Excel / BW Legal - CCJ Issued: Set-Aside Fightback

I don't have a formal response prepared, so just email BW and inform them I am applying for a set-aside and to not take further action?

Then, the same to the court?

I can then complete the N244 as outlined in some of the posts you referred to - that's fine.

There seems to be conflicting info on paying within 1 month. One source says it will stay on your record. Another says the claimant is repsonsible for asking for the CCJ to be removed from my records - or failing that, I request to the court at a cost of £15.

Does anyone have any clear understanding of this?


If I pursue my case, then as previously mentioned I feel it could be weak:
- I admitted being driver at POPLA, Excel aware.
- The site is now a building site, so I'm relying on the POPLA evidence pack not my own pictures etc. Can't point out lighting at night or font size easily now.
- I moved from my previous address - Excel should not have known. A key point in getting a set-aside I believe?

All I've read from the Newbies section and elsewhere although is very informative... almost all haven't been stupid enough to admit driver liability. And seem to have more solid evidence/mitigating circumstances than myself.

All I have is photographic proof of my 2 pay&display tickets on my dash (not close-up on the valid one) and the original tickets. Which in a simple world would be enough, but the legal world seems to operate on much finer details - so much it almost seems invalid to me!

Again, really appreciate any responses. (Thanks again Coupon-mad - keep up the good work!)

I've now drafted the Witness Statement to attach to the N244 form (also complete as per Coupon mad's guide).

I am (name) and I am the Defendant in this matter.
This my supporting Statement in support of my application dated 18/05/2017 to:
• Set aside the Default Judgement dated xx/xx/xxxx as it was not properly served at my current address;
• Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

1. Default Judgement

1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in May 2017. However, this claim form has not been served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Claim Form or Default Judgement until xx/xx/xxxx (last week). I understand that this Claim was served at an old address (2xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx). However, I moved to a new address in September 2015. In support of this I can provide confirmation from xxxx Council showing my updated details for the purposes of paying Council tax.

1.5. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s correct contact details. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

1.6. On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim.

1.7. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim properly. I thus believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside.

2. Order dismissing the Claim

2.1. I refute the Claimant's case that I, quote: 'Parked after the expiry of time in a pay & display car park' as alleged in the Notice to Keeper, PCN No: xxxxxxx. I have proof that this is wholly untrue, in the form of the original copies of two pay & display tickets that afford parking provision to myself at the time time of the alleged contravention. Please refer to Evidence xxxx which is a pay &
display ticket valid from 02:00 until 14:00 on 01/01/14. The alleged contravention occurred at 08:45 on 01/01/14. The claim issued in the Notice to Keeper is therefore void by any reasonable view, understanding or interpretation and as such has no standing in a court of law and should be fully dismissed as having no basis for any claim in the first instance.

2.2. In relation to the pay & display ticket that the contravention was issued against (Evidence xxxx), this was purchased on the 31/12/2013, valid from 20:00 until 08:00 on 01/01/21014. However, the car park does not require a valid ticket between the hours of 19:00 and 06:00 (See Tarrif Board Evidence xxxx), therefore I argue the original ticket should have been valid from 06:00 until 18:00 on 01/01/2014, or alternatively, that no charge was made to myself at the time of arrival. As a charge was made, it could be argued that contrary to there being a loss incurred by the parking company or landowner, that they did infact profit more from my stay than appropriate.

2.3. I further believe that the original Claim by the Claimant has no merit and should thus be dismissed. I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist.

2.4. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that this any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. There was no Notice affixed to the keeper's car (Evidence photo xxxx) and the Notice to Keeper did not arrive until more than one calendar month post hoc, on the xx/02/2014. Thus I submit the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against me as the Registered Keeper in any case.

