CCJ Set Aside Help - Residential Parking

KeithP

It is my guess that it means that a judge has read your Defence and doesn't think the Claimant has much of a case.

Judge appears to be offering the Claimant a further opportunity to clarify their position.

You just watch from the sidelines at this stage.

AdoptedNortherner

Thanks KeithP - it sounds along the lines of what we were thinking/hoping!

Redx

yes , but it isnt "normal" , hence why you havent found out much about it

a judge can make decisions that can interrupt the usual flow of things , adding things into the mix, which they seem to have done here , pushing the onus onto the claimant to reply to the defence and by a due date

its a shame that this doesnt happen more often , because claimants tend to push their lick and I think its time that judges construed matters for an LIP as a means to make those making claims more responsible for their documents , which seems to be happening here

the ongoing thread about UKPPO at Newcastle airport may also be interesting due to the arguments in play and the fact there is a counter claim

maybe UKPPO think these matters are just nodded through like the Parking CoP bill, well they may well find its not just a walk in the park , lol

AdoptedNortherner

Hi all - we’re back

POST 1 OF 2

Update below from where we left things:
- UKPP filed their defence in April
- In May the court allocated the case to the small claims track and instructed the claimant to pay the court trial fee by a certain date in Dec or the claim would be struck out
- Claimant paid on time
- BW Legal are now representing on UKPP’s behalf
- We’re finalising the WS ready to send off within the next few days (see draft below)
- Hearing is in early Jan.

As always - feedback on the WS draft is welcome! WS will continue into a 2nd post.
We have a couple of Q's below:
- We are currently preparing a costs statement. I will revisit the newbies thread but if anyone has any posts in mind where good/relevant costs statements are discussed please let me know.
- Is a skeleton argument needed alongside this witness statement?

____________________________________________________________________________


I am XXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a bundle of documents to which I will refer.

The claim relates to an alleged debt arising from unpaid Parking Charge Notice (PCN) XXXX issued on 31/01/2017 for parking in my residential, allocated parking bay at my previous address XXXX. I assert that I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, and grounds for this are laid out below in further detail.

Before I describe what happened in my own summary of events, I can confirm that my main points of defence are:
- Primacy of contract
- Inconsistent enforcement
- Misuse of personal data
- Abuse of process

For the benefit of clarity, I would like to supply a summary of events.

SUMMARY OF EVENTS

UK Parking Patrol Office (UKPP) issued two Parking Charge Notices on consecutive days to my vehicle on 31/01/2017 (PCN XXXX); (Exhibit X) and 01/02/2017 (PCN XXXX); (Exhibit X). The parking permit was on display but had slipped, resulting in only partial visibility of the permit

Once the PCN’s were discovered, I immediately appealed the charges online, directly with UKPP, proving my residency

On 09/02/2017 I received two emails from UKPP:

The first email received was regarding PCN XXXX (issued 01/02/2017) and advised that, quote; “Careful consideration has been given to the points you have made in your representation and the information provided. I am pleased to inform you that your appeal has been successful and the charge has now been cancelled”; (Exhibit X)


The second email received was regarding PCN XXXX (issued 31/01/2017) and advised UKPP were rejecting the appeal; (Exhibit X). I then contested this as both PCN’s were issued on consecutive days and I had proven my residency and therefore my right to park

Despite my appeal, the charge for PCN XXXX was upheld by UKPP and the only options provided were to pay the alleged charge or appeal online with the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). On 10/02/2017, I started the appeals process with the IAS. By 16/02/2017 both myself and UKPP had submitted our final statements and the IAS confirmed the appeal was ready to be assessed

On 28/02/2017 I received an email stating the appeal had been dismissed by an adjudicator on the grounds that the permit was displayed in such a way that it was not capable of being read from outside the vehicle; (Exhibit X). The cancelled charge for PCN XXXX was not referred to despite my mention of it throughout the appeal. The IAS statement confirmed that in fact a permit was present within the vehicle, it had simply slipped to the point of partial visibility, therefore invalidating the allegation of any breach on the basis of ‘No Permit’. The dismissal was sent from a ‘noreply’ email address and advised the IAS would be unable to intervene further on this matter

