ok get the point..sorry

the set aside process needs two things to make it happen...

a reason to set aside the CCJ

and

a defence for the initial claim which led to the CCJ

that will be at a hearing yes, most probably.

if you succeed and the claimant wants to run things further

then its as if all that didn't happen

so it will take the course of any normal claimform issuance again.

Ok, thanks for that information.

We have provided a reason to set the judgement aside and a draft defence.

The claimant has already stated that they want to set the judgement aside (according to their witness statement), so we think they will try to claim for their costs for having to appear at the hearing. Does that sound right to you dx?

wont get costs eitherway in a set aside hearing AFAIK.

irrelevant who was driving or not to a set aside.

So, your partner has to do all of the form signing and turn up at court, you have to say in this

Thank you again eb - we really appreciate your help!

 

Does that mean that there will be a hearing for a set aside and then another hearing if they start again?

 

It's highly unlikely that my partner was driving the car at the time because she was in her shop,

which is opposite the car park,

on that Monday afternoon.

 

Had she gone out the shop would have had to have been closed.

Also, she has a car parking place behind her shop,

and would not need a car to cross the street to go shopping in the VCS car park.

 

Also, there are 3 people who could have been driving her car on that day, including herself.

 

I will try to contact the old address and see if they remember anything but it is 3 years ago now.

 

Thanks again eb.

wont get costs eitherway in a set aside hearing AFAIK.

I wonder why they (VCS) have outlined their costs in their witness statement then?

irrelevant who was driving or not to a set aside.

So, your partner has to do all of the form signing and turn up at court, you have to say in this

She has signed all the form in the application including N244, Witness Statement and draft defence, and she will be at court.

They will ask the court to grant a set aside (according to their witness statement).

Does this mean that a new hearing will be set for the rematch?

I'm still trying to work out when we will use our defence and when costs will be awarded (either way).

Does that mean they can't drop the case until the rematch, or can they do this at the set aside stage?

Thanks for your help eb.

this has already been answered

but Yes,

a new hearing may be ordered.

Costs will be ordered as a result of that hearing unless a case management order is made to force VCS to pay for the set aside on the basis they are going to lose the new hearing based on their POC.

A CMO usually orders the parties to provide certain evidence by such and such a date or they lose

and that allows VCS to resubmit their POC

and start again with the risk of paying a much larger costs order if they lose this time.

VCS can drop the case any time they want

and that will land you with the costs of the set aside

and they will have to swallow their costs of the original claim.

However, that is not a lot in the grand scheme of things, your credit records get wiped

As already said,

they have indicated they want to limit their costs by not opposing a set aside

(you keep saying they will ask the court to grant it,

that is not in their powers,

they can only agree to it)

but they dont indicate whether they want to continue.

Hedging their bets I reckon but I would bet on them giving up to save money and go and bother some sucker who belives they have a reason to bill them

Right, thanks eb, I'm beginning to understand the details now.

I didn't realise that if they drop the case we can't get our £255 back?

If that is the case then we are having to pay the cost of clearing her credit file?

That seems a little unfair?

How do we get our £255 back?

you dont.

that is the price you pay for not geting RM to forward you mail.

Civil law is there to put you back where you started from, not punish the other side.

For all the courts service know VCS have a very good claim but choose not to continue with it for unspecified reasons. Their prerogative.

As they know their claim is rubbish why would they wish to continue just so you can buy a house or get a credit card at their expense?

Moaning about the fairness of it all doesnt get any sympathy,

we are here to offer help in fighting consumer battles not to tell you that you deserve to be paid for omitting to use one of the basic services offered to house movers.

Play the cards you hold in your hand rather than wish the deck was shuffled differently

I have said from the beginning that Royal Mail DID forward our mail and that we can prove it,

and that we received mail from other companies with no problems.

How does this change what you have written eb?

I have seen where you said mail redirected,

it didnt click that the RM service was used

so I apologise for telling you off for not doing so.

However,

if the parking co say they sent the letters to that address then they did as far as the law goes if the redirect service has failed you and VCS have taken advantage then there is little you can do about that,

suing RM is impossible thanks to a bit of case law back in the 1970's that get applied to any and every other circumstance that are completely different. Bit like Crown Immunity they used to have.

This means that VCS have taken advantage (unfair but legal) and the above still applies,

you are unlikely to get your £255 back if they just hold up their hands and say we arent going to continue.

