Advertisement]

[Half_way]

should do, did you update the DVLA with your new address as soon as you moved?

[The Rookie]

More critically was the V5c address correct at the time (did you get the original notices)?

[letsfightback]

Electrol register to current address 2009, physical move to address 2015, DVLA updated 2016.

Letters served by SCS Law August 2018, confirmed bu them.

[nosferatu1001]

So they KNEW, or SHOULD HAVE known, the address woudl not be current

You will want:
1) Witness statement supporitn the reason for set aside - lack of service of claim forms ,claimant knew or should have known the address was unlikely to be good due to length of time.
2) DRAFT DEFENCE - 1 page A4. Trivial to do - just use the generic ones, and point out as you have no details you cannot possible defend better than that.
3) DRAFT Order - what you want the court to ORder as a result. THis should be the "six point draft order" you can search fror, where costs are reserved BUT become payable to YOU if they fail to continue the claim.

[letsfightback]

Great thank you.

so defence is that when serving letters august 2018 they should have know that the address is incorrect right? there will be a n244 completed - is there a generic defence template for my defence?

thank you for the support so far.

[southpaw82]

On what basis are people saying the claimant knew or should have known that the address was no longer correct? The passage of time? CPR 6.9(3) says

Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).

What are the reasons for the claimant to have that belief? Is it really relevant, other than for a set aside under the mandatory provisions (no service)?

The OP seems to be focusing on discretionary set aside (or people are conflating the two rules) which requires:

(a) the defendant to have a realistic prospect of successfully defending the claim (or some other reason for the case to be tried), and

(b) the defendant to have acted promptly.

N244, witness statement setting out the promptness of the steps taken, draft defence, draft order.

[letsfightback]

southpaw82

I am not sure what you mean

In this scenario where the solicitor acting on behalf of claimant (UKPC), where they obligated to take reasonable steps to make ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence.? What steps could they have been? As in this case the DVLA was updated of the new address 2 years before this claim was brought forward.

[southpaw82]

southpaw82

I am not sure what you mean

In this scenario where the solicitor acting on behalf of claimant (UKPC), where they obligated to take reasonable steps to make ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence.? What steps could they have been? As in this case the DVLA was updated of the new address 2 years before this claim was brought forward.

What I’m asking is “why wouldn’t they believe the address given to them previously by the DVLA was not still valid?” The claimant only has to make enquirers if they believe the address is no longer valid (though a prudent one would do so if they simply suspect that it is not).

Ultimately, if you have a good defence and act promptly it shouldn’t matter, and the address issue is irrelevant.

[SchoolRunMum]

Don't forget that the DVLA told PPCs that they could/should(?) use tracing agents to establish if old addresses were correct for service.

And also the Government exposed the scam and named & shamed parking firms:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016...iew-due-to.html

New measures to protect consumers from debt claims

[southpaw82]

Don't forget that the DVLA told PPCs that they could/should(?) use tracing agents to establish if old addresses were correct for service.

And also the Government exposed the scam and named & shamed parking firms:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016...iew-due-to.html

New measures to protect consumers from debt claims

That’s all well and good but there would still need to be evidence that the claimant had grounds to believe the address not to be valid. Believe is quite a high threshold. I don’t really see how the DVLA’s opinion or a government review has any real bearing on that. If the government wanted to stop such things happening they’d amend the CPR but they haven’t.

[SchoolRunMum]

Maybe you are right. But let's not get bogged down on doom and gloom.

Luckily, pretty much every set aside case succeeds on here and MSE because Judges do consider the usual stuff as per nosferatu1001's post. I can only recall ONE refused in years.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 19:11

[southpaw82]

Maybe you are right. But let's not get bogged down on doom and gloom.

There is no doom and gloom. It seems to me that people are conflating the two grounds to set aside a default judgment into one whilst simultaneously imposing a burden on the claimant that doesn’t exist in law. If the defendant has a realistic prospect of success then they should apply promptly for a set aside on that ground. If they have no evidence of the claimant having a belief that the address was incorrect there’s no point in pursuing that ground.

[SchoolRunMum]

That's not what Johnersh or LoadsofChildren123 say, and every set aside, except one odd one, has been agreed re any parking charge.