Shortly after I received a letter from UKPP advising my appeal had been unsuccessful with details of how to pay the charge of £100; (Exhibit X)

On 06/03/2017 I sent a letter in response to UKPP disputing the IAS verdict, detailing my reasons for not agreeing with the charges still being valid for PCN XXXX and requesting a copy of their contract with the building management company; (Exhibit X). No response was received to this letter and no further correspondence was received via post, email or telephone from the Claimant or any other party with regards PCN XXXX

On 25/04/2017 we were given notice that our landlord was reclaiming the property in order to sell it; (Exhibit X); therefore we had to begin preparing to vacate the property

On 02/06/2017 we moved into our new and current address; XXXX; (Exhibit X)

We promptly notified the DVLA of our change of address; (Exhibit X)

On 30/09/2018 I received an email from an automated service advising that my experian credit score had changed; Schedule (X). I logged on to my Experian Credit account to access my Credit Report which stated under ‘Court Data’ that I had either one or more recent or uncleared County Court Judgements (CCJs)

We immediately completed a search through Registry Trust Limited on 30/09/2018 who issued a search result detailing the County Court Business Centre CCJ that was dated 15/08/2018 under claim number XXXX; (Exhibit X)

On 01/10/2018 I called the County Court Business Centre who confirmed the debt had been filed against me by UKPP. Upon request, they emailed details to me regarding the claim; (Exhibit X). This was the first I had heard about the CCJ, any court hearing or any further motive from UKPP to pursue the alleged debt

On 12/10/2018 I submitted my completed N244 Application and Witness Statement for the default judgement to be set aside;

Throughout October, November and December 2018 I completed Subject Access Requests (SAR) with the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), Debt Recovery Plus Ltd (DRP), Gladstones Solicitors and UKPP.

A letter received from the DVLA on 18/10/2018 confirmed:

The DVLA had not received any requests for details on my vehicle registration number XXXX (Exhibit X)

The SAR documents received from DRP on XXXX confirmed:

DRP claim my details were obtained from the DVLA on their internal records provided (Exhibit X). This is incorrect and a misuse of my personal data because it had been confirmed by the DVLA that no requests were made on my vehicle

It was proven that DRP hold my correct and current address on file yet they were not able to confirm when this was updated, how long they have held this information and why it was not used (Exhibit X)

The SAR documents received from Gladstones Solicitors on XXXX confirmed:

Letters were only sent to my previous address after I had vacated the property and the last official communication regarding PCN XXXX was a letter dated 19/07/2017 which was not received (Exhibit X). No attempt was made to make contact again for over a year before bringing this claim to court.

The SAR documents received from UKPP on XXXX confirmed:

UKPP held my out of date personal details on file before serving this claim to the court. The details were 14 months out of date (Exhibit X & Exhibit X)

UKPP failed to supply a copy of the contract demonstrating their ability to issue charges on the land in question and therefore no indication is given as to their contractual authority to operate there as required by the Trade Association’s (IPC) Code of Practice B1.1 which states;

“If you operate parking management management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you at the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that the charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.”

UKPP make reference to two previously cancelled PCN’s on their system; (Schedule X & Schedule X), which are used as the reason for not cancelling the outstanding PCN XXXX by stating; ‘Appeal 05/02 Nope.. she has had 2 cancelled now. Rejected 07.02’. This has proven inconsistency in their enforcement and therefore cannot be esteemed to be ethical, competent or genuine in their attempts to prevent only authorised vehicles parking on the residential land in question. The statement by UKPP regarding the 2 cancelled tickets is also an unjust representation of myself as the defendant, as the context behind PCN XXXX and PCN XXXX have not been provided by UKPP, which are as follows:

PCN XXXX; (Exhibit X) as referred previously referred to, was swiftly cancelled after proving residency despite being issued by UKPP on 01/02/2017, the day after PCN XXXX was issued which is being upheld and pursued here as the alleged debt

PCN XXXX; (Exhibit X) issued by UKPP on 01/05/2016 was swiftly cancelled after appeal directly with UKPP and proving residency. More details regarding the sequence of events for PCN XXXX are listed below:

We moved into our property at XXXX on 30/04/2016 after signing a contract with an allocated parking space. We had not been informed of any parking regulations in place prior to moving in.

