CCJ Issued from a parking fine i had no idea about!

Quentin

Jackandjill wrote: »

Exactly what happened to me, and I feel the same. Interested to know if you had any luck getting it removed?
Jackandjill

Your question is covered by post #14 above

See the newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum for advice on how to get a ccj against you set aside.

Fairly straightforward as long as you apply as soon as you are aware of the ccj.

Start your own thread if you have any questions after reading up on the process

tyler_brunt

UPDATE:

I received a letter from the court then asking if I would agree to the claim being moved to the small claims court, which i agreed.

I then received a letter saying:

' Before District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court of Southampton, London Road, Southampton SO15 2XQ.
Of the Court's Own Initiative
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The claim is struck out for an abuse of process

Reasons:
the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100. The amount claimed on the claim form is £253.22 and on particulars of the claim £328.22. This inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

2. this order having been made by the court pursuant to Rule 2.2 of the civil procedure rules 1998, any party affected by this order has a right to apply to set aside, vary or stay it by application made not more than 7 days after this was served on the party making the application.'

I presume that this means the case is over and i have won!?

Quentin

It will once the deadline is passed for the claimant to apply for this order to be set aside

tyler_brunt

do you know roughly how long they have? that letter was sent to me dated, 30th May.

KeithP

tyler_brunt wrote: »

do you know roughly how long they have? that letter was sent to me dated, 30th May.

From your quote from the Order in post #23, they have seven days from service of the Order.

The Order is deemed served five days after the date of issue of the Order.
So if the Order is dated 30th May, they had until Monday 11th June.

Ask the court what's going on.

Coupon-mad

tyler_brunt wrote: »

UPDATE:

I received a letter from the court then asking if I would agree to the claim being moved to the small claims court, which i agreed.

I then received a letter saying:

' Before District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court of Southampton, London Road, Southampton SO15 2XQ.
Of the Court's Own Initiative
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The claim is struck out for an abuse of process

Reasons:
the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100. The amount claimed on the claim form is £253.22 and on particulars of the claim £328.22. This inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

2. this order having been made by the court pursuant to Rule 2.2 of the civil procedure rules 1998, any party affected by this order has a right to apply to set aside, vary or stay it by application made not more than 7 days after this was served on the party making the application.'

I presume that this means the case is over and i have won!?

Yay! Another one bites the dust! Only a handful lost so far this year and literally dozens won each month now, coming in thick and fast!

Unless they applied to set aside that order and succeeded, which seems impossible given the circumstances, you have WON!

:money:

:T

nigelbb

tyler_brunt wrote: »

UPDATE:

I received a letter from the court then asking if I would agree to the claim being moved to the small claims court, which i agreed.

I then received a letter saying:

' Before District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court of Southampton, London Road, Southampton SO15 2XQ.
Of the Court's Own Initiative
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The claim is struck out for an abuse of process

Reasons:
the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100. The amount claimed on the claim form is £253.22 and on particulars of the claim £328.22. This inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

2. this order having been made by the court pursuant to Rule 2.2 of the civil procedure rules 1998, any party affected by this order has a right to apply to set aside, vary or stay it by application made not more than 7 days after this was served on the party making the application.'

I presume that this means the case is over and i have won!?

Wow! I don't think I have ever seen a PPC case kicked out for abuse of process by inflating the claim with dodgy extra fees.

Just about every PPC claim does this & it is especially egregious when they claim keeper liability as the keeper is only ever liable for charges incurred by the driver at the date of the parking event not an inflated claim months later.

This should be a worthwhile argument for every defence now.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

fil_cad

It about Greg Knight got his fingers out and hammered these filthy scammers

Umkomaas

fil_cad wrote: »

It about Greg Knight got his fingers out and hammered these filthy scammers

Don't you think he is doing so? He's just an ordinary MP, not a Minister of State.