CCJ and my Credit Score- All correspondence sent to address from 2013

Half_way

zebrarose wrote: »

OK, POPLA email sent the other day.


Now to look at setting the CCJ aside. I'm still a bit too poor to afford it right now, but I am right in saying the longer it sits, the worse it is...?

The longer it sits, the greater the risk of enforcement action being taken. Also form what i understand there may be a tie windows that you need to look into.
Do you know where the original parking ticket that generated the CCJ was picked up?
I would be looking into a strong complaint to whoever took on the PPC to act as their agents, and also for a request for them to help with funding the set aside as a result of their agents actions.

zebrarose

So I've found the parking pranksters post about completing the set aside form N244 and completed the form (x2). Tomorrow I will be compiling the witness statement and getting a money order from the post office for the £255.00. I also have to call the money claims centre to get the claim number, judgement date and amount. Just to ask, the tenancy agreement didn't say anything about parking or permits, communal area or being varied. Am I missing anything before I post this off? Also, I shall post the witness statement here before sending for anybody to check over.

zebrarose

I really would have applied sooner but I had a failed reference check (due to CCJ- £175 down the loo), property searching, a house move, deposit dispute, lack of funds due to the deposit dispute with a letting agent (another scammer!), job change, UKPC rubbish to deal with. Significant personal issues along with mental health issues

zebrarose

https://1drv.ms/w/s!Apr4KxqM2VPBjVCIGI1N4ykNRoxM

Note bubbles attached on the side of the document- just click to read them

The above is my witness statement so far. I would like to add the below in (if relevant):
Misuse of private information, breach of data protection act section 13 damage and distress.
My own personal integrity, autonomy were damaged (re: failed reference check).
Lack of due diligence (my full details were on the PC system- parking permit, part address was on the appeal letter, previous correspondence with PC via email- the appeal).

Can I use copies of my previous drivers licences with all of my previous addresses as evidence as i genuinely thought that I was doing the right thing. I know now that it my V5 I need to update.

Is it relevant that Advantis were able to locate my current address even though they had the address that P&PM were using? Further proving lack of due diligence?

Coupon-mad

zebrarose wrote: »

I really would have applied sooner but I had a failed reference check (due to CCJ- £175 down the loo), property searching, a house move, deposit dispute, lack of funds due to the deposit dispute with a letting agent (another scammer!), job change, UKPC rubbish to deal with. Significant personal issues along with mental health issues

Tell your MP about this parking ticket scam, once this is all over. It is WRONG that people like you are still being 'credit-clamped'by notorious parking firms the Government knows all about.

zebrarose

zebrarose wrote: »

So I've found the parking pranksters post about completing the set aside form N244 and completed the form (x2). Tomorrow I will be compiling the witness statement and getting a money order from the post office for the £255.00. I also have to call the money claims centre to get the claim number, judgement date and amount. Just to ask, the tenancy agreement didn't say anything about parking or permits, communal area or being varied. Am I missing anything before I post this off? Also, I shall post the witness statement here before sending for anybody to check over.

zebrarose wrote: »

https://1drv.ms/w/s!Apr4KxqM2VPBjVCIGI1N4ykNRoxM

Note bubbles attached on the side of the document- just click to read them

The above is my witness statement so far. I would like to add the below in (if relevant):
Misuse of private information, breach of data protection act section 13 damage and distress.
My own personal integrity, autonomy were damaged (re: failed reference check).
Lack of due diligence (my full details were on the PC system- parking permit, part address was on the appeal letter, previous correspondence with PC via email- the appeal).

Can I use copies of my previous drivers licences with all of my previous addresses as evidence as i genuinely thought that I was doing the right thing. I know now that it my V5 I need to update.

Is it relevant that Advantis were able to locate my current address even though they had the address that P&PM were using? Further proving lack of due diligence?

Any thought to the above Coupon Mad?
I am also compiling an evidence pack just in case it goes to second hearing and doesn't get set aside initially, but I suppose we will cross that bridge when we get to it...


Thank you for all of you help thus far.

zebrarose

:money:
I will let MP know as soon as this set aside is all over and done with. It is so stressful

DollyDee_2

zebrarose

In your Witness Statement - Default Judgement, Paragraph 1.1, your state you moved to a new address on 09/06/17 - should this be 2016?

Also, the Supreme Court gave (final) Judgement for Parkingeye v Beavis on 4th November 2015, so something needs amending there or maybe not including at all? One of the regular experts will have to advise you on that.

DollyDee

Coupon-mad

DollyDee is right as ever, remove this, which you must have got from a very old 2015 WS (too old to be copying from):

2.8. 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. I understand that there is currently a Court of Appeal case pending between the Claimant and another party (the case details are Case Reference: B2/2014/2010 Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis) and this case is to be heard in February 2015. In this appeal it is argued that the Claimant’s charges are penalties and can thus not be enforced against motorists. I would suggest that, should the court consider that the charges may be enforceable, on this basis this claim should at least be stayed pending the outcome of this Court of Appeal case.

You should replace it with a paragraph stating that this case case be fully distinguished from the Beavis case. You should be able to find recent examples of what to say about that, by searching the forum for:

'Beavis distinguished complex'

or maybe:

'Beavis distinguished Lord Mance'

zebrarose

is it this you're referring to?

16. This claimant may try to rely upon the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, regarding disproportionate charges. However, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court's decisions during the course of that case do not support this claim at all. Beavis was a matter concerning an unusual enforcement regime and location, offering a free licence to park followed after 2 hours, by a charge. Indeed at the Court of Appeal stage the Judges stated that the 'free licence to park' regime was the factor which made that case 'completely different' from ordinary transactional contracts where a sum of money owed can be easily quantified. I suggest, exactly as in my case, where a mere 10p has been quantified as the sum in dispute and surely any reasonable person would consider £100 (and certainly this vastly inflated claim) to be 'extravagant' and out of all proportion.

17. The Supreme Court Judges did not disagree with the court of Appeal about ordinary economic contracts and found that such disputes may still be determined by using Lord Dunedin's 'four tests' for defining an unrecoverable penalty, which continues to have useful application in such cases where the facts could be distinguished from the Beavis case, where the Judges held:

- at 32: ''The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation. The innocent party can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance.
In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''

- and, continued Lord Neuberger: ''as Lord Dunedin himself acknowledged, the essential question was whether the clause impugned was “unconscionable” or “extravagant”. The four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts.''

- and at 99: ''…deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract...the question whether a contractual provision is a penalty turns on the construction of the contract.’’

- Lord Mance at 143: ''The qualification and safeguard is that the agreed sum must not have been extravagant, unconscionable or incommensurate with any possible interest in the maintenance of the system.’’

- Lord Mance at 152: ''What is necessary in each case is to consider, first, whether any (and if so what) legitimate business interest is served and protected by the clause, and, second, whether, assuming such an interest to exist, the provision made for the interest is nevertheless in the circumstances extravagant, exorbitant or unconscionable.''

18. In ParkingEye v Cargius A0JD1405 (Wrexham County Court), transcript appended as Exhibit xx, a pay and display car park was held to be completely different from the Beavis case which was on its well-publicised journey through the courts at that time. At 13 in Cargius, the Judge distinguished a pay & display car park tariff dispute from the free car park in Beavis.

Or....



5. 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.
 
6. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(b) Non-existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(c) It is believed the signage was not lit or visible, any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

I'm really sorry if I seem stupid, but I'm finding compiling this rather difficult and somewhat difficult to understand