New tactic - backdoor CCJ's with no prior mail?

[Nicky Boy]

Guys,

I haven't been on the forum that long, so I may be barking up a non-existent tree...

 

We seem to be seeing a lot of this "no correspondence, then a claim/judgement drops through the letterbox" scenario recently.

Could it be yet another new underhand tactic they are starting to use.

 

Or has it been going on forever?

 

 

.

[dx100uk]

dont think its happening like that 

i bet when we get to the bottom of each situation, we'll find theres a reason like address confusion or nothing to do with them.

 

the Pre Action Protocol letter of claim (PAPLOC) was specifically brought in to stop some 750'000 speculative claims, many were backdoor CCJ's to an old address, it was supposed to cut these down by indicating they must take all reasonable steps to confirm current addresses.

 

 

.

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

Yet the PAPLOC's don't seem to be arriving?

 

Like you say, could be address problems / confusion...

Edited April 28, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[lookinforinfo]

This does appear to be a recent trend among some of the rogues. At first it has just been the usual suspects  [VCS are you listening] that say they have not received a WS from the defendant  hoping that the Judge will throw out the case giving them a win. 

This new thing of not advising motorists the day of the actual hearing is unlawful if that is what is happening.

It does need stamping on very quickly.

[Nicky Boy]

If it is happening, how could it be addressed?

The really sad thing is that the victims are then stuck with a £275 set aside charge, which I can't see them being able to recover from anyone...

[lookinforinfo]

I think that when they win in Court the rogues should be liable for the motorists costs especially in these circumstances.

 

What can be done?  Report them to the ICO and Trading Standards and perhaps the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor.

[Nicky Boy]

And for evidence / proof?

[Nicky Boy]

D'you think they keep proof of posting?

 

In fact, would it be an idea to specifically request proof of posting in SAR's?

 

.

[lookinforinfo]

Would you keep proof of posting if you were scamming ?

 

Once the new Code of practice comes into force again they will all have to record when they send out their PCNS etc. S8[1][2e]

"

Therefore parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)"

I take it from that that  the government are aware that the rogues are maybe not always accurate in their posting especially with the 14 day rule. 

It's a shame they didn't push for the rogues to record their incoming mail since so many critical documents from motorists "appear" to go missing, some on a regular basis, with no seeming improvement. 

[Nicky Boy]

I know we always bang on about getting proof of posting to  motorists.

Conversely would "proof of posting" be an effective weapon to use against them.

 

How much weight is actually given by Judges on "evidence of posting"?

 

Enough to discount/ignore letters for which they have no proof of posting?

 

If so, probably all of their snail mail evidence could be thrown out.

 

.

[dx100uk]

their system would show letters were generated, that would be good enough and has been in debt cases.

the only 'diffence' is a default notice on debts, a screen shot from 'a system' not necessarily that of the original creditor, is NOT proof of a DN beingsent and has lost DCA claimant many claims or they have discontinued the claim.

 

now how the equates to what letters etc might equate in terms of like importance in a speculative invoive speculative court claim, could be worth of exploring.

 

what would we deem as a must be sent doc from them that could be argued likewise as a dn? in importance of proof of actually being sent?

[Nicky Boy]

The only "important" documents that spring to my mind would be the original PCN / NTK and the paploc.

All other correspondence really just constitutes "noise".

[dx100uk]

well they dont HAVe to send a paploc its just a browny point to any defendant to mention that they haven't complied with PAP.

 

now as 100'000's of default judgement have been gained over the years, and a good few a set aside too, not once has any judge ever questioned for them to provide proof PCN/NTK WAS ever sent , so i think its a dead duck imho.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Are you saying dx that it is ok to take a motorist to court but not tell them the date of the case? And they must provide the keeper with the original PCN at some time before the case to see if it is compliant and to inform  the defendant what part of the contract was breached.

[dx100uk]

9 minutes ago, lookinforinfo said:

Are you saying dx that it is ok to take a motorist to court but not tell them the date of the case? - yes happens all the time because people move and do not inform who they should that they have, it is quite legal for a claimant to raise the claim to an old address and thus northants bulk serve the court claimform to the same...thats why its called northants bulk  (its not a real court - no judges at all) ...no humans involved at all 99.9% automated. no human checks anything. always been the way its why NB was created.

 

And they must provide the keeper with the original PCN at some time before the case to see if it is compliant - they already would have sent it to their old address.

 

and to inform the defendant what part of the contract was breached. - if the claim is not defended , then the statement that a contract has been breached, (the reason for the court claim) is already mentioned in their POC.

 

dx

[Nicky Boy]

So, are we saying there's no recourse at all for a defendant who pays £275 for a set aside on an unjust default judgment?

[dx100uk]

no you have to prove its an unjustifiable default judgement.

 

there are two simple Criteria that have to be met for a set aside of a default judgement:

1. why did the defendant not receive the claimform?

2. do they have a reasonable defence against the original claim.?

 

in the 1st instance,

if the defendant did not receive the claimform through no fault of their own but of a fault by the claimant : i&e was sent to an old address when it is provable they knew the correct one. job done.

 

with regard to a defence that would stand up in court:

forget all paperwork 'wriggles' or legal wriggles, too late for those, the default judgement trumps all those, in the same way having no signed/enforceable agreement on say a credit card. judgement has been made..too late.

forget any the driver/keeper issue, again its been judged it now doesn't matter who was driving.

 

there would need to be provable evidence that indicated: say....

the PPC had no enforceable contract with the land owner,

the defendant can prove the car was not there at said timings.

 

now issues relating to the driver did not exceed timings or did pay but a simple wrong reg input at a machine might cut it.

 

but all the above , as can be seen in the set asides already here have to be water tight.

 

now at the initial set aside hearing, which is only a short 15mins one, if the set aside creteria is met and cuts the mustard and is granted, its then basically reset to if the defendant HAD received the initial claimform and all arguments about whatever are then fair game, as in any normal PCN claimform thread already here.

 

but it's getting to that point is the mountain, and issues about prove the claimant DID send PCN/NTK/whatever are until then totally immaterial.

 

i'll make one other point, before i go , and that is something behind the scenes that myself and others have mentioned .... in recent times we appear to have had so so many thicko's with PPC court issues that just dont seem to have any braincells in their head and dont even seem to have the most basic intelligence nor possess pickup or help themselves at all.

 

the nursemaiding of even the use of simple instruction files or Q&A stickies that 1000's have used is getting bad. would you trust these users to not actually be telling the whole truth or even be capable of arguing the finer points of ppc laws in court in front of a judge.....urm.. fast thinking its better to p'haps go back to the old advice. if it doesnt look like a set aside is possible, bearing in mind it will cost @£275...it's cheaper to pay the CCJ off. ok its still there for 6yrs regardless, but one satisfied CCJ doesn't really harm things, even mortgages in this present financial times.

 

don't get me wrong, if there's a genuine 100% case of a win, we'll be there all guns firing, but in terms of the overall picture, 100's of hours of work are being put into some dead ducks recently, it maybe time to reevaluate where our time is most goodly used.

 

dx

 

[Nicky Boy]

Thanks for such a comprehensive post dx.

Seemingly, there's little to be done against claims or default judgments that materialise out of thin air.

 

I completely take the point about "certain users" not helping themselves and needing excessive nursemaiding.

 

Some genuinely need the extra help and I think we can spot them.

 

It's just difficult to stop trying to help the time-sucking dumbo's and lazy types (who shall be nameless)