Not advising Change of Registered Keeper to PCM

Lolapops

I have a ccj that says needs to be paid before the weekend ! Moved house in January amd records not updated. Was anpr so no ticket on car. Also I’ve never been to said location so was not even me. First time using this site didn’t know where to post ! Really panicking as have 3 days ! Have printed printed of different forms to fill out that I’ve seen people write about but not sure what to do now ! please help !!! Thanks xx

Coupon-mad

Please don't post on old threads - you need to edit and delete your two posts and start again with a new thread.

If confused, hit FORUM HELP at the top of the page near 'Etiquette'. Read how to use the forum, before using it.

You do NOT have a ''CCJ that needs to be paid by the weekend''.

Start a new thread please. Delete these two.

edinh05

Hi all,
An update on this case.

From the last post I made, the CCJ had been set aside and I was waiting for further correspondence from the Claimant and the Court, notably an Amended Particulars of Claim. Fast forward to May 2019 and I have received another Judgement in Default.

To revisit some detail: This claim was originally set aside on the 26th June 2017. I was advised by the court order that should the Claimant wish to pursue the claim again, they would need to file their Amended Particulars of Claim by 10th July 2017, and on compliance I was to submit a defence by the 24th July 2017. Due to a delay in the court processing the paperwork, it appears the Claimant did not receive the Order of Judgement until the 11th July.

I did not hear anything further or receive an Amended Particulars of Claim until some six months later. The Claimant advised me in an email on the 5th January 2018 that they had sent a copy of the Amended Particulars of Claim as ordered on the 14th July 2017, by email and a further copy in the post on 17th July 2017. I did not receive any of these communications – they attached a copy of the email that they sent in which my email address was incorrectly spelt. No hard copy was ever received.

Due to this delay and a seemingly non-compliant Claimant, I did not submit my defence. I realise this is poor, despite the wealth of information and advice available on this forum. Given the ambiguous and erroneous communications I had received from the Claimant and the extraordinary long delays in asking the court to provide an update, I’ve just let it lie and waited to hear from either the Claimant or the Court.

Is there a realistic chance to get this set aside again?

Many thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

Never seen it done but you can but try, due to this:

The Claimant advised me in an email on the 5th January 2018 that they had sent a copy of the Amended Particulars of Claim as ordered on the 14th July 2017, by email and a further copy in the post on 17th July 2017. I did not receive any of these communications – they attached a copy of the email that they sent in which my email address was incorrectly spelt.

Send a SAR to the Claimant's DPO by email, tonight - now - urgent - for all data held and all letters sent (the idea is to hope there will be NO letter set on 17th July, OR that they reverted to your old address).

Either way they'd be in the sticky stuff as they will have failed to serve the particulars.

Meanwhile, complete another N244 and WS an draft order, and if you have to pay court fees based on your income, pay it again (DO NOT WAIT FOR THE SAR, YOU MUST ACT QUICKLY).

I assume you only just found out about the CCJ in default?

edinh05

Thanks Coupon - mad, I will get onto this now. And yes, only just found out about the CCJ in default.

edinh05

N244 will go out today. Is it worth posting the draft order and statement on here for a check? It's quite a nuanced case and I don't want to unnecessarily give away any details. Or perhaps I am being too over cautious?

Coupon-mad

It's up to you, no need to post it here first if you'd rather not.

As long as you have made a clear case to tell the Judge that you didn't get the claim form and why, and that once it is set aside, you are ready and prepped to show the Judge (briefly in oral evidence at the same hearing) that you do have prospects of success (and even that the Claim should be struck out entirely and your £255 refunded by the Claimant!) then you don't need us to look.

edinh05

Thanks Coupon-mad for your advice on this and I have an update on the case. The set aside hearing was held earlier this week at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch CC in front of DJ Manners, and wasn’t quite so straightforward as the last round.

Gladstones sent a rep. Whilst I must admit I was not expecting this, it didn’t really change anything and he was nice enough.
It was clear from early on in the hearing that I would REALLY need to convince the Judge about the merits of my case. She was content that Gladstones had indeed filed a compliant particulars of claim (despite evidence that they’d spelt my email address incorrectly) and quizzed me on my assertion that I had not received them in the post. I was even asked if “normally have problems with my post.”

After some back and forth over the key parts of my defence, the judgement was set aside, so a good outcome. Costs were reserved though. The hearing lasted for about 20 minutes. My defence needs to be submitted in just under two weeks; I’m finalising that now and will update the post with progress.

Presuming that the defence can go straight to Clerkenwell as opposed to Northampton?

KeithP

edinh05 wrote: »

Presuming that the defence can go straight to Clerkenwell as opposed to Northampton?

That's correct.

edinh05

All,
Success in court last week on a legacy Heath Parade case that has been through two rounds of set asides.

Claim # C3GF00FF Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd vs Elliott, heard before DJ Slaney at the County Court in Clerkenwell & Shoreditch.

Claim dismissed on illegible signage and upon finding that no contract for parking had been formed. Costs of £103 awarded.

