Please help! ***I WON***

Coupon-mad

Your decision.

I've only seen one person try to do a set aside 'by consent' with CEL and they didn't play the game properly (like ParkingEye do, for example). I seem to recall they wanted even more money, and dragged their feet and had no interest in confirming the CCJ had been paid/consenting to a set aside, once the money reached their account they stopped communicating.

Why would they bother once they got the money - and they didn't, AFAIK.

I think the person still had the CCJ and was £300+ out of pocket, and it was merely marked 'satisfied' which is not what you want at all (still wrecks your credit rating).

Even of they play the game properly with you and don't take your money and run, a set aside with consent will cost you £100 to the court, plus the STUPID amount of money that CEL have inflated the invented charge to.

Pretty much every case we see here for a set aside, are cases where people omitted to change their V5, and every case (except one, where I recall the OP seemed very ill-prepared) was allowed to be set aside.

People have admitted their minor oversight but written a decent WS and draft order to go with their N244, and used Sir Oliver Heald's words about CCJs by stealth:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/government-announce-ccj-review-due-to.html

Clearly the courts service does not condone a parking firm issuing claims to people who have never replied and might not be at the address the DVLA had.

So people here suggest to their local courts, that despite the V5 address oversight (unknown to the victim, but now put right with the DVLA) there was no intention to hide from this claimant, so in the interests of justice the case should be heard, particularly given the fact that CEL cannot even hold registered keepers liable for the actions of an unknown driver, so this case should be heard because the CCJ victim may not even be the person liable, has no idea about any contract or charge.

Which is your local court? Maybe we can tell you if they are good or bad?

chunkrock

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Your decision.

I've only seen one person try to do a set aside 'by consent' with CEL and they didn't play the game properly (like ParkingEye do, for example). I seem to recall they wanted even more money, and dragged their feet and had no interest in confirming the CCJ had been paid/consenting to a set aside, once the money reached their account they stopped communicating.

Why would they bother once they got the money - and they didn't, AFAIK.

I think the person still had the CCJ and was £300+ out of pocket, and it was merely marked 'satisfied' which is not what you want at all (still wrecks your credit rating).

Even of they play the game properly with you and don't take your money and run, a set aside with consent will cost you £100 to the court, plus the STUPID amount of money that CEL have inflated the invented charge to.

Pretty much every case we see here for a set aside, are cases where people omitted to change their V5, and every case (except one, where I recall the OP seemed very ill-prepared) was allowed to be set aside.

People have admitted their minor oversight but written a decent WS and draft order to go with their N244, and used Sir Oliver Heald's words about CCJs by stealth:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/government-announce-ccj-review-due-to.html

Clearly the courts service does not condone a parking firm issuing claims to people who have never replied and might not be at the address the DVLA had.

So people here suggest to their local courts, that despite the V5 address oversight (unknown to the victim, but now put right with the DVLA) there was no intention to hide from this claimant, so in the interests of justice the case should be heard, particularly given the fact that CEL cannot even hold registered keepers liable for the actions of an unknown driver, so this case should be heard because the CCJ victim may not even be the person liable, has no idea about any contract or charge.

Which is your local court? Maybe we can tell you if they are good or bad?

I am in Salford so am guessing Manchester?

I am going to appeal; I'll kick myself forever if I don't at least try.
Should I write in plain English language instead of legal jargon or try do it like the thing I posted earlier?

Coupon-mad

Good news! Manchester court Judges are almost invariably, and consistently anti-PPC.

If DJ Iyer looks at it, you'd even get your £255 back, IMHO...if you word the WS and draft order well, and go to the set aside hearing being honest about the minor oversight of the V5 that took you by complete surprise, but then moving on to why the case should be set aside in the interests of justice.

As Johnersh says, it is not nailed on 100% to be set aside (to be fair, any set asides we see are not guaranteed) but we do have a phenomenal success rate and your court is a very good one.

If you are happy to try, read recent CEL set aside threads over the weekend and then show us your draft WS and Order, with 6 points in it.

Did you get the copy of the claim form so you know what the parking event was, where & when?

chunkrock

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good news! Manchester court Judges are almost invariably, and consistently anti-PPC.

If DJ Iyer looks at it, you'd even get your £255 back, IMHO...if you word the WS and draft order well, and go to the set aside hearing being honest about the minor oversight of the V5 that took you by complete surprise, but then moving on to why the case should be set aside in the interests of justice.

As Johnersh says, it is not nailed on 100% to be set aside (to be fair, any set asides we see are not guaranteed) but we do have a phenomenal success rate and your court is a very good one.

If you are happy to try, read recent CEL set aside threads over the weekend and then show us your draft WS and Order, with 6 points in it.