The day we moved in on 30/04/2016 we contacted the building management company regarding meter readings where they informed us we would need a parking permit and there would be a 5 day waiting period in order to obtain one. We were surprised to hear we would need a permit to park in our allocated parking space. I immediately placed a note inside the vehicle as advised by the building management company explaining we had just moved in and were waiting for a permit. It was the next day (within that 5 day window) on 01/05/2016 that UKPP issued PCN XXXX, completely disregarding note.

In a Defence provided on 11/04/2019, UKPP claim residents were aware of permit control owing to a circular letter distributed to all residents along with the provision of the parking terms and conditions upon retrieval of a parking permit. I unequivocally deny receiving this information for the following reasons

The circular letter provided by UKPP is dated 14/03/2016 (Exhibit X). I had never seen this letter. The date on this letter is precisely forty two days before I moved in to the property on 30/04/2016 on commencement of my lease, within which time this letter would have been removed from my post box or property. My first viewing of the property as potential tenant also wasn’t until 09/04/2016 (Exhibit X)

The circular letter provided by UKPP stipulates dates within which residents were able to collect their permits, between “Monday 4th April - Friday 15th April” (2016). UKPP have also previously provided an email from ‘the building management company’ which alleges I picked up a permit on 03/04/2016. This date is factually incorrect for 2 main reasons. Firstly, 03/04/2016 was a Sunday, a day when ‘the building management’ Office is always closed, as evidenced within the circular letter. Secondly, my first viewing of the property as a potential tenant wasn’t until 09/04/2016 and I didn’t move in to the property until 30/04/2016 on commencement of my lease. Due to these reasons, it is impossible that I could have signed for a permit on 03/04/2016, let alone have even been aware of any parking restrictions

When collecting my permit from ‘the building management’ Office on the correct date of 03/05/2016, I was not shown or told about any parking terms and conditions. I was only asked to sign a register to confirm that if I lost the permit I would be liable to pay for a new one. No further information was provided.

During the set aside hearing at XXXX on 03/01/2019 the judgement in this claim was successfully set aside by XXXX, showing that the Claimant did not adhere to CPR 6.9 (3) because they failed to show due diligence in using an address that I no longer reside.

PRIMACY OF CONTRACT

1.1 It is denied that I or any other lawful users of my vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had already been granted on the basis of our lease. The tenancy agreement permitted the parking of vehicles on land and provided is written confirmation of the allocated parking bay as well as proof of a key-fob entitling residential access to the car park in question (Exhibit X).

1.2 The land in question at XXXX was a private underground residential parking area containing parking spaces allocated to residents. Entry to the carpark was by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Therefore, any vehicles parked therein were de facto authorised to be there.

1.3 Between the dates of 25/04/2016 to 02/06/2017 I held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. XXXX at that location. At an unknown point, the managing agents contracted with UKPP to enforce conditions at the estate.

1.4 I assert that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of my residential tenancy and a primacy of contract which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The tenancy contract cannot be unilaterally altered to one party without the permission of the other, for example by introducing a permit in order to park. The lease provides the right to park a vehicle, without limitation as to ownership of the vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same. There are also no clauses in the lease which allow management agents the right to impose further conditions.

1.5 In this case, UKPP had taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to. This caused a substantial and unreasonable interference with my and other residents use and enjoyment of that land/property.

1.6 In order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, UKPP as the Claimant (or the Managing Agent) must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987. I am unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

1.7 In furtherance, Residential parking companies are there to protect residents from outside motorists, and not for them to take advantage of residents parking in their own spaces.

1.8 I will rely upon the judgment in Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] (Exhibit X) where it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park. In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] (Exhibit X) it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

1.9 UKPP have previously relied on the case of Parking Eye v Beavis [2015], however, this could only assist the claimant if the facts of the case are the same or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these residential circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

1.10 I as the Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by my lease. The Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding myself or residents in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, I deny having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct

1.11 I as the Defendant aver that the operator’s signs cannot:

1.11 (a) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors for peaceful enjoyment of their space and

1.11 (b) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease

1.12 In support of the above, I will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016); (Exhibit X) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011; (Exhibit X).

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

1.13 (a) Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is not the landowner of the car park in question, and has 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 to sue for any damages or trespass.

