Set Aside CCJ - Hopson / TNC / P4Parking

distorteverything

Dealing with this on behalf of my wife, for various reasons (obviously she will sign forms and attend court hearing).

Recently noticed a CCJ had been added to credit report - a default judgment from non-attendance of hearing in March 2016.

We moved out of our previous address in April 2014 and notified DVLA for V5c, updated Electoral Roll, Council Tax, changed utilities etc.

During the years at our previous address we had been issued a lot of parking "invoices" from P4Parking (for parking outside lined spaces in a private car park that we had a permit for). We just ignored the tickets and got several demands & debt collection letters that when researched were issued by either an elderly solicitor whose sole client was the parking firm, or later I think TNC Management/Collections. These had subsided by the time we moved out so thought nothing more of it.

We now have a CCJ for £3386.28!!! Northampton County Court were absolutely useless at answering the phone or replying to emails until my wife spend 20 minutes listening to the phone ring before someone finally answered, checked the case and put her in touch with Hopson Solicitors who are acting on behalf of TNC Management Ltd.

Hopson forwarded 11 PCN numbers and not much else. The original claim by Hopson had no evidence whatsoever, just to the effect of "for unpaid parking charge notices”.

Needless to say we'd really like this set aside!

I have read and re-read the Newbies guides, several threads of successful judgements and read around the various posts regarding Hopson Solicitors, TNC Collections / TNC Management Ltd and I would say while things ARE clearer than mud it's a lot to take in!

As far as I can work out:

Complete N244 Set aside form
Attach witness statement
Attach skeleton argument?

Then the hearing?

In terms of fighting the PCNs, they are so long ago I don’t recall any specifics beyond the fact that we had a permit and it was only ever for not parking in a bay. Should I be asking for details regarding the tickets? TNC Collections have bought the debt from P4Parking and TNC are being represented by Hopson so it’s a bit convoluted…

Any comment, advice, “try harder” etc much appreciated, thanks.

beamerguy

distorteverything wrote: »

TNC Collections have bought the debt from P4Parking and TNC are being represented by Hopson so it’s a bit convoluted…

Are you certain that P4 Parking sold to TNC or are TNC just
acting as Debt collectors

Coupon-mad

Did you search & find the other thread about Hopson's *involvement* in PPC cases:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5717811

The main thrust of that thread says: ''{Text removed by MSE Investigator}'' - all over the place...

Reading between the lines, without commenting about them in any way, it appears that Hopson Solicitors don't appear to like publicity about this sort of thing. But hey, if this is typical of their ''claims'' then words fail me:

put her in touch with Hopson Solicitors who are acting on behalf of TNC Management Ltd.

Hopson forwarded 11 PCN numbers and not much else. The original claim by Hopson had no evidence whatsoever, just to the effect of "for unpaid parking charge notices”.

Wow. You need to tell your MP about this utter nightmare, they need to know what's happening to people's lives and credit.

As far as I can work out:

Complete N244 Set aside form
Attach witness statement
Attach skeleton argument?

Then the hearing?

Yes.

A hearing to set aside the CCJ first, which is often NOT attended by the other side. Read Johnersh's posts in the past month or two, about how important it is that the Defendant provides evidence that they were 'there to be found' from even a basic attempt to trace the victim, instead of just pouncing with a CCJ based on what you say was woeful particulars.

Oh, and there is no 'debt' and no-one SOLD this 'debt'. The claimant was always P4Parking. Your wife CAN win this.

distorteverything

beamerguy wrote: »

Are you certain that P4 Parking sold to TNC or are TNC just
acting as Debt collectors

The official wording, now I've dug out the letter they emailed, is "assigned"

Notice of Assignment - a TNC headed letter, to our previous address

Please be advised that the following outstanding parking charge notices ("the debt") was assigned to us by P4 Parking (UK) Limited on 16th March 2016.

[PCN numbers]

Our company now owns all rights, title, interest and benefit to the debt.

Therefore all future payments, correspondence and communication in respect of the debt should now be with our company. Our full contact details are stated below.

In view of the fact that the debt has not been paid and is overdue we are referring it directly to our litigation solicitors, Hopson of Cheltenham who will be in touch with you shortly.

This and the subsequent issue of a County Court summons against you can only be avoided by the immediate payment of the account by the methods shown on the reverse of this letter.

pappa_golf

looks like MIL have backed down and there is a new kid on the block (bpa members)

P4 have never bothered with court , looks like they have found the easy way , failure to trace then assign it for 25p in the £

TNC have not done court either , so this is a slam dunk setup where they have gone for default rather than showing up in court ,

distorteverything

Replies in bold within the quotation.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Did you search & find the other thread about Hopson's *involvement* in PPC cases:

(link removed)

The main thrust of that thread says: ''{Text removed by MSE Investigator}'' - all over the place...