2.5. I further submit that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:

2.5.1. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is unlikely to be the landowner of the car park in question, and will have no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, will have no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder, and only they would have been able sue for any damages or trespass.
2.5.2. No Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged
breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any motorist of the vehicle of which I am the Registered Keeper. I further submit that the landholder (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) received twice the statutory payment from myself, and thus there was no loss whatsoever incurred by the landowner.
2.5.3. Claimed charge is an Unenforceable Penalty: I further submit that the Parking Charge that the Claimant claimed, given it is not based on any loss suffered due to the alleged breach, is nothing but an unenforceable penalty.
2.5.4. No contract with the claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the Claimant to the motorist; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the motorist to Excel Parking Services Ltd.

2.6. Furthermore, in December 2016 Justice Minister Sir Oliver Heald announced a consultation and information campaign to help protect consumers. This was done on behalf of the government, specifically relating to the need for regulation changes to protect consumers. A direct quote from the official gov.uk website explains; "The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses. Ministers say that is unacceptable and will consult on ways to protect people from having their credit ratings affected despite being unaware of the claims made against them. They will also examine to what extent unscrupulous debt agencies have contributed to the problem."

2.7. On this basis I believe that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.


That's everything. I welcome any and all constructive criticism. Failing that, tell me what's a load of xxxx! and I will try to amend.

Thanks for the feedback again.
Can I not argue a the point in 2.4 that they didn't comply with the dates for NTK then?
Having said that, this argument was adjusted from Saggi's excellent wording (I owe you one Saggi), the points in the 2012-2014 version states 14 days from keeper details received by PPC. Not sure if newer POFA can apply retrospectively.
Or it that just a definite no in any case?

Really liked the point you offered on Sir Oliver Herald, so much appreciated. I can tweak the overall wording for best effect.

Does this sound like a strong case?

PS I've since noticed a few possible points that could potentially undo this work. Would it be possible to share in a PM so as not to showy hand to any prying eyes... I'm sure any solicitor worth their salt will be aware of these forums.

Nope, you blew those toes off when appealing as driver. There are NO deadlines for you to argue now.

Tell me about it... full 12 gauge style!!
If that's the case, then I'll leave out as you recommend.
I did this at POPLA stage btw, not knowing the evidence was shared... (d'oh!).

No problem on the PM, it's understandable. Didn't want to ask really but it's more of something I hope the claimant doesn't notice. It may be irrelevant anyway but best omitted.

Moving forward with this, if I submit this today;
1. When should I hear back from the court?
2. Is fee only paid if set aside is granted?
3. Is the above WS an exhaustive list of my defence, or can I add other points prior to the hearing?
4. How do I go about getting the set aside fee back? And is this likely?

As unpopular as it might be, I'd like to still leave the option open to pay and have CCJ removed. I now believe this should be straight forward.
Like I mentioned, the absolute key thing is to avoid a CCJ on my credit record!
Otherwise, saving myself the money and sticking it to BW/Excel are desirable but not as important.

Appreciate any quick tips on the above points. Sneaking in a quick post now but will only have a little time at lunch to research. And I usually end-up going round the houses with these sorts of things :')

Thanks Coupon. I did manage to speak to the Court on my Friday lunchtime and did answer some of the questions, although your comments make things even clearer.

Basically, my options/possible outcomes are as follows;

1. Pay soon and remove CCJ by request to the court. Should be a formality and all this mess goes away.

2. Win set aside and be successful at hearing. Don't pay fine, probably pay set aside. About 'even' against my current situation. Possibly better, but not particularly high chances. A hopeful investment of time/money.

3. Win set aside then lose hearing. Could be twice as bad off - i.e. pay both set aside and fine with no recourse.

So on balance of the options, the most sane thing to do is pay up.
Granted it's what Excel / BW want. It's also annoying to let them get away with it.
However, the key thing being to avoid a CCJ - this will probably cost the same, as if I win the set aside. But there's no extra hassle.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Given the option to respond the CCJ initially, I'd have been all for it.
Now, with most likely the same 'cost' whichever way I turn (although there's potential to be both better or worse-off) it seems the smartest thing to do.
It seems although I can fight back, at this level it is massively against the defendant (aka victim...) to take legal recourse. Hopefully this will change with what's mentioned by Sir Heald.