1.13 (b) 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; there are no fees for parking as residents as this is factored into tenancy.

Therefore, there is no consideration from myself as the motorist to the claimant.

1.14 The Claimant, as a result of my SAR and throughout this process, has only provided one example of their parking notice in the form of a stock image. The claimant has been unable to provide a photograph of the signage, directly from the day of the alleged offence, within the direct vicinity of my vehicle.

1.15 In the event that the court finds a contract based on signage can supersede the permit terms already agreed and the lease, I put the claimant to strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to the claimant which enable these charges to be pursued in court by this contractor, for these alleged contravention(s), whatever they may be.

1.16 It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

INCONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT

2.1 Disregarding the obvious conflict of interests that preside over the directorship and affiliations of the IAS, which I do not deem an adequate impartial adjudicator; there are a number of resounding areas of inconsistent enforcement by UKPP, which I will provide more details on below

2.2 As stated in my summary of events, the alleged debt for PCN XXXX was upheld on the premise of “No permit”. This is incorrect as the permit was present, it had simply slipped to a point of partial visibility. The adjudicator adjudged, and quote “In this case it is maintained that the Appellant’s permit was displayed in such a way that it was not capable of being read from outside the vehicle” (Exhibit X). It was accepted that the permit was displayed, just incorrectly. The permit used was also supplied at the point of the appeal (Exhibit X).

2.3 As stated in my summary of events, one charge was removed for the same alleged breach of contract (PCN XXXX issued on 01/02/2017), proving there is no consistency in enforcement by UKPP. This indicates the intention to simply roboclaim and turn a profit by offering a standalone charge to both incentivise a swift payment and to increase the number of ‘cancelled’ PCN’s on a residents record.

2.4 The current claim and attempts at extorting residents are not unique to just me as the Defendant. The Claimant is a renowned roboclaimer seeking to operate in a predatory nature to deliberately target tenants, creating private nuisance and causing derogation from grant to multiple tenants within the same property. I provide evidence (Exhibit X) to support this in the form of screen shots from the private residents Facebook group for XXXX. Names and photographs have been covered to protect identities. Residents regularly discuss receiving PCN’s from UKPP for parking in their allocated spaces and frequently report that upon direct appeal to UKPP and providing proof of residency/permit, their PCN’s are immediately cancelled. Once again, this proves no consistency in enforcement by UKPP and raises the question as to why this particular claim has been escalated to court

2.5 In conjunction with the outstanding claim being made against me, there are several other cases with UKPP, both ongoing and settled, where it has been found that the resident was lawfully entitled to park on their own land (leased or owned);

2.51 The primary case I would like to refer to is that of XXXX vs UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd (2019). The defendant (XXXX) was alleged to have incurred over £2,000 worth of charges through 14 x PCN’s issued owing to no permits being displayed at the very same building (XXXX) and during the same time as my own case. Despite XXXX not even having to turn up for the final case hearing against the claimant, the claim was struck out by XXXX for similar circumstances to my own; a primacy of contract superseding an attempt at charging a tenant based on a failure to present a permit in their vehicle and sitting behind a loosely veiled and inaccurate claim of entering into a contract.

Considering the significantly higher value of claims made against the defendant in the XXXX vs UK Parking Patrol Office case and with it being dismissed so readily, it is clear the need for my own case to be extended to the point we are at is a needless exploitation and unethical business practice on behalf of the claimant and a waste of the judicial systems time

2.52 Another case proving no consistency in enforcement by UKPP is that of XXXX; PCN Ref: XXXX. XXXX was issued a PCN for failing to display a permit in his vehicle. Upon openly admitting to UKPP that he had simply “forgotten” to display it and subsequently sent through photographic evidence of his allocated permit, UKPP agreed to rescind the charge (Exhibit X)

2.6 Continuing the theme, during a private conversation about UKPP with a XXXX Board Director, they explicitly state, “They are unbearable. No idea why they haven’t been slung out for picking on legitimate leaseholders”. The conversation provides further evidence of the predatory nature of UKPP in targeting tenants, creating a private nuisance and causing derogation from grant to people who have a right to peaceful enjoyment of their land. A full copy of the conversation has been provided for further evidence (Exhibit X)