For those of you unfamiliar with Heath Parade, it was until early 2018 a cash cow for PCM. Drivers would pull into what appeared to be a layby off a public highway only to be issued with a PCN by a hidden attendant (Mrs Sunglasses) who would leap out and start taking pictures. Even if you got out of the car to read the ridiculous signage placed at over 7 ft up on a wall, attempt to interpret the minuscule contractual wording (forbidding at that) and eventually drive off, you were still landed with a PCN.

Low and behold, a NTK landed shortly after I pulled into the Heath Parade layby for a total of 83 seconds in early January 2016. Before I knew of the existence of this forum and POFA, I appealed using the IAS model, only to quickly realise I’d inadvertently identified myself as the driver and that the whole set up is/was a total farce. PCM then used their usual framework for pursuing a claim via the standard array of debt collectors.

I won’t labour on the detail as it’s all in this thread, but I ended up with a default judgement after PCM and Gladstones sent communications to an old address. Set aside 1 was in June 2017 and I got my £255 application fee refunded. After that, Gladstones still couldn’t get their admin right and serve me a compliant, amended particulars of claim in time, so I didn’t submit a defence and let it lie. A second default judgement was set aside in July this year. The intriguing thing for me was that Gladstones sent a rep to the second set aside hearing (they didn’t for the first one) and were very responsive to my requests for information. Perhaps they had an ace up their sleeve?

My defence was a modified Bargepole concise defence and centred on three key areas:
1. Poor signage creating an insufficient opportunity to enter into a contract
2. Forbidding language in the signage
3. No authority to levy parking charges

I relied on the standard Heath Parade case law – Jopson and Bull - and breach of IPC code of conduct etc. I found a few other nuggets on here where the judgements had been posted publicly. The abuse of process thread was in its early stages when I submitted my defence, so I incorporated tweaked wording from Coupon Mad’s post #14 into my witness statement, attaching the two available judgements in my bundle. I acquired the title deeds and plan to the site as I had contended that PCM didn’t have the permission of the correct freeholder.
I also submitted a schedule of costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(d) and (e) and for unreasonable behaviour pursuant to CPR 27.14 (g).

On the day

Unlike the two previous visits which proceeded on time, a 12:00 hearing was eventually heard just shy of 15:00. I chatted to the Gladstones rep who was amiable enough and seemed remarkably confident that I had a good chance of winning! The delay put a sense of urgency around proceedings but as we walked into the court room any fears of a militant judge were waylaid somewhat as he seemed a decent chap, and I had a gut feeling that he was on my side.

It was actually the Gladstones rep who did most of the talking and introduced the key parts of the Claimants witness statement. I didn’t mind this too much as he was – rather paradoxically – advocating in my favour; introducing a number of very weak points that could support their claim whilst simultaneously offering up reasons for the Judge to doubt their veracity. I was desperate to pipe up at this stage and rip through PCM’s pathetic witness statement to highlight the reliance on ridiculous case law and point out the glaring inconsistencies. It was clear however that the Judge was on my side and working his way to a favourable summary, so I smiled and kept schtum.

The Judge reasoned his way through the position of the sign, grace period and the short amount of time I had stopped for. He said that the terms and conditions relied upon were not visible to the motorist from a car and in alighting to do so, the motorist was stung with a PCN: as clear cut as that. The notion that I had stopped to use a cashpoint couldn’t be supported with further evidence (a Witness Statement from Mrs Sunglasses perhaps…..). He also remarked that there was a force majeure element to this as I had actually stopped to deal with a screaming toddler in the back seat. My evidence bundle was not referenced at all, a shame really as I thought there was some good content in there but ultimately, it proved to be the signage that the Judge had problems with.

Summarising, he concluded that the height of the signage was fatal and no contract had been formed with the motorist. It was placed in such a way that a motorist could not possibly read it from a stationary vehicle. He dismissed the claim and after I prompted him to review my Schedule of Costs, awarded loss of earnings and travel costs. Unfortunately, he didn’t consider the reserved costs for the second set aside fee. Neither did he entertain Litigant in Person costs under CPR 27.14 (g). His reasoning was that PCM thought they might have been in with a resemblance of a chance of winning when they pursued the claim, and didn’t behave unreasonably. At that was that; all over and done in about 15 minutes. Another Gladstones claim for UKCPM was heard just before mine and also dismissed, so a good day for fighting parking scammers.

So there you have it. Nearly four years after I pulled into a non-descript layby in North London, this totally unnecessary saga was over. Frankly, I’m glad to see the back of it, but am somewhat thankful for the opportunity it’s given me to hone skills in research and logical reasoning, and to stand up and mount a principled fight against PCM.

A huge amount of thanks to the individuals on this forum who work tirelessly to support people like myself. If there is anyone with a Heath Parade claim still hanging over them, I’ll be more than happy to help. I have a number of exhibits including the full title deeds and plan for the site, as well as other useful bits and pieces.

Thanks once again and another one bites the dust.