Default CCJ - 9 'PCNs' - Homeguard/14 Services - Help!?

S3JOJ

How easy/difficult is it to get that info from DVSA? I want to be as thorough as poss before applying for the set-aside but it's dragging on a bit now and I don't want that to go against me.

Quentin

That info not needed for your set aside - just mention the issue in your bullet points for your defence.

S3JOJ

Quentin wrote: »

That info not needed for your set aside - just mention the issue in your bullet points for your defence.

How would I go about that? As a final point? Can I speculate that i believe they may not have looked up my details for each PCN individually?

- For the reasons stated above, it is my belief that the claimant had no cause to process my personal data, did not go through due process to obtain my data for each PCN in turn and is therefore in breach of the Data Protection Act (1998).

Quentin

When you apply for a set aside your proposed defence doesn't get tested in full.


You just need to have a bullet point list of headings you will use in your defence in the event that the case is started from scratch to demonstrate to the set aside judge that you do have a defence

Coupon-mad

S3JOJ wrote: »

How would I go about that? As a final point? Can I speculate that i believe they may not have looked up my details for each PCN individually?

- For the reasons stated above, it is my belief that the claimant had no cause to process my personal data, did not go through due process to obtain my data for each PCN in turn and is therefore in breach of the Data Protection Act (1998).

Yes I would include that.

S3JOJ

Right, unless y'all have anything else to add I'm going to enclose the following with my set-aside application:

My name is XXX, the defendant in this claim.

It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle noted at the times of the alleged breaches.
However, the claimant has no cause of action against the defendant on the following grounds:-

1. Notwithstanding that the claimant claims no right to pursue the defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver.

2. The claimant alleges that the car was parked “in breach of terms and conditions” with conflicting specifics “Not Parked in an authorised Parking bay” and “Failure to display a valid permit” in the same location - as thus no valid breach has been established.

3. The proper claimant is the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a proper chain of contracts leading from the landholder to Homeguard Ltd.

4. Homeguard Ltd. are not the lawful occupier of the land. Absent a 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 right to bring action regarding this claim.

5. In Jopson vs Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E it was established by Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC in regards to a lease held on the same site as dealt with in this claim during the same time period, that the claimant could not impose its terms in conflict with the existing lease. This judgement can be logically extended to the tenancy agreement held by the defendant.

6. In both Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 and Link Parking v Ms P [2016] C7GF50J7 it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

7. The tenancy agreement held by the defendant for the length of tenancy, with no amendments in that period, in no way forbids parking in any part of the site, nor does it make any mention of the claimants authority to operate a parking scheme. It has come to my attention that in February 2017, a letter outlining amendments to the tenancy agreement in regards to parking changes was sent to current tenants, thus confirming that these changes were not properly communicated and agreed to previously by any tenant or leaseholder on the site, including the defendant.

8. Any such information regarding access or parking, that may, or may not, have been included in the lease of the property, were never communicated in any way to the defendant, and it stands to reason that this lease would have been similar if not identical to that dealt with in Jopson vs Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E; with judgement in favour of Jopson.

9. The signage around the site was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the standards of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) code of practice. The claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to this code of practice. Therefore, no contract has been formed with the driver(s) to pay £100 or any other fees.

10. No contract, terms and conditions or sum payable was ever accepted by any driver.

11. The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement or even any licence to park without a permit, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports my defence. The Beavis case establishes that a PCN can only be issued as a penalty in very narrow circumstances where a specific loss to the landowner has been occasioned, which clearly does not apply in this case. As a residential area, it is not possible to make a genuine pre-estimate of loss to any party, least of all the claimant.

12. Additionally, and for the reasons stated above, it is my belief that the claimant had no cause to process my personal data, did not go through due and fair process to obtain my data for each PCN and is therefore in breach of the Data Protection Act (1998).

13. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Thanks so much!

DoaM

Looks OK to me, except ... is there a separate form or section to explain why a set-aside is being sought? (Nothing there relates to a set-aside).

S3JOJ

DoaM wrote: »

Looks OK to me, except ... is there a separate form or section to explain why a set-aside is being sought? (Nothing there relates to a set-aside).

Yes there is!

The form will simply state that I'm seeking set-aside on the grounds that I didn't receive the papers and would have stood a good chance of defending the claim with this outline defence attached.

Coupon-mad

I would add a bit more here, to make it clear the Jopson case is an Appeal case (I saw a person on pepipoo remark that their Judge had dismissed/overlooked the relevance of Jopson as an authority, as he thought it was merely a first stage county court decision):

This judgement can be logically extended to the tenancy agreement held by the defendant and as it was at appeal level and was in regard to another resident at the same location, the Jopson case is persuasive authority on the County courts as well as being on all fours with my own case.

As for the N244, this (below) is the sort of thing I tell people to put to explain the Order being sought. You would have to continue into the blank space above the Statement of Truth as this is quite long but worth spelling out. Change anything I have got wrong, e.g. if you did receive a Letter of Claim, don't say you didn't:


1. I am giving this evidence as the Defendant in support of an application to set aside (ASAJ) the Default Judgement for the Claimant.
2. I did not receive a Claim Form. I also received no pre-action correspondence from the Claimant in this matter, such as a Letter of Claim. I now discover that the Claimant was using an address I left almost two years ago; an address from which I have no method of obtaining post, nor would I reasonably expect any post for me to be sent there after all this time.
3. As a result, I was completely unaware that a claim had been issued against me, and I had no opportunity to file an Acknowledgement of Service or to file a Defence to the claim.
4. I only became aware as the result of a credit check that a default CCJ was registered against me for several unwarranted 'PCNs' issued by Homeguard t/a 14 Services and after the shock of discovering this, I have promptly applied for this setting aside of the Default Judgement.
5. I believe that I was named as Defendant merely because I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Whilst I do not have full Particulars of the Claim, the sum is disputed in its entirety for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, those shown in the attached witness statement.
6. I wish to defend the claim fully. I believe that I have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim when furnished with the full particulars by the Claimant.
7. On this basis I believe that my application to set aside the Default Judgement should be granted.


******************************

As the file has never got past the Northampton Centre 'CCBC' which is where all MCOL claims start off, you need to send it there and/or email it all as well:

ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

post:

County Court Business Centre
St. Katharine’s House
21-27 St. Katharine’s Street
Northampton
Northamptonshire
NN1 2LH

S3JOJ

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Thank you for your continued assistance.

Possibly a stupid question but should I include the list you've suggested in the form and any that doesn't fit on a separate page? Or should I just say please turn over for evidence or something to that effect?

I don't suppose I could drop the final set of docs over to you by email for a quick scan could I?