MISUSE OF PERSONAL DATA

3.1 Following on from the SAR points regarding personal data in my summary of events, I accept that the Claimant did not need to request information from the DVLA at the time of the original alleged offence, having been provided with my address during the appeals process, however;

3.11 For the period between 26/06/2017 and 23/07/2018 when the Claimants particulars were submitted to the Courts there was an absolute need to obtain up to date information from the DVLA or any other source due to reasonable doubt as to my address owing to in excess of 14 months without contact. On that basis, I believe an absolute infringement of GDPR Art.5 1(d) “Principles relating to the processing of personal data” (Exhibit X) which states:

“Personal data shall be: accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (‘accuracy’);”

3.12 I will be asking in recognition of this breach to further rely upon GDPR Art. 82 and the right to compensation for the suffering of non-material damage as a result of this infringement; whether that be the Claimant directly or the organisation upon which they allegedly relied upon for the inaccurate personal information used.

TO BE CONTINUED IN 2ND POST BELOW

AdoptedNortherner

POST 2 OF 2
WS DRAFT CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

ABUSE OF PROCESS

4.1 The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional £60.00 plus interest to the original PCN claim, described as both “Costs from Debt Recovery Plus” in a previous Statement of Costs and a “reasonable sum” added for the costs of trying to recover the debt.

4.2 CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will:

4.2 (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and

4.2 (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

4.3 Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. It is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages or costs at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

4.4 It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs, be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments. Following my SAR with the Claimant and associated debt recovery agents in 2018, despite request, no evidence has been provided that the Claimant paid any debt collector so the £60 additional charge is invalid. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, I aver that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims.

4.5 According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA, a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

4.6 Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5) makes it clear that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper', which is £100 in this instance (the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100).

4.7 It is submitted the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes more than double recovery.

4.8 Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing.

I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

KeithP

All paragraphs in your Statement need numbering - starting with the para "1. I am XXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter...".

Keep the numbering simple - i.e get rid of sequences like 1.13(a), 1.13(b), 1.13(c) and 2.5, 2.51, 2.52.
Suggest you stick to straightforward sequential paragraph numbering that you see in these examples linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74584727&postcount=8

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74722961&postcount=62

nosferatu1001

Skellies are useful for YOU mostly!

I lost track very quickly. The WS should still be concise, and stick to relevant facts. The initial unnumbered paras are very detailed, and I didnt see quickly how it helped you.

AdoptedNortherner

Thanks for looking over this KeithP and nosferatu1001 - much appreciated!

The bullet point summary of events followed by the numbered section is the same format used in my set aside WS and it was taken from another example in the forum, however I will adjust to make everything numbered. I will also look to refine my summary of events to make it more concise. The issue I have is the summary of events needs to be chronological but UKPP keep bringing things up from the past as reasons to support their claim so I just want to ensure I have included everything. Are there any points you feel could be removed entirely?

Thanks again for your help.

Blue1133

Hi Adopted Northerner, great thread, lots of useful info, I notice one of your questions early on in the thread relates to the court process, and was wondering if you can assist me as need to send one off tomorrow!
did you put your local on the N form set aside?
did you take it in person or send via special delivery and how did you pay?
Did you send in/take in more than one copy? did you have to serve it on claimant and their representatives?
anything else that I might not be aware of i.e seen some posts on other threads relating to online process - I am assuming this is just paper based for now?

Best of luck in your case, can't wait to see the end result, hopefully a win for you and turn the tables on the nightmare that they put motorists through for parking in their own bays!

Coupon-mad

Don't send stuff by Special Delivery through ANY of this process; waste of money. You can take the paperwork to the local court, and don't have to use the CCBC.

You do put your local court and you could even attach a (downloaded from the court forms webpages) N180 Directions Questionnaire, with any January/February holiday dates noted, to avoid a court date that you can't attend. It would assist the court to include one.

did you have to serve it on claimant and their representatives?

Just the Court and Claimant if it's a set aside, no need to involve the solicitor who filed the scam claim. They do not get involved with set aside cases.

Firstly, if you have not already, ask the PPC if they will set aside ''with consent'', if they served the claim to the wrong address, because if they will then the court fee is only £100 and not £255.