We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Default CCJ (CEL) - set aside help please
Parkingposter
Posts: 7 Forumite
Hello
I have spent considerable time looking at the Newbies thread and other links to try to write a good argument for a set aside for a CCJ we have just discovered as part of mortgage checks. On calling the court it appears this was for an unpaid PCN issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd back in March 2017. We never received any paperwork relating to the PCN as we had moved 15 months prior (we made a mistake in not updating car registration details immediately in the stress of a move before Christmas). We did have a postal redirect on, but this only lasted a year, and I guess we never realised in that time we hadnt updated car details.
I would really appreciate any comments on the draft order I have cobbled together from the many threads I have read - I find some of the terminology and legalities confusing and would hate to write anything incorrect or that might put a judge's back up (I am well aware it was our responsibility to update the car details), or leave out anything important.
Here goes...
DRAFT ORDER
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT: xxxxxx
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
And
MR ---- (Defendant)
CLAIM No: ---
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The default judgment dated --/02/2018 be set aside.
2. Costs to be reserved.
3. Unless the Claimant serves a copy of the claim form on the Defendant by 4pm on XX/XX/19 paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect and the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £255 and the claim shall be struck out.
4. If the Claimant serves the claim form as directed in paragraph 3 the Defendant shall file and serve a defence by 4pm on XX/XX/2019.
5. Should the Claimant discontinue the Claim after the CCJ is set aside, paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect and the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £255 plus the Defendant's costs for attending and preparing for the hearing.
6. All enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.
WITNESS STATEMENT
7. I am
and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated --/05/2019 requesting to:
a. Set aside the default judgment dated --/02/2018 as it was defectively served using an old address.
b. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.
c. Order for the original claim to be dismissed on the basis that the Defendant has a reasonable defence, or to be re-heard at a new hearing.
1 SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The claim apparently relates to an alleged debt arising from parking in a private car park.
1.2. I understand that the claimant obtained a default judgment against me as the Defendant on --/02/2018. However, the claim form was not served at the Defendant’s current address, but to their previous address (
), where the Defendant had moved from in December 2015. Confirmation of this is in the form of confirmation of purchase from ---- (Annex A).
1.3. The Defendant has at no time tried to avoid paying for any known debt, and was at all times there to be found by a simple trace. It is submitted that the Claimant should have taken those reasonable steps, and would have known, or should have surmised, that it was likely the Defendant was not at the old address, given the length of time from the alleged parking charge and the fact that the Claimant was receiving no reply from the Defendant.
1.4 The Defendant not aware of the default judgment until 08/05/19 when they were informed of something on their credit report as part of mortgage checks for renewing their mortgage. On further investigation the Defendant found a CCJ on their credit record from County Court Business Centre. On telephoning the County Court Business Centre for further information, the Defendant was informed that this CCJ related to a parking charge for a private car park, issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd (the Claimant) for an alleged contravention on --/03/2017.
1.5 On 08/05/19 the Defendant emailed the data protection officer at Civil Enforcement Ltd (the Claimant) to submit a Subject Access Request to have the original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and other data held on the Defendant sent to them. To date no response has been received by the Defendant (Annex
.
1.6. On 09/05/19 the Defendant contacted the Court a second time to request further details of the Default Judgement. The Particulars of Claim only give ‘Claim for monies relating to a parking charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of the terms and conditions’ as the reason for the Claim. In support, details the court had emailed to the Defendant have been provided. (Annex C)
1.7. The Defendant has never received any previous correspondence from the Claimant in this matter, therefore they were never able to challenge the original charge nor the judgment. Further, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that they did post such communications to the Defendant’s address.
1.8. It is reasonable to suggest that given the lack of response to the Claimants letters prior to issuing proceedings, it would not be unreasonable for the Claimant to think the Defendant would no longer be living at ----. In that case, the Claimant ought to have taken reasonable steps to ascertain the Defendant’s current whereabouts in accordance with CPR 6.9(3). Had the Claimant done so, then it would have realised that the Defendant no longer lives at ----, which is the address the Claim Form was served. At the time of the default judgement the Defendant was on the electoral roll at their address, and was registered at the new address for council tax, all bills, banking and driving licence. As the Claimant (and any debt collection agencies/solicitors they may have instructed to contact the Defendant) had received no correspondence from the Defendant at any point, and the Defendant had not responded to the court summons, it is suggested that they had reasonable cause to question whether they were using an accurate address and that simple searches could have provided them with the correct address.