IF you could prove their actions were vexed then you would get your costs but they arent going to admit they deliberately sent out a claim form to a duff address just to get a default judgement

(they will always say they look forward to a defence being filed becasue they are always right and their solicitors have superpowers)

and the occupier of the old property wont be interested in being dragged along to a court to explain that he wrote RTS on a few envelopes, especially if they happened to just bin them all rather than returning them.

if VCS dont want to continue you cant force them to and that means you will never know but you are unlikely to get your costs because you cant prove they did things wrong or in bad faith. Accept this and do waht you can do rather than wishing things otherwise

have you seen a copy of the N1 claim form they issued?

the courts service should have given you a copy if you requested it.

If so is there any discrepancy on the address that would make RM not think it was covered by the redirect?

ie misspelling of name/address so for example No1 the street instead of No 1a the street.

Im 99% certain, from reading other threads on this site, that N1 claim forms are not redirected, even if you have Royal Mail redirection in place after a house move. I think I have seen that they have `Do not redirect` or similar. printed on them

yes I'm sure ive seen the same too on the big envelope

Thank you for your detailed reply eb. I too have missed one or two things that were said in this thread also, so I know how easy it is to miss something.

We don't have a form N1 - should I request it from the court?

We have only been sent the Claimants Witness evidence and the Claimants schedule of costs.

Their letter also mentions that they will be represented by an advocate.

As VCS appear to be agreeing to a set aside,

is there any point in challenging the paralegal as to his authority to represent VCS?

Mention was made earlier in this thread that sometimes an office clerk turns up instead of a solicitor?

see post 3

dx

This is a set aside,

it will be either allowed or it wont.

You say VCS arent challenging it and then you say about a letter saying they will be represented by an advocate.

It is rare for them to send anyone when there is no point,

perhaps they just want to make sure you dont ask for a massive costs order but that is guessing.

TBH it doesnt matter who they send as they wont have a say in things as the set aside is based on non receipt of the paperwork.

You have put the rest of your evidence togehter to show that the result of a new hearing wouldnt automatically be the same , not to have a new hearing at the same time.

As said, that can happen but it is more usual for the judge to make a CMO as already said.

The advocate would then go away and report back on this, no more.

ask that person for a copy of the original claim form beforehand,

they will have on or they will have completely undermined their employers position.

No need to challenge their credentials as you will just make work for the judge and that may bite you back

Im 99% certain, from reading other threads on this site, that N1 claim forms are not redirected, even if you have Royal Mail redirection in place after a house move. I think I have seen that they have `Do not redirect` or similar. printed on them

That's very interesting MS - and helps the parking companies again...

This is a set aside,

it will be either allowed or it wont.

 

You say VCS arent challenging it and then you say about a letter saying they will be represented by an advocate.

It is rare for them to send anyone when there is no point,

perhaps they just want to make sure you dont ask for a massive costs order but that is guessing.

 

TBH it doesnt matter who they send as they wont have a say in things as the set aside is based on non receipt of the paperwork.

 

You have put the rest of your evidence togehter to show that the result of a new hearing wouldnt automatically be the same , not to have a new hearing at the same time.

 

As said, that can happen but it is more usual for the judge to make a CMO as already said.

The advocate would then go away and report back on this, no more.

 

ask that person for a copy of the original claim form beforehand,

they will have on or they will have completely undermined their employers position.

 

No need to challenge their credentials as you will just make work for the judge and that may bite you back

Thank you again eb. We will ask their advocate for a copy of the N1 on the day of the hearing.

UPDATE

We managed to get the set aside and we have been asked to prepare and submit our defence in full to Hull County Court and BW Legal within the next 30 days. So thank you all for your help with that!

The paralegal who represented VCS told the judge that VCS/BW Legal had tried to phone us 4 times to ask us not to attend court and try to make us settle out of court. This is a blatant lie, which we denied at the hearing for the set aside. Their paralegal seemed surprised that he had been lied to...

Any costs for this hearing are to be carried over to the next hearing.

I will be interested to hear your comments guys, as always.

well it doesnt matter

you don't want to settle out of court

they are not entitled to any money.

Their argument to the judge was that they would have to claim costs as the hearing could have been averted had we accepted their terms.

They made it seem like we had inconvenienced everyone by going to the hearing,

and therefore we hadn't been very helpful.

haha

tough on them.

they didn't want a hearing as it costs them money that they will never get back

and ofcourse not have their paperwork looked at to expose the rrors of the claim in the first place

Ok,

so it looks like our defence will be that we don't have any keeper liability as we didn't receive the paperwork and therefore couldn't respond.

