Set Aside CCJ - Hopson / TNC / P4Parking

beamerguy

So the OP understands, as explained by coupon-mad,
you have been the subject of a data breach
Did P4 advise you that this was being assigned to TNC ???

This is what happened to MIL who did the same

DVLA confirm massive data protection breach to MIL Collections

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/dvla-confirm-massive-data-protection.html

[Deleted User]

To ensure the judge doesn't "lose the wood for the trees" my approach FWIW would be to focus the statement on failure to serve proceedings and the gap between the PCNs and the claim form being issued (too long to rely upon the address as being current/the last known address).

If there is invalid service the judgment must be set aside.

Obviously if there is scope to demonstrate the claim is without merit, then you should do that too - which is why I'd exhibit a defence to your statement. That is where I'd be putting most of Coupon's legal arguments.

Whilst KADOE permits debt collection via third parties, passing on personal data and assigning the debt would appear to require DVLA permission - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/kadoe-keeper-of-a-vehicle-at-the-date-of-an-event-contract

But that doesn't mean the debt hasn't been assigned in law, just that there's been a breach of the dvla contract (the issue will be whether the land owners contract which commonly permits PPC enforcement/court, permits or restricts sale of the ticket as a chose in action).

The O/P appears to suggest both the assignment (16/3/17) and judgment were made in march. Those timings appear tight. So either the assignment was after judgment (and the PPC was the Claimant to begin with) which is not what the letter says, or TNC took assignment at an earlier stage.

If we assume that the sale of parking debts and the right to bring a claim is not permitted by contract with the land owner, then even set aside (and not yet strike out) could prevent this being pursued after any set aside.

The_Deep

Obviously if there is scope to demonstrate the claim is without merit, ...



I would think that £3000 plus is scope enough. How could an alleged debt for parking amount to that?

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

Obviously if there is scope to demonstrate the claim is without merit, ...



I would think that £3000 plus is scope enough. How could an alleged debt for parking amount to that?

The interesting point about this issue is that unlike MIL
who took cases to court themselves, this time a solicitor did ?

pappa_golf

solisitor acting for tnc , , however it never got to court , and as posted above tnc and p4 have never entered a court room with a parking incident

this was an out and out credit clamping default sting

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

solisitor acting for tnc , , however it never got to court , and as posted above tnc and p4 have never entered a court room with a parking incident

this was an out and out credit clamping default sting

But the OP says

"a default judgment from non-attendance of hearing in March 2016.

pappa_golf

a default judgment from non-attendance of hearing in March 2016.

yup the OPs non appearance , how could they appear , papers were sent to wrong 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."


so was the court date before or after this? , even allowing for an assignment , and send it to a solisitor to read thru and then file a claim it gets very very tight 16th of march was a wednesday , and even if papers were sent out the same day (do MCOL do that?) we then have 2 working days to recieve and 14 days to acnolage the claim

so lets look at the dates
16th , + zero time for a solisitor to read , then 2 working days , + 14 days , we seem to have run out of march ???

and lets not forget , march 25th (good friday) and march 28th (easter monday)

[Deleted User]

@pappa golf - my point entirely.

The O/P appears to suggest both the assignment (16/3/17) and judgment were made in march. Those timings appear tight. So either the assignment was after judgment (and the PPC was the Claimant to begin with) which is not what the letter says, or TNC took assignment at an earlier stage.

Naturally if there was a recent assignment prior to the claim form being issued, that would create a new claimant who was (I would argue) under a duty to satisfy themselves that they had a current address....