Urgent: Got CCJ on my credit records

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would put a line or two, suggesting the basis upon which you would defend this, so the Judge can see that:

(2) That you have good prospects of successfully defending the claim at a hearing.

below is my defense for point 2 above.


2. Order dismissing the Claim or to be heard at a re-hearing:

So in light of the little information I have please find below.

2.1 It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incidents.

2.2 As the car mentioned in the particulars of claim was a company hire car which all company employees & others are insured to drive that car & the parking events / alleged breaches were more than 2 years ago, so nobody can remember who was driving. It’s strictly requested that PCM to provide any evidence of who the driver was.

2.3 All the roads in xxxx is public adopted and not privately owned / managed as per Management Plan drawing xxxx (Attached), so the claimant doesn’t has the right to force any private parking scheme.

2.4 There is no contract in force between the claimant & defendant as any defendant declined any attempting to be in a contract made by the claimant & Cancelation Of Contact Notice (COCN) dated xxxx sent to the claimant before issuing the charges in question. COCN letter, proof of post attached

2.5 The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
- No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant showing the PCN numbers mentioned in Letter Before Claim and no initial information was sent to the Defendant although it was requested. I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

2.6 The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, due date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors.

2.7 I have no idea at this stage whether I am being pursued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for this debt or whether this is for civil trespass. A parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

2.8 The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.
I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

2.9 Claimant & his representative should supply all the documents related to that case along with the contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus stand to bring this case.

2.10 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Also any interest added due to claimant failure to provide the right address of the defendant need to be cancelled.

2.11 The government have put in place a mechanism whereby liability can be transferred from driver to keeper, under the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, sch 4. The claimant has made the conscious decision not to avail themselves of this legislation and use a notice to keeper which fails to comply with 8.1, 8.2a, 8.2c, 8.2f, 8.8b, 9.2.a, 9.8b of the Act.

2.12 On the other hand it is believed that the Claimant may seek to rely on a rather
unique interpretation of the judgement in Elliott -v- Loake which is different from this case.

2.13 This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

2.14 The signs on site at the time of the alleged event were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution, wording, hight and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.

2.15 It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

2.16 The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons and I respectfully ask that the court dismiss the claim

Redx wrote: »

put SET ASIDE £255 into the forum search box and loads of threads pop up with explanations

Could any one please let me know the cases no. for Saggi1975 & edinh05 to refer in my set aside case.

Regards

Hi again all.
I got a hearing on Friday after the next. I got nothing from PCM / Gladstones, didn't hear any thing from them & the court just gave me the hearing day and will be for 15 mins only but didn't ask to submit any Witness Statement or documents.

Is that normal?. Do I need to do/ submit any thing to the court?.

Regards

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Are you sure they didnt want any submitted?

Your hearing letter will usually ask for documents to be exchanged. It is HIGHLY unusual for there to be niothing there.

Post a copy of your letter here. You will need to use "dead" links, i.e. change "http" to "hxxp".

It's set a side case & that made me confused if it's the same as small claim case.