Daily Mail investigation into default CCJ that could lead to bailiff visit

[brassnecked]

Found this on the Mail where people are being hit with default CCJ even for a penny they know nothing about until the bailiff knocks or they are refused credit. It seems Crapita AKA parking Eye are getting default CCJ on alleged debts of a penny, as in o 0.01p.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3784421/Stranger-s-40-parking-ticket-cost-family-new-home.html

[dx100uk]

urm..all seem to be based [bar one]

on the 'debtor' not updating creditors of a change of address.

 

 

could have easily been avoided.

[brassnecked]

Yes DX looks like that was the case. Default at old address in some cases.

[Bailiff Advice]

urm..all seem to be based [bar one]

on the 'debtor' not updating creditors of a change of address.

 

 

could have easily been avoided.

 

Found this on the Mail where people are being hit with default CCJ even for a penny they know nothing about until the bailiff knocks or they are refused credit. It seems Crapita AKA parking Eye are getting default CCJ on alleged debts of a penny, as in o 0.01p.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3784421/Stranger-s-40-parking-ticket-cost-family-new-home.html

 

 

The figures for Parking Eye judgments since 2013 is really astonishing:

 

 

 

1. Lowell Portfolio (chases old debts claimed by Barclays, Capital One, Halifax, Vodafone, EE, O2). Claims since 2013: 434,736. Smallest judgment: £107.25

 

2. Cabot Financial (Barclays, Capital One, Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Bank and HSBC). Claims since 2013: 239,180. Smallest judgment: £95

 

3. Severn Trent Water. Claims since 2013: 80,849. Smallest judgment: £1.57

 

4.

ParkingEye. Claims since 2013: 60,291.

Smallest judgment: 1p

 

5. United Utilities. Claims since 2013: 50,582. Smallest judgment: £35

 

6. Capquest Investments (NatWest, Halifax, Barclaycard, Santander). Claims since 2013: 50,313. Smallest judgment: £50

 

7. MKDP LLP (Barclaycard, HSBC). Claims since 2013: 44,959. Smallest judgment: £50

 

8. Yorkshire Water Services. Claims since 2013: 43,117. Smallest judgment: £62.83

 

9. The Registrar of Companies (the official responsible for Companies House, which deals with all company filings). Claims since 2013: 34,921. Smallest judgment: 1p

 

10. Anglian Water Services. Claims since 2013: 31,177. Smallest judgment: £1

[brassnecked]

Those Capita PE penny judgments are reprehensible, but they must be done by the Northampton Bulk Centre to get through the net surely? Once granted no doubt Capita PE will load charges up to over the magic £600 to send in a HCEO, as do Severn Trent and the other water utilities.

[obiter dictum]

Just reading the comments in the Daily Mail.

 

As far as i am aware there is no legal duty on a creditor to trace a debtor if mail is returned as gone away before issuing a claim. Or has the CPR rules with Pre-action Protocol changed?

Edited September 12, 2016 by Andyorch
edited

[silverfox1961]

Before we go any further. let's try and keep this thread civil.

 

I read the article earlier and the majority of the cases rang true (wasn't sure about the mortgage one though)

 

The guy who had sold his car and informed DVLA got a CCJ due to them not updating their records accordingly which while sounding odd as the new owner (who got the ticket) would have been taxing and insuring the vehicle at a different address, doesn't surprise me.

 

As for Parking Eye. Nothing I read about them surprised me at all. his insidious practice has been going on for years. (just read around the net)

 

There were some good comments on the piece as well. Sending official forms by Signed For delivery has to be the easiest option. Process servers would add too much to the costs. If no one is at home then an 'out card' should be left with the name of the person who the letter is intended for. If the person is in, the postman should say they have a letter for'xxxx' and if that person has moved, return to sender. Not rocket science is it?

[brassnecked]

Not at all SF, but then they may find claims for a penny are defended, and they lose out , and that would not do for the rapacious Capita, an organisation that is corrosive to the public good with too many fingers in too many pies.

[unclebulgaria67]

Before we go any further. let's try and keep this thread civil.

 

I read the article earlier and the majority of the cases rang true (wasn't sure about the mortgage one though)

 

The guy who had sold his car and informed DVLA got a CCJ due to them not updating their records accordingly which while sounding odd as the new owner (who got the ticket) would have been taxing and insuring the vehicle at a different address, doesn't surprise me.