Reading between the lines, without commenting about them in any way, it appears that Hopson Solicitors don't appear to like publicity about this sort of thing. But hey, if this is typical of their ''claims'' then words fail me:

Yes, I did read that - apart from the general commentary on Hopson, the advice seemed to be to ignore everything until a letter before action, which we're way past here. They don't enjoy the negative press though, so I'll probably throw some bad reviews up while I'm at it.

Wow. You need to tell your MP about this utter nightmare, they need to know what's happening to people's lives and credit.

I will do that!

Yes.

A hearing to set aside the CCJ first, which is often NOT attended by the other side. Read Johnersh's posts in the past month or two, about how important it is that the Defendant provides evidence that they were 'there to be found' from even a basic attempt to trace the victim, instead of just pouncing with a CCJ based on what you say was woeful particulars.

{b[ I will search Johnersh's recent posts, there certainly hasn't been any attempt to conceal anything. [.b]

Oh, and there is no 'debt' and no-one SOLD this 'debt'. The claimant was always P4Parking. Your wife CAN win this.

As per my post above, they are using the word "Assigned" - I don't know how that differs...

Thanks for your help Coupon-mad, your reputation precedes you!

distorteverything

pappa_golf wrote: »

looks like MIL have backed down and there is a new kid on the block (bpa members)

P4 have never bothered with court , looks like they have found the easy way , failure to trace then assign it for 25p in the £

TNC have not done court either , so this is a slam dunk setup where they have gone for default rather than showing up in court ,

Yeah it's a nightmare, we're not idiots - if we'd got the letter we wouldn't have a CCJ!

pappa_golf

distorteverything wrote: »

Yeah it's a nightmare, we're not idiots - if we'd got the letter we wouldn't have a CCJ!

CORRECT , TNC are a competent tracing company , many many posts how they have traced people , one wonders if they did , but did not use that info and simply went for a default , hoping you would foolishly ring up , pay and have it marke as satisfied , its called credit clamping! , if you get this setaside (you will ) they will only be down £25 or so ,

it might be worth while contacting the DVLA and asking for all occasions you data has been accessed between the ticket being iss ued upto say a mth after the default , TNC are going to look fools , and possibly more if you have proof they got your new details and did not use them

distorteverything

pappa_golf wrote: »

CORRECT , TNC are a competent tracing company , many many posts how they have traced people , one wonders if they did , but did not use that info and simply went for a default , hoping you would foolishly ring up , pay and have it marke as satisfied , its called credit clamping! , if you get this setaside (you will ) they will only be down £25 or so ,

it might be worth while contacting the DVLA and asking for all occasions you data has been accessed between the ticket being iss ued upto say a mth after the default , TNC are going to look fools , and possibly more if you have proof they got your new details and did not use them

Excellent idea, I will contact the DVLA tomorrow!

pappa_golf

TNC have been on shaky ground with both the DVLA sand the BPA , a LOT of complaints , a LOT the DVLA are actually altering the time period to get info by a debt collector , because of there actions

Coupon-mad

Notice of Assignment - a TNC headed letter, to our previous address

Please be advised that the following outstanding parking charge notices ("the debt") was assigned to us by P4 Parking (UK) Limited on 16th March 2016.

[PCN numbers]

Our company now owns all rights, title, interest and benefit to the debt.

Wow, a pseudo assignment, like MIL cases! So the claimant WAS actually TNC?

This is TNC (TNC Management Ltd - Company number 1639133):

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203667411-TNC-Management-Ltd-t-a-TNC-Collections

Report them (in your wife's name/her email/her name at the bottom) to David Dunford at the DVLA and ask what investigations have been done into TNC acting in the same way as MIL, and whether TNC were warned not to use DVLA-originated data, like MIL were:

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

It will REALLY help your wife, if she urgently gets a response by email that she can use, from DD of the DVLA, confirming that DVLA data cannot be sold or 'assigned' to third parties and that TNC have been told as much.


You need a defence argument that's like a MIL one. Here is one base on an earlier one that I wrote for someone to set aside a MIL CCJ where they also shoved in a counter-claim, your wife can use (adapt if needed) this:


IN THE COUNTY COURT AT (your local court)
Case No. xxxxxxxx


In the Matter of:

TNC Management Ltd Claimant

-v-

Your wife's name Defendant

_____________________________________

Witness Statement

_____________________________________

1. I am xxxx xxxxxx, being the Defendant in this case and this is my statement of truth and my interim defence/witness statement to support my Set Aside application. I am an unrepresented litigant-in-person with no experience of Court procedure. Should I not present my case as professionally as the Claimant’s, I trust that the Court excuses my inexperience and reserves any criticism for the extremely sparse particulars filed by the Claimant's Solicitors and the lack of any valid interest in the matter under litigation, and absolute lack cause of action on the part of this Claimant.

