2 Default Judgement - Updated PPC and V5

Lego-9

Hello everyone,

Been a keen observer and have been learning off of most of the current battles as I meandered towards mine.

Briefly, I have been issued 2 x Defaults on the 04.02.2019 for a 2x claim in early December. I am currently finishing of my 2x WS and 2x DO and will be completing a Draft Defence to go along with 2x N244 to file in Local court tomorrow.

My main question would be, is there away to organise a defence around the fact that the PPC chose to issue a claim serving the incorrect address and that it could be struck out on that merit? This is due to the fact that I had informed the PPC in question of my address change, along with the usual DVLA amendments. When rebutting the LBC sent to me, on three instances in both documents along with 2 x cover page I sent, I stated I had changed my address and that they should serve any future correspondence in pursuit of both Claims to my new address. They chose not to and now am constructing a good defence and looking for any tips and special aspects to look into. I know that CPR 13.2 works in favour.

With two claims being extremely similar and pertaining the same information bar a few discrepancies, would it be possible to order two claims to be merged under one single claim, a la res judicata, at this stage?

Any suggestions would be great and as I finish up a draft will post the process.

Thanks very much in advance and have a cracking evening.
Leggo

Coupon-mad

All of what you've said, are reasons to support your set aside application.

The address issue has nothing to do with your defence, once the CCJs are set aside.

The_Deep

You may well have a case for a counter claim and or unreasonable behaviour costs here. Get your MP on board.

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Lego-9

Coupon-mad wrote: »

All of what you've said, are reasons to support your set aside application.

The address issue has nothing to do with your defence, once the CCJs are set aside.

Thank you for quick response.

What is a positively viewed turnaround for a Set Aside application? I have received CCJ details on the 15.02. Would 10 days be viewed at favourably?

Lego-9

In the XXXXXXXX Court
XX
XX
XX
XX

VCS (Claimant)

And

XX (Defendant)

Claim No: XX

Draft Order

1. I am XX and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated 21.02.2019 requesting to:

1.1. Set aside the default judgment dated XX as it was knowingly and defectively served using an old address.

1.2. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £255, in addition to any further costs incurred, as reimbursement for the set aside fee/costs, or for the costs to be reserved.

1.3 Order for the original claim to be dismissed on the basis of a reasonable defence; or for it to be re-heard at a new hearing.

1.4. If the claim is to be re-heard at a new hearing, Order for the claims XX and XX be consolidated and heard together.

1.5 Unless the Claimant do file and serve within 14 days of this Order a fully particularised Amended Particulars of Claim in respect of all matters giving rise to Parking Charges, to include details of the terms of any alleged contract between the Claimant and Defendant and any alleged contract entitling the Claimant to issue parking charges, the claim be struck out.

1.5. The Defendant do have permission to file and serve an Amended Defence, such Defence to be filed within 14 days of the Amended Particulars of Claim.

1.6. The Parties may apply to set aside or vary this Order within 7 days of service.

1.7 All enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.


~

I know general consensus is to keep to 6 point, but I thought a few points were pertinent to my situation. Would this be okay to send as is?

Many thanks for all involved

KeithP

Where's the point that effectively says if the Claimant does not pursue the original claim then the Claimant summarily repays the £255 set aside fee?

And the one about putting on hold all enforcement action?

It is not about limiting the Draft Order to six points, it's about including the six points that are usually used.

Coupon-mad

Yes 10 days or a couple of weeks is quick to apply for a set aside.

Lego-9

KeithP wrote: »

Where's the point that effectively says if the Claimant does not pursue the original claim then the Claimant summarily repays the £255 set aside fee?

And the one about putting on hold all enforcement action?

It is not about limiting the Draft Order to six points, it's about including the six points that are usually used.

Hi KethP and thanks for the reply.

I hope I haven't missed or written in such a way that it gets hidden but I believe 1.2 and 1.7 are the points questioned?

1.2. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £255, in addition to any further costs incurred, as reimbursement for the set aside fee/costs, or for the costs to be reserved.
1.7 All enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.

Lego-9

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes 10 days or a couple of weeks is quick to apply for a set aside.

Superb. Thank you

KeithP

Yes, don't know why I didn't see that. Apologies.

Lego-9

KeithP wrote: »

Yes, don't know why I didn't see that. Apologies.

No worries and thanks for the concern. I presume it's worth going over to ensure that it doesn't read hidden.