Pcn ccj

Half_way wrote: »

A few more questions that may help us to help you:

1: do you know why the vehicle received a parking charge notice in the first place?
2: do you know where the vehicle picked up a parking charge notice?2b: do you know whose car park your vehicle was parked in when it received the parking charge notice?

I don't know the answers to any of this unfortunately - if I were to get that info from the court what should I do with it? check the signage, markings at that location etc. so anything not up to scratch can be included in my defence?

Ok I spoke to the court yesterday and they couldn't send me the claim form, they did email me the claim particulars but doesn't appear to be anything useful here.

[FONT=&quot]Ok so here's my 1st attempt at the supporting statement, any help advice is welcomed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I also want to ask around point 1.9. as after speaking to the council yesterday and getting email confirmation of when I was added to the electoral register it was after the default had been made - will this harm my chances or should I word 1.9. differently?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am xxx of xxx and I am the Defendant in this matter.
This is my Supporting Statement to support my application dated xx June 2017 to:
1. Set aside the Default Judgement dated 4th January 2017 as it was not properly served at my current address.
2. Order for the original claim to be dismissed
3. Order the claimant to pay the defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee

1. DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

1.1. I understand that the claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in January 2017. These claim forms were not served at my current address and thus I was not aware of the Default Judgement until checking my credit rating on a website months later. I understand that the claims were served at an old address (xxx), however I have since moved and have been living at my current address since August 2017. In support of this I can provide a tenancy agreement signed by myself and my landlord dated the 26th August 2016. I also have confirmation from xxx Council showing my entry on the electoral register in March 2017 at my current address.

1.2. I have never received any previous documentation from the Claimant in this matter and I was never able to properly challenge the Claimant’s claim.

1.3. On the 21st March 2017 I contacted the Court to request further details of the Default Judgement.

1.4. I have made several unsuccessful attempts to contact a member of the Claimants staff, both via telephone (22/03/2017, 24/03/2017, 05/05/2017, 24/05/2017, 30/05/2017) and post (24/04/2017 and 09/05/2017),using the details provided to me by the County Court Business Centre.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1.5. On the 12th June 2017 I again contacted the court to ask them to provide me with a copy of the claim form, which was not available.

1.6. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing the claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendants current and 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.

1.7. Prime Minister Theresa May publicly pledged to investigate “abuse” of the CCJ System and so called “Credit Clamping” as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.8. Additionally on the 23rd of December 2016 the Justice Minister Sir Oliver Heald announced a consultation into this “unacceptable” practice of issuing claims to consumers using old addresses.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]1.9. On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendants current address when bringing the claim.

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

2. ORDER DISMISSING THE CLAIM

2.1. I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” which the Claimant believes are due because of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist.

2.2. If the Claimant has obtained details of the vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, and used those details to make a claim for a “Parking Charge Notice”, I thus dispute the claim in its entirety as I do not know the wording of the contract nor do I know the means by which the contract was alleged to come into force.

2.3. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which I am the Registered Keeper, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant would have needed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant cannot provide such evidence and further submit that the Claimant does not include ‘Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’ wording on the Parking Charge Notices they issue and therefore cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.

2.4. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since I have not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the Default Judgement, 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.4.1. Additionally the British Motorist Protection Association says of claims issued by the Claimant that there is “clearly no intention of these seeing the inside of court”, and describes the claimant as “misusing the court process to frighten people”. I submit that this supports the above assertion that the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

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 any loss to the landholder (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be at most a few pounds.
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 Civil Enforcement Ltd.
2.6. 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.[/FONT]