 

As for Parking Eye. Nothing I read about them surprised me at all. his insidious practice has been going on for years. (just read around the net)

 

There were some good comments on the piece as well. Sending official forms by Signed For delivery has to be the easiest option. Process servers would add too much to the costs. If no one is at home then an 'out card' should be left with the name of the person who the letter is intended for. If the person is in, the postman should say they have a letter for'xxxx' and if that person has moved, return to sender. Not rocket science is it?

 

Exactly. Almost perfect solution. County courts have to send all claims by recorded delivery ( paid by the claimant) and if the court claim is returned undelivered, a default judgement is stopped from happening. The claimant is advised that their claim has not be served and if they want to continue the claim, they have to ensure the claim is served on the debtor.

 

Should stop default judgements where claims go to old addresses.

[brassnecked]

Apparently the Prime Minister is looking at the issue

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3786132/I-ll-end-credit-rating-scandal-pledges-PM-acts-Mail-exposes-rulings-ruined-lives.html

Capita needs winding up, too many fingers in too many pies.

[dx100uk]

why do all these media outlet continually call private parking invoice FINES!!

 

 

you cant get a CCJ for a parking FINE!

[brassnecked]

Exactly DX, and this misrepresentation plays right into the hands of rogues like Crapita PE.

[ericsbrother]

common for motorists to get these because the parking co applies to the dVLA for the keeper address and they dont start legal action until 2 years later, when often the person is no longer at the address. Theparking co knows the forwarding address but issues to the old address because that is the service address at the time of the event that lead to the claim. When they get the CCJ they send the bailiffs round to the ne4w adress they had all along to collect Immoral but leagl.

[brassnecked]

And nasty, it needs stomping on.

[silverfox1961]

That is also another reason to change things. If, after a year or two, no contact has been made, the PPC should do a check to find any new address if the keeper has moved and must be able to prove that they followed due diligence to a court.

 

The same should apply to companies that have access to credit files. It is so easy to do and takes minutes, especially with the DVLA and their flawed automated service.

[Bailiff Advice]

Last week (on 16th November) a very important debate was heard in the House of Commons on the subject of County Court judgments.

 

The debate (by Chris Evans MP) followed the recent investigation published by the Daily Mail that found that 900,000 CCJs were issued last year, a greater than 33% increase on the previous three years.

 

The investigation highlighted the particular case of ParkingEye, a company responsible for many private carparks in this country and a significant user of CCJs to enforce fines.

 

Last year, 1.1 million county court claims were issued in the UK of which 745,000 have judgments entered in default of a defence.

 

Chris Evans MP was proposing changes. For instance, he (rightly in my opinion) considers that the 14 day period in which to challenge a CCJ is to short.

 

He also considers that once the judgment has been paid in full, that record of the judgment should be removed from Registry Trust (instead of remaining on the court record for 6 years).

 

He makes some highly important comments about 'service' of documentation. He considers that lessons can be learned from the Scottish system for delivering court summons where documents are first sent by recorded delivery. If that fails, court documents are sent out with sheriff officers.

 

PS: The comments from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice are of interest !!!

 

 

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2016-11-16a.151.2&s=bailiff#g153.1

[dx100uk]

parking eye CCJ's are not for FINES.

[Bailiff Advice]

parking eye CCJ's are not for FINES.

 

I was copying from the debate. Can you amend for me (I was beaten by the 10 minute edit facility).

[unclebulgaria67]

Bet government does nothing. They are probably quite happy with the extra court fees, increased profits of companies involved in this who employ people, pay taxes etc.

 

Call me cynical, but government does not normally get involved, unless it can be shown it is their interest to do so.

[dx100uk]

I was copying from the debate. Can you amend for me (I was beaten by the 10 minute edit facility).

 

 

well someone needs to tell them and the media to stop using the word FINE in relation to private parking speculative invoices

 

 

seems like you've got better standings than us mere mortals to point that out....

[MyronAub]

Almost perfect solution. County courts have to send all claims by recorded delivery ( paid by the claimant) and if the court claim is returned undelivered, a default judgement is stopped from happening.

 

How could that ever work? Anyone wanting to deliberately avoid paying a debt would simply never sign for a recorded delivery letter.

[unclebulgaria67]

How could that ever work? Anyone wanting to deliberately avoid paying a debt would simply never sign for a recorded delivery letter.

 

In that event the court claim is personally served.

 

But you do raise a good point. A default CCJ caused by the claim going to an old address is something that should be avoided if at all possible.

 

The whole process needs to be reviewed.