2. I seek the Court’s permission to amend and supplement this statement, as may be required upon disclosure of the Claimant’s alleged case. This statement is based on the sparse information available when applying to set aside a CCJ arising from a claim that I understand to have been filed by TNC Management Ltd (TNC).

3. TNC are not a parking company, are not any creditor of mine and have no matter of any 'debt' to pursue against me whatsoever. This Claimant had no right to even process my personal data, which was protected and effectively ring-fenced, because it originated from the DVLA under strict 'KADOE' rules and was only allowed to be processed by P4Parking, the originator of the unwarranted demands. It is asserted that this is a matter in which TNC had no direct or indirect interest nor rights, authority or agreement from the landowner.

4. Further, this Claimant had no cause of action to commence court proceedings against me as registered keeper of the car and cannot lawfully describe themselves as 'the creditor' under the meaning defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4).

5. The address used by the Claimant on the claim form is a very old address; we moved out of our previous address in April 2014 and notified the DVLA for V5c, updated the Electoral Roll, Council Tax, changed utilities etc. At all times I was 'there to be found' with the most basic of searches but this Claimant has made no attempt to do so.

6. I had no idea about this matter proceeding to Court and had never heard of this Claimant, until I recently noticed a CCJ had been added to my report. After contacting the Court and the Solicitors who filed this claim, I have discovered that this Claimant failed to identify the heads of action, provided scant details and has no lawful interest in parking charges.

7. The court is invited to consider not just setting aside but striking out TNC’s claim as having no prospect of success, and ordering a refund of my set aside fee and my costs in attending any hearing(s) in this matter.

8. In the alternative, once this unexpected CCJ has been set aside, I will require copies of all documents, including but not limited to those documents relating to the purported ‘assignment’ and proof of the original parking charge letters, photos and a site map of signage on the date of the event, proof of the application made by the parking firm to the DVLA and a copy of the KADOE contract setting out the rules for data release/sharing and a copy of the landowner contract applicable at the time.

9. Further, and beyond the issue of the landowner contract, it is my case that the Claimant had no prior interest at all in the underlying transaction, whether by way of privity, civil wrong or tort. As it represents a bare chose in action, it is asserted that the Claimant’s case therefore savours of maintenance, offending against public policy. This may well constitute an abuse of process as established in the cases of Simpson -v-Norfolk and Norwich Hospital NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 1149 and Giles -v- Thompson [1993] UKHL 2.

10. I will also submit the judgment in the case of Trendtex Trading Corporation -v- Credit Suisse [1981] AC 679 to be properly considered. The matter is further considered in Chitty on Contracts 30th Edition at 16-057, pp 1258-1259.

11. It is submitted that this is a vexatious litigant, merely buying old sets of photographs from parking firms for as little as £1 with the aim of inflating any damages for this Claimant's own profit.

12. This Claimant is wantonly and officiously intermeddling in cases where they have no prior interest; this is frivolous litigation with no particulars that could give rise to a claim in law.

13. Judges across the country have agreed with this view, when a similar business model was until recently used by MIL Collections, who were warned by the DVLA in 2017 that alleged 'assignment' (selling) of parking charge alleged debts to third parties was categorically not allowed, when the data originated from the DVLA. A similar case was heard on 22 Sept 2016 at Ipswich Court: Case No. C8QZ57G1 MIL -v- Cook. In this case, District Judge Spencer suggested that there was no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim, which could actually have been boiled down to a single sentence - "We bought some photographs." The Judge observed: "This is the problem...you buy all these supposed debts and rush them to court and can't even be bothered to provide remotely sufficient evidence as to why, in this instance, Mr Cook owes you hundreds of pounds."

14. Another similar case was heard on 17 January 2017 at Burnley Court: Case No. C3QZ9V18 MIL -v- Ms C, where District Judge James identified several issues with the claim. By paragraph 20 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement, he had had enough and gave judgment, reportedly saying: ‘‘The original creditor is a Parking Company which, it is asserted has a contract with the landowner to provide parking services. A contract has been supplied, but this only shows the rights of the Parking Company, and does not detail what, if any rights, can be assigned to the Claimant. The asserted assignment also does not document the rights so assigned. Additionally the asserted assignment shows no commercial purpose, and I cannot speculate as to what the commercial purpose might be. The only point of agreement between the parties is that the Defendant was the Registered Keeper of the relevant vehicle at the specified time. I have no evidence of the driver [...] I remind myself that it is the Claimant's claim to prove […] and as a result of the above clear failings in the Claimant's case, the claim is dismissed.’’

