DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 39416--------------------------------------------------
"The Judgment has been set aside"
DIR By: bz.08
Date: October 4, 2024, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
In June, I got a claim form from the legal representatives of a
parking enforcement company regarding a private parking ticket.
In response to this, I submitted the "Acknowledgment of Service"
N9 response pack. I received no further communication from the
court or legal firm since.
Last week I received an email from CaseProgression.CNBC at
justice.gov.uk simply stating that "the Judgment has been set
aside" (with no further details). I replied asking them to
clarify what this actually means but have had no reply from them
yet.
Does this mean the claim has been "cancelled"/struck out of
court and I don't have to worry about it anymore?
Thanks,
#Post#: 39428--------------------------------------------------
Re: "The Judgment has been set aside"
DIR By: b789
Date: October 4, 2024, 11:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No. There has been a lot of confusion and misplacing of claims
and AoS and defences recently. What was happening was that
defendants were submitting their AoS and/or defence and it was
getting mislaid by the CNBC. The Claimants were requesting
judgments by default because the AoS or defence hadn't been fled
(it had).
The CNBC has realised that it screwed up because the defendants
had proof of having sent their AoS or defence (especially when
they had been sent by email) and many complaints were sent. They
were even paying compensation of around £250 a pop because of
the stress this had been causing defendants who were suddenly
receiving CCJs out of the blue.
More recently, they have been cleaning up their own mess,
probably because it was getting far too expensive with all the
components payouts and they weren't getting any revenue from the
N244 applications for set asides as it was their own fault in
the first place.
Now they are discovering these administrative errors and fixing
them automatically.
However, in this case, I am somewhat worried that you say that
you did the AoS and nothing else. Did you not submit a defence
also? Have you been on to the MCOL site and looked at your MCOL
history?
Did you actually submit a defence using the MCOL when you did
your AoS?
The claim is not cancelled or struck out. It was judged in
default because of an administrative error. That CCJ has now
been set aside and you should expect an N180 DQ at some stage.
If you submitted your defence using the MCOL webform, then
please show us the Particulars of Claim (PoC) of the claim and
exactly what you put in as your defence. Also, who is the
claimant and who, if anyone, is their solicitor?
Please answer the questions.
#Post#: 39437--------------------------------------------------
Re: "The Judgment has been set aside"
DIR By: bz.08
Date: October 4, 2024, 11:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> No. There has been a lot of confusion and misplacing of claims
and AoS and defences recently. What was happening was that
defendants were submitting their AoS and/or defence and it was
getting mislaid by the CNBC. The Claimants were requesting
judgments by default because the AoS or defence hadn't been fled
(it had).
>
> The CNBC has realised that it screwed up because the
defendants had proof of having sent their AoS or defence
(especially when they had been sent by email) and many
complaints were sent. They were even paying compensation of
around £250 a pop because of the stress this had been causing
defendants who were suddenly receiving CCJs out of the blue.
>
> More recently, they have been cleaning up their own mess,
probably because it was getting far too expensive with all the
components payouts and they weren't getting any revenue from the
N244 applications for set asides as it was their own fault in
the first place.
>
> Now they are discovering these administrative errors and
fixing them automatically.
>
> However, in this case, I am somewhat worried that you say that
you did the AoS and nothing else. Did you not submit a defence
also? Have you been on to the MCOL site and looked at your MCOL
history?
>
> Did you actually submit a defence using the MCOL when you did
your AoS?
>
> The claim is not cancelled or struck out. It was judged in
default because of an administrative error. That CCJ has now
been set aside and you should expect an N180 DQ at some stage.
>
> If you submitted your defence using the MCOL webform, then
please show us the Particulars of Claim (PoC) of the claim and
exactly what you put in as your defence. Also, who is the
claimant and who, if anyone, is their solicitor?
>
> Please answer the questions.
>
--- End Quote ---
Damn. I totally misinterpreted that then! Thanks for the
clarification.
So long story short, I had a few claims from different claimants
regarding different alleged private parking contraventions all
arrive between January-June of this year. I followed the advice
from this forum to file an AoS, then a defence etc. I did it all
via email as I had problems getting into MCOL because of account
issues with Government Gateway. So I have not actually seen the
MCOL history for any of them.
With regards to this particular one (that the thread is about),
it seems like I somehow was stupid enough to not submit the
defence. Not sure how this slipped under my radar as I knew I
was supposed to do so. I have not had any communication since
then except the email last week stating that "the judgment has
been set aside". What are my options given my failure to submit
a defence on time and given their cockup?
On a side note, on another claim, I submitted an AoS and then
the Defence a few weeks later. I did not do anything else but I
have not heard back on this one either (since March). Did I mess
this other claim up too?
#Post#: 39440--------------------------------------------------
Re: "The Judgment has been set aside"
DIR By: b789
Date: October 4, 2024, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Without knowing more detail, it is difficult to know. Who are
the claimants and their bulk litigators, if they're using one?
When you emailed your AoS and defence, did you receive an
auto-response from the CNBC? If not, there is a high likelihood
that your email was not processed.
Have you checked your credit file using Experian or any other
credit reference agency for default CCJs you may to be aware of?
The procedure, once the claim has been defended is you receive a
letter from the CNBC telling you that a copy of your defence as
been sent to the claimant. The claimant then is supposed to
respond to the defence. Normally that is a letter to you saying
that the claimant intends to proceed with the claim. Eventually,
you receive an N180 DQ that has to completed and sent back to
the CNBC and copied to the claimant (or their solicitor if
they're using one). In due course, the claim is transferred to
your local court where you receive orders on what to do next and
when the hearing date is and when the deadline for submitting
your WS.
If you've submitted a defence and not heard anything back for
many months, then it is likely that the claim is "stayed" and
the claimant would have to apply to the court and pay a fee to
request the stay is lifted. You would be copied into the
application and could object to the lifting of go the stay and
ask the court to strike out the claim.
Som if you want assistance, we need to know all the timelines of
each claim, a picture of the Particulars of Claim (PoC) for each
claim, who the claimants are and who is representing them, what
you actually put in as your defence and any responses from the
court or the claimant since.
I really, if there is more than one claim and it is for a
different claimant, then a separate thread for each is advised
to prevent confusion.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1