Enforcing CCJ: address issue

[TD81]

Hi all,

Would appreciate any advice you have regarding the following situation:

I bought some vouchers from a retailer online, in July 2018, by debit card.

· I accidentally bought 2 vouchers instead of 1.I requested an immediate refund for the second voucher.

· After a week, I lodged a complaint with them for not actioning the refund. I then requested a refund for both vouchers, citing poor customer service.

· I demanded a refund, citing the "Consumer Contract Regulations Act of 2013".

· I called and emailed them weekly until mid-September, when they stated that the vouchers were actually non-refundable. I told them I would file a claim, they acknowledged this via email.

· I submitted a claim through the Small Claims Court. It was issued on the 20th Sept 2018. I used the Vendor's address as per the company website (instead of the one on Companies House)

· The Vendor did not respond, a CCJ was granted.

· I chased the Vendor for a response. On the 26th November, they responded to me, saying that they hadn't received the Claim notice since it hadn't gone to the address registered on Companies House. They said they had only just found the email from the Money Claims Service since it had gone into their Spam folder. They told me they would ask for the CCJ to be set aside and reheard.

· More than 2 weeks has elapsed since their last email. Money Claims have told me that the Vendor has not asked for the CCJ to be set aside.


I am not keen to request an address change for the claim, since this would cost me £100, which I understand would be non-refundable.

The vendor did acknowledge the claim more than 2 weeks ago, and the email he discovered on the 26th Nov would have given him all the relevant information about the claim (even though he hasn't received a paper copy in the post).

My questions:
1) Is his acknowledgment of the late receipt of the Money Claims email enough to show that he is aware of the claim, and has been aware for more than 2 weeks?
2) What's the best course of action in this circumstance, that doesn't involve me forking out for a fee (that the Vendor won't have to compensate me for even in the event of a victory).

Thanks for reading- and would appreciate any advice at all.

[R0b]

Hello

The rules on serving documents are set out in CPR 6.9 (link here) which says documents can be served at the principal office or another address where that address has a connection with the claim. If you found a contact address online then you could argue that the address displayed on the website sufficiently connected for the purposes of serving the claim form.

There is no legislation called the

Consumer Contract Regulations Act of 2013, but I think you might be referring to the

Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

It's not clear what the vendor means by finding an email from MCOL in their spam folder. The claim would have been issued in paper format as would any other orders from the Court. I am not aware of MCOL corresponding via email unless a specific email was sent to MCOL, unlikely, but not impossible. The fact that it was in the spam folder is arguable that it was nevertheless received and the vendor simply failed to monitor that folder. They were put on notice by you, and should have been aware that something was expected. Again, I'm not sure what the email is but the contact address you found online ought to have received the claim form. Whether someone chose not to action the claim form is not your problem, but the vendor's.

Courts require applicants to make applications to set aside a default judgment promptly upon becoming aware of it. I would say that if no application is done within 4 weeks then it is dangerously close to not being prompt.

The vendor should contact you in the first instance to seek consent in setting aside the judgment. You can reuse if there are valid grounds for doing so but you should not unreasonably refuse consent as courts will take a dim view of that. You could always consent on the basis that the vendor bears their own cost including the cost of the application.

If the vendor submitted an application to set aside and subsequently won, it is possible that you are liable for costs. That might depend on their conduct and whether they sought your consent first prior to making the application.

[TD81]

Hi Rob

Yes- you are right re the legislation name- thanks for highlighting this.

I spoke to MCOL this morning, they confirmed that they sent an email which details the next steps the defendant should take, as well as a link to the claim.

The Vendor has now changed the address on their website. It was done after I highlighted to them that I used the website address, which differed from the registered address. It's been just over 2 weeks since the vendor told me they would apply for the CCJ to be set aside. Sounds like I should give them a couple more weeks before my next move.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

[R0b]

Did you take a screenshot of the website prior to them changing it? They might argue that the address you used was never on the website - might sound a bit far-fetched but some companies will do whatever is necessary. If you haven't got a screenshot, you should make a note of when you became aware of the change.

You could also try getting a copy of the site by seeing if Google has cached that page - a useful website for this is https://cachedviews.com/

[TD81]

Thanks Rob. I checked out the cached pages via the sites you suggested. They address they used to have was an incomplete version of the registered address (the correct building but no flat number). It doesn't have the address I listed on the complaint- I must have made a mistake by assuming otherwise. The address I used was their contact address at some stage (it comes up as the Vendor's address on www.addressesandpostcodes.co.uk)- although I can understand that won't come across well from a legal perspective.

I may submit the n316a form as a next step. The Vendor explained in his most recent email that there was no point sending around court-appointed bailiffs, since everything in their office belonged to another company (who is a shareholder in the business). There is a part in that form where I can detail that the Vendor has been aware of the claim since November, when he acknowledged the email.