It's interesting that we didn't receive their first communication which was the pcn and was posted (supposedly) BEFORE we moved.

Their second communication 'arrived' only a few days after we moved

and so should have been picked up by Royal Mail (assuming it was not marked ' please do not redirect').

We never received the form N1 at all,

and when we spoke to the paralegal representing BW Legal before we went in to the hearing

I asked him twice for a copy of the N1 and he said both times that he would give us a copy.

However,

he didn't give us a copy before we went in to the hearing

when the judge realised we had never seen the N1 the paralegal gave us a copy, which he had ready in his folder.

That is the first time we had ever seen it.

Unfortunately the house number is missing due to the hole punch in the side of the paper, but the post code is correct.

My partner's first name is misspelt and so the judge changed the details to match the correct spelling.

Can we use this fact?

The spelling could be wrong because the DVLA have the wrong spelling i suppose?

not important....

your defence will be based on the particulars of claim on the claimform which read:???

verbatim EXACT word for word as it is typed please [just remove any thing that can identify you.]

dx

I have removed the exact time, car make and registration from these details.

The issue date is 22/09/2016 which is nearly two years after the 'event'.

"Particulars of Claim

1.The Claimants Claim is for the sum of £100.00 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 17/11/2014 ****** (Issue Date) at St Andrews Retail Park Anpr Vcs sheme Std (60-100)

2.The PCN relates to ****** under registration *******

3.The terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN, but the Defendant failed to do so, despite demand having being made.

4.The Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.

5.the Claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from 17/11/2014 to 21/09/2016 being an amount of £13.50.

The Claimant also claims £54.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions"

6."The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this claim form are true and I am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement"

Amount claimed - £167.50

Court fee - £25

Legal Representatives costs £ 50.00

Total amount £242.50

My copy is unsigned but someone has typed in "BW Legal Services Limited" in the signature space.

i read somewhere on this forum that the £54 is not legal?

your defence will be based on contractual liability or lack of it.

The fact they didn't send any paperwork is completely irrelevant to this,

you must separate these things in your mind,

something you haven't been able to do so far

and hence the repeated asking of the same wrong questions regarding the set aside.

What you have to do now is show that their claim is wrong

so the first thing you do is demand sight of their contract with the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts and to make civil claims in their own name as a CPR 31.14 request.

Look that up on almost any thread that involves court.

Whilst you are at it you ask for a copy of the planning permission for their signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.

You can then argue about the content of their signs and the content of their NTK's

but arguing you didn't get the latter wont get you far if they say they served them properly because the law says they were delivered even when they werent.

Ask for copies of these in your CPR 31.14 as well

, they will have to bring them along to court even if they refuse to hand them over as it is the CONTENT that you challenge, not the delivery.

That is where the lack of keeper liability is.

Now, back to the signs, you need

photographs,

plans of the site,

notes showing where your car was if it was there,

details of the lighting if it was dark at the time and so on.

VCS and Excel are sister companies but they are not the same

so look out for signs and permissions that relate to the other.

VCS will claim that they are interchangeable but they aren't.

Thank you ericsbrother.

As discussed earlier in this thread they sent me a copy of the contract with the landlord that has been signed by an agent on behalf of VCS.

That means as I understand this that we need to prove that there is no keeper liability?

We have been sent a copy of their NTK and we have photos of their signs.

We don't know where the car was parked because this happened 3 years ago.

We don't even know for sure that the car was parked in the car park at all.

The photos of the car show only the front of the car and the registration plate has been enhanced to show the registration number.

At least one of the photos looks like it was taken in the dark, ie after 4pm.

VCS sent us a plan of the site aswell in their witness statement.

What are we looking for to challenge them in court with regards to the signage and NTK?

Should we be contesting the fact that they added £54 onto their claim for 'contractual costs', as I read on this forum a while back?

I note your comments on the Town and Country planning Act of 2007.

One last question is,

as there is plenty of evidence on the internet and the news that these parking companies are using dubious practices,

is it worth bringing this up in court?

They have already implied that my partner is lying in order to avoid paying the parking charge,

We have strong evidence that my partner is a well respected business person and has many happy customers,

and has not been lying to avoid paying this charge,

as she never received it.

On the other hand there is a huge amount of evidence that the general public is very unhappy with VCS and BW Legal.

Each of these companies has over 50 one star Google reviews.

This is an indication of their business practices, surely?