Did you get the copy of the claim form so you know what the parking event was, where & when?

The court refused to send me any official documentation (the woman on the phone was very rude and sounded like she didn't give a !!!!) but I did convince her to email me SOME details which thankfully included location and dates/times etc.

I will write a statement, do some research, redraft my statement and post it here for you to peruse. Thank you so so much again

chunkrock

ok so... first draft

I am XXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter. This my supporting Statement in support of my application dated 14 September 2018 to:
1. Set aside the Default Judgement dated 22nd June 2017 as it was not properly served at my current address and order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee;

1. Default Judgement

1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant on 22nd June 2018. I am aware that the Claimant is Civil Enforcement Limited and that the claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from the 14 September 2017 at “FARNWORTH RETAIL”.

1.2. The claim form was not served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until 13 September 2018 when I undertook a routine credit check. I understand that this Claim was served at XXXX. However, I moved to a new address XXXX on the XX February 2017. In support of this I can provide a copy of a solicitor’s completion statement showing the date of completion and confirmation from Salford Council showing my updated details for the purposes of paying Council tax. Both are attached at Exhibit X. I admit that as a new driver I was unaware that changing my address details with the DVLA was not enough and I also had to change my details on the V5C logbook, something I have now rectified.

1.3. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s correct contact details at the time of the claim. They have used information that was at the time eight months out of date.

1.4. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country. This is a topical issue: I note that the Justice Minister The Rt Hon Sir Oliver Heald QC MP announced on the 23rd December 2016 a consultation and information campaign to help protect consumers from debt claims. The consultation will look at ways to; “better protect consumers who are sent mail to inaccurate addresses and verify addresses again before a claim is sent.” The Minister added that “In the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.”

1.5. On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim.

1.6. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. I thus believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £255 from the claimant should this request be successful.

Coupon-mad

1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant on 22nd June 2018. I am now aware, upon finding out about the unknown CCJ and from contacting the CCBC, that the Claimant is Civil Enforcement Limited and that the claim is in respect of unexplained conduct, by an unidentified driver of the vehicle, that the Claimant believes led to an alleged Parking Charge Notice from the 14 September 2017 at 'FARNWORTH RETAIL'. I know nothing about this incident; I have seen no photographs, and no driver of my car has reported receiving a PCN at any point, so this is not a charge that I or a driver has ignored, nor have I had any chance to dispute it. If I had known about this matter, I would have asked for evidence, and I am also aware that this Claimant cannot find a registered keeper liable, as they do not use the POFA/Schedule 4 'right to keeper liability' so there would have been grounds to dispute it, had I known.

I admit that, being new to car ownership and DVLA rules, [STRIKE]as a new driver[/STRIKE] I was unaware that changing my driving licence address details with the DVLA was not enough and I also had to change my details on the V5C logbook, something I have now rectified. There was no attempt to hide from this Claimant, and I was there to be found at my current address, with a basic trace.

Maybe the above?

Also, you need to draw up the Draft Order you see on other set aside threads.

KeithP

I would add to 1.3 something along the lines of:

At no time since issuing the Parking Charge Notice did the Claimant ever receive any response to any communications served at my previous address. This surely should have cast doubt on the address they were using.

chunkrock

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Maybe the above?

Also, you need to draw up the Draft Order you see on other set aside threads.

Forgive me, the draft order is the part where I ask the charge to be dropped?

chunkrock

2.1. I further believe that the original Claim by the Claimant has no merit and should thus be dismissed. I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist.

2.2. If the Claimant has obtained details of the vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, and used those details to make a claim for a “Parking Charge Notice’’, I thus dispute the claim in its entirety as I do not know the wording of the contract nor do I know the means by which the contract was alleged to come into force.

2.3. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant cannot provide such evidence and further submit that the Claimant does not include ‘Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’ wording on the Parking Charge Notices they issue and therefore cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.

2.4. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that this any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since I have not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the Default Judgement, I submit the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against me as the Registered Keeper in any case.

2.5. I further submit that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:

2.5.1. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is unlikely to be the landowner of the car park in question, and will have no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, will have no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder, and only they would have been able sue for any damages or trespass.

2.5.2. No Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any motorist of the vehicle of which I am the Registered Keeper. I further submit that any loss to the landholder (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be at most a few pounds.

2.5.3. No contract with the claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the Claimant to the motorist; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the motorist to Civil Enforcement Ltd.

2.6. On this basis I believe that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.

2.7. In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as keeper of the a vehicle, I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant.

KeithP

chunkrock wrote: »

Forgive me, the draft order is the part where I ask the charge to be dropped?

This post will help:

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74659291&postcount=12