IMHO it is clearly unreasonable for a parking firm to issue a claim to an address from which they have had no response in years, and the Government and DVLA evidence shows they agree, so why would the victim not want a Judge to see that, to show them who the real 'innocent party' is (never the claimant in a PPC scam case).

[southpaw82]

That's not what Johnersh or LoadsofChildren123 say, and every set aside, except one odd one, has been agreed re any parking charge.

And did they include a draft defence with reasonable prospects of success and act promptly, or did they solely rely on the claim form not being properly served?

IMHO it is clearly unreasonable for a parking firm to issue a claim to an address from which they have had no response in years, and the Government and DVLA evidence shows they agree, so why would the victim not want a Judge to see that, to show them who the real 'innocent party' is (never the claimant in a PPC scam case).

Well, there are a few points there:

1. If the defendant can evidence that the claimant has written to them at that address and not had a response and can evidence that they have not lived there since a certain date then they can begin to build an argument under r 6.9. That is quite different to what I wrote, which was “if they have no evidence”.

2. The court doesn’t (or shouldn’t) give a stuff what the government or DVLA thinks.

3. Who is the innocent party isn’t the test for a set aside under rules 13.2 or 13.3(1)(a), though it may form part of an assessment under 13.3(1)(b). So, no, I doubt I would be getting into a tizz showing the judge who the “victim” is (particularly if they’ve flagrantly trespassed on someone’s land) when all I have to prove is a realistic prospect of defending the claim and acting promptly.

[SchoolRunMum]

And did they include a draft defence with reasonable prospects of success and act promptly, or did they solely rely on the claim form not being properly served?

Johnersh and LOC123 are solicitor posters on MSE. A WS and a Draft Order are lodged with the N244 each time, and the OPs are all told to go along armed with the basics of a defence and evidence that they were 'there to be found' but for a simple trace and acted promptly, and didn't try to avoid any debt by moving away and ignoring it.

To be fair, I didn't say anyone should rely SOLELY on the claim not being properly served! That would be daft.

all I have to prove is a realistic prospect of defending the claim and acting promptly.

Agreed.

The court doesn’t (or shouldn’t) give a stuff what the government or DVLA thinks.

I think they should, and at least it shows a doubting Judge that PPCs have been singled out and that it's in their hands to make an effort to trace the victim before suing them. How is it OK that they don't?

[southpaw82]

A WS and a Draft Order are lodged with the N244 each time, and the OPs are all told to go along armed with the basics of a defence and evidence that they were 'there to be found' but for a simple trace and acted promptly, and didn't try to avoid any debt by moving away and ignoring it.

To be fair, I didn't say anyone should rely SOLELY on the claim not being properly served! That would be daft.

Right, so the claimant not checking that the address is valid may or may not have been grounds for the decision, which in any case could have been granted under 13.3 anyway.

The court doesn’t (or shouldn’t) give a stuff what the government or DVLA thinks.

I think they should, and at least it shows a doubting Judge that PPCs have been singled out and that it's in their hands to make an effort to trace the victim before suing them. How is it OK that they don't?

We’re not dealing in what is ok and what is not. We’re dealing in the rather dry area of the CPR and the demands imposed by it. The duty to check that the address is good is imposed by r 6.9 and the trigger for that is a belief that it’s no longer a good address. There’s no blanket duty to check absent such a belief (though as I said, if there is any doubt it would be wise to do so). Whether there ought to be a duty is another matter but it would be wholly wrong for a court to seek to read one into the rule. You would probably hate a lot of the contracts I see, which include clauses that deem good service to have been effected at an address specified in the contract even if the defendant doesn’t live there and never receives the claim.

[SchoolRunMum]

You would probably hate a lot of the contracts I see, which include clauses that deem good service to have been effected at an address specified in the contract even if the defendant doesn’t live there and never receives the claim.

Yes I would hate to see that, it smacks of unfairness.

Makes me glad I will never study law now. bargepole showed me some of his assignments and they are so tedious, life's too short for essays.

[letsfightback]

Hi All,

Seems to be lot of info which is great.

To make it simple for me please.

I will be sending N244, my defence is that information was not sent to new address. Is there a template that could be used? Judgement set aside is what is the outcome needed!

[SchoolRunMum]

Is there a template that could be used

Yes, please look at the thread by Disgruntled48 because you need a WS and a six point draft order.