15. For the avoidance of doubt, on the relevant date, I was the registered keeper of the vehicle mentioned in the vague copies of documents sent to me recently by the Claimant's Solicitors, after I discovered the CCJ. The Claim purports to relate to alleged ‘parking charge notices’ (PCNs) issued by another unrelated company regarding an unproven and vaguely-stated breach of contract or possibly ‘contractual fee’ owed by the driver.

16. I have seen no evidence as to the identity of the driver at the location specified on these occasions. It seems that the sole grounds upon which they have issued proceedings against me is that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle and they allege they have ‘purchased a debt’.

17. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all its assertions. It is denied that:

(a) Any ‘debt’ exists or existed and that there are any heads of action leading to a claim.
(b) This purported 'debt' was in fact properly assigned at all.
(c) Any notice was served of the assignment, originating from their Assignor.
(d) The assignor and/or assignee had any standing/title in the land.
(e) The assignor and/or assignee had any right to override my rights as resident with a lease which did not set out any parking charges.
(f) Even if the court believes that the originating parking firm can vary the terms of my lease and sell my data to this third party, it is further denied that the signs at the material times were clear and placed prominently all around the site.
(g) There was any contravention by the driver or agreement on a parking charge.
(h) Any ‘administrative fees’ were actually incurred, or are due, or are recoverable.

18. More than one driver was entitled to drive the vehicle at the material time when I was resident at the location.

19. I have no lawful reason to name the driver to this Claimant, even if I knew who parked the car on each and every occasion which is impossible because such evidence is a matter for P4Parking to bring (the originating parking firm). I cannot be held liable outwith the POFA 2012, and no lawful presumption that a keeper was the driver can be made. This was confirmed by Henry Greenslade in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 under the article headed: 'Understanding Keeper Liability'.

20. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any Assignment they might plead conformed to the Law of Property Act 1925 and was properly executed in respect of this alleged debt before proceedings were issued. It is specifically denied that any letter purporting to have originated from their Assignor, was served to me at all, or that there was any Assignment Agreement relating to the parking charges which this Claimant has failed to particularise.

21. It is denied that the DVLA signed any specific permission in advance, allowing my personal data to be ‘assigned’ (sold) between companies, conduct which is prohibited by the DVLA themselves.

22. It is asserted that my personal data cannot lawfully be bought and sold like a cheap commodity, other than by a parking firm/landowner requesting it from the DVLA under strict KADOE rules requiring ‘reasonable cause’. TNC did not and do not have that ‘reasonable cause’ and have breached the Data Protection Act 1988 (DPA). This from a Freedom of Information reply from the DVLA which is in the public domain:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/permission_to_disclose_data_to_m

''Clause D5.1 of the KADOE contract prohibits the Customer from disclosing the information they have received from the DVLA to any other person except:-

a) to a sub-contractor who acts as the Customer's data processor;
b) to a sub- contractor who acts as the Customer's debt collector;
c) with the prior written agreement of the DVLA.

DVLA will take the opportunity to remind the accredited trade associations for the private parking sector of the need for operators to seek permission from DVLA before transferring DVLA data to third parties....”

23. This Claim was filed speculatively to an old address; this appears to be planned to achieve a trophy default CCJ and/or ultimately to later trace me and send in High Court Enforcement to further intimidate me, when in actual fact there is no debt and no cause of action to excuse this Claimant's actions. I ask the Court to question how many CCJs this Claimant has obtained in 2016/17 and whether they are (like MIL Collections) a repeat offender in this industry, involved in what could be described as a ‘parking charge claims scam’ along the lines that The Department for Communities and Local Government and the Prime Minister herself, pledged to end:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-protect-consumers-from-debt-claims
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/government-announce-ccj-review-due-to.html

24. TNC's claim has no basis whatsoever, their conduct in these cases being wholly unreasonable and vexatious; the ‘assignment’ being a false instrument.

25. I ask that the court awards at the set aside hearing, payment from the Claimant of my not insignificant ‘set aside’ court fee and my costs for attending. Further, I ask that consideration be given to awarding punitive costs, as are allowable under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 for the vexatious and wholly unreasonable conduct from the moment they 'bought' my data from P4Parking, without first obtaining DVLA permission, then using it to pursue me as registered keeper without complying with the POFA 2012, resulting in a blight on my exemplary credit record without my knowledge, causing significant distress.

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.



Signed____________________________________________


Dated ________________________________________