Set aside CCJ sent to old address for own space parking

1505grandad

There are a number of times you have written the wrong spelling for “Judgment”.  I.e. no middle “e” in this context.

dan0116

You might get a different Judge than the set aside one, and yes they MIGHT award the costs from the first hearing and/or the £255 fee if you convince the Judge with a list of how their claimant's conduct has been 'wholly unreasonable' from start to finish.  So, add the £255 and your costs for the first CCJ hearing under the unreasonableness costs that you wish to claim in full, 'on the indemnity basis' to return you to the position you were in pre-litigation.

If you don't ask you don't get.  

However, reaching that high bar of unreasonableness is a hard one to meet, very hard.  I convinced a Judge once about it and she was with me (StubbornGoat's thread, with £1500 costs being sought!) but she didn't grant the indemnity costs on the technicality/excuse that the costs assessment was only filed 48 hrs before (which is fine in fact but she thought it was an ambush).

Thanks again, I've added the extra costs from the last hearing as I suppose if you don't ask you don't get as you say. I've also tailored the costs summary costs assessment to bring it slightly more in line with the N260 form. The declaration on that, which is signed and dated reads:

The costs stated above do not exceed the costs which the [party] is liable to pay in respect of the work which this statement covers. Counsel’s fees and other expenses have been incurred in the amounts stated above and will be paid to the persons stated. 

Would this work for my purposes? 
The costs stated above do not exceed the costs which the defendant has incurred in relation preparation of submissions and attendance of court hearings in relation to this claim. 

Also thanks 1505grandad. I've amended the spelling mistakes.

Does anyone else have any further comments?

Coupon-mad

The declaration on that, which is signed and dated reads:
The costs stated above do not exceed the costs which the [party] is liable to pay in respect of the work which this statement covers. Counsel’s fees and other expenses have been incurred in the amounts stated above and will be paid to the persons stated. 

Change that to say the costs stated above are proportionate and reflect the time reasonably spent in respect of the work which this statement covers.  The heads of cost and total has been assessed by the Defendant and meets CPR 46.5 for litigant in person costs and doesn't exceed two-thirds...  yadda yadda!

https://www.diylaw.co/articles/2018/6/12/what-costs-can-you-recover-as-a-litigant-in-person

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/benchmarks/costs-and-litigants-in-person/5038419.article

dan0116

Coupon-mad said:
Change that to say the costs state above are proportionate and reflect the time reasonably spent in respect of the work which this statement covers.  The heads of cost and total has been assessed by the Defendant and meets CPR 46.5 for litigant in person costs and doesn't exceed two-thirds...  yadda yadda!

https://www.diylaw.co/articles/2018/6/12/what-costs-can-you-recover-as-a-litigant-in-person

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/benchmarks/costs-and-litigants-in-person/5038419.article

Thanks, I've updated the summary of costs in line with the above.

Perhaps a silly question but I've ordered, stapled and added tabs to the copy for the court so it's easy for the judge to navigate. I assume there's no benefit in doing this for the claimant, and rather it makes more sense to just print everything off in the list I've referenced in my WS and let them was their time deciphering it as they wish? I don't have headings such as "exhibit x" on each exhibit but have added lettered tabs for the judge's version.

DoaM

You don't have to make it easy for the claimant ... as long as the content is the same between them then that's fine.

henrik777

Just do it. It'll only slow proceedings down and perhaps not win you any friends (claimant, meh: judge, you want friendly)

dan0116

My hearing is supposed is to go ahead on 29/05, however I've received no notification that it will now be over telephone which is worrying given the information on here. I've emailed and phoned the court but had no reply yet.

I've received the witness statement from UKPC which is based on the following three points.

i) They have landowner authority to ticket as they have presented a contract between them and a supposed management company detailing their engagement to provide parking enforcement services and issue PCNs etc.

Notably this management company isn't the one named on the original lease and they haven't proved that this company has landowner authority to engage them. There's no evidence that the owners of the apartments have been notified of the new T&Cs of parking, nor that 75% have agreed to the T&Cs. UKPC argues the lease allows for certain amendments to the terms to allow for the proper management of the building and so their engagement doesn't require notifying the owners of the apartments. Either way there should be some notification to the residents but there is none except the signs in the car park

ii) They say the signage is notification enough and that the terms on it are clear and enforceable. They provide no images of the actual signs in my car park that are legible; for all of the ones on the dates of the incidents  all you can read is "UKPC - No unauthorised parking" as they're too blurry and the text is too small. They have provided examples of their signs that are clearly the PDF versions that are all clear and blown up. Given my defence was sent before they presented these example signs surely I can argue that they could have inserted any terms they wanted in these examples to help rebuff my defence, including mentioning the extra £60, making sure it was worded as an offer etc? I can't see how an example of a sign they have created, that they say is the same as the one in the car park at the time 6 years ago, could be used as evidence. 

They say the extra £60 charge is enforceable as it was mentioned on the sign. My understanding is that this extra £60 amounts to a penalty, and an attempt at double recovery regardless of whether they mentioned it on the sign or not.

iii) I appealed one of the four PCNs as my permit had fallen from the window and stated as such. They say that me having tried to display a permit is evidence that I knew the T&Cs and agreed to be contractually bound by them. I would argue that my letting agent gave me the pass and I put it in the car, but I wasn't aware of the penalties for non-compliance, or that this was an absolute requirement. Again there is no evidence of this having been communicated to me other than the signs.

Does anyone have any words of wisdom on the above points before my hearing? Any advice at all would be much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

They say the extra £60 charge is enforceable as it was mentioned on the sign. My understanding is that this extra £60 amounts to a penalty, and an attempt at double recovery regardless of whether they mentioned it on the sign or not.

That's true.  Did you put in the transcript of the Southampton case to explain that reasoning, plus  the CRA 2015 sch2 (with paras 6, 10 and 14 highlighted) and the POFA sch4, plus the Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198 that state that the parking charge as a breakdown, is only justified because it already includes the costs?

dan0116

Coupon-mad said:

They say the extra £60 charge is enforceable as it was mentioned on the sign. My understanding is that this extra £60 amounts to a penalty, and an attempt at double recovery regardless of whether they mentioned it on the sign or not.

That's true.  Did you put in the transcript of the Southampton case to explain that reasoning, plus  the CRA 2015 sch2 (with paras 6, 10 and 14 highlighted) and the POFA sch4, plus the Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198 that state that the parking charge itself is justified because it already includes the costs?

Hi Coupon-mad, yes I included in a document comprised of the Southampton transcript and two judgements from Skipton and Warwick respectively in my witness statement, so thanks again for providing that... quite literally.  All of these reference that the £60 is not recoverable under POFA nor with respect to the Beavis case. They also reference that the £60 is an example of an unfair term under CRA sch2. I also attached copies of POFA and CRA.

My main worry is on point ii), if they agree that because I had displayed a permit on some occasions I knew about the scheme and agreed to be bound by it, and the penalties it included.

Also any thoughts on the fact that the sign they provided isn't actually the one that was displayed in the car park? Surely they need actual proper evidence of the signs that were there on the day? They have provided two copies of signs that are documents rather than photographs. Helpfully there are wording inconsistencies between them and no doubt they won't be able to point to which example is of the ones were on display that day, albeit they both do reference the £60.

henrik777

Evidence is evidence.

You either challenge it or you don't.

I don't like that evidence is not a challenge.


The claimant sent x, i have what the claimant sent, it's y not x. The judge picks a winner. That may be the one with the BEST evidence or it may simply be the most credible witness.