1.9. The Defendant believes the Claimant has behaved unreasonably by not ensuring they used the Defendant’s correct contact details. According to publicly available information the Defendant’s circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results in an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system.
1.10. Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016 (Annex D). The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald QC MP on 23 December 2016 announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses. The Minister added:
"It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. 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.”
1.11 To further demonstrate the irresponsible working of the Claimant on sending notices to old addresses, the Defendant would like to cite the incident on ---/11/2017 when they were contacted by ‘Pastdue Credit Solutions’ via a letter to the Defendant’s new address (----), requesting to contact DVLA regarding a pending car tax. As a law-abiding citizen, the Defendant immediately contacted DVLA and got the registered address modified to the current address and also paid the pending car tax with any associated fine. This clearly shows that other debt collection agencies have behaved in a responsible manner, by making alternative attempts to contact the Defendant when their notices went unanswered as they were delivered to an old address, to make the Defendant aware of an outstanding payment. The Claimant never took such measures and kept on sending the notices to the Defendant’s old address. This clearly shows a disregard for correct working practices by the Claimant who is clearly just interested in exacting monetary gains by deliberately sending notices to old addresses and never making a rightful attempt to contact the Defendant. A copy of the copy of mail send to the Defendant’s new address has been attached (Annex E).
1.12 In contacting Pastdue Credit Solutions to gain a copy of the letter sent, they confirmed to the Defendant that if they don’t get any response from the address provided to them by the DVLA, they check the details against other records, such as Experian or the electoral roll. Again, this clearly shows that the Claimant does not take the reasonable steps to locate the correct address, and has made no such effort in this case, merely relying on a previous address.
1.13. The above points show that the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) (4) where they had reason to believe that the address of the Defendant is an address at which the Defendant no longer resides or carries on business. The Claimant was incorrect in assuming that this was the Defendant’s last known address and did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business despite having 11 months to establish an address between the alleged incident (March 2017) and the default judgment (February 2018). This has led to a defective service and an irregular judgment and the Court must set aside the claim.
1.14.. A further reason to set aside the claim is that if the claim form was received and the Defendant was given sufficient details about the claim against them, it was more likely than not that the Defendant would have defended the claim and/or satisfied the outstanding debt, however the Defendant was not given this chance. In the Court of Appeal case Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1478 LJ May said the following:
“Rule 13.3 (1) (b) has a disjunctive alternative, so that the court may set aside or vary judgement entered in default if it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why the judgement should be set aside or varied or the Defendant should be allowed to defend the claim. In my view, this is plainly extendable to circumstances where the Defendant has not received the claim form and particulars of claim before judgement was entered against him. It is not an absolute right, but does not have to depend on the Defendant having a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The Court therefore has sufficient power to do justice in these cases and will, no doubt, normally exercise this discretion in favour of a Defendant who establishes that he had no knowledge of the claim before judgement in default was entered unless it is pointless to do so. The Defendant, for instance, may justifiably want to have the judgment set aside on the basis that, had he known about the claim, he would have satisfied it immediately without having an embarrassing judgement recorded against him.”
1.15. In summary, the Defendant has acted promptly when they found out about the judgement. The Defendant has explained why they did not respond to the claim issued. The Defendant believes that service of the claim form was invalid, and that there is also a real prospect of defending the claim (please see paragraphs 2.1-2.9 below). The prejudice The Defendant would suffer by not being allowed to defend this claim greatly exceeds the prejudice to the Claimant if the judgement is set aside. For these reasons, the Defendant respectfully asks the Court to set aside the judgement under CPR part 13.
2. ORDER DISMISSING THE CLAIM
2.1 The Defendant believes that the original parking charge notice has no merit and should thus be dismissed. 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 driver.
2.2. The Claimant has obtained details of the vehicle for which the Defendant was the registered keeper and used those details to raise a parking charge notice. The Defendant disputes this charge in its entirety as the Defendant does not know the wording of the contract nor do they know the means by which the contract was alleged to have come into force.
2.3. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to the vehicle ---- any notice to keeper issued 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. The Defendant submits that the Claimant cannot provide such evidence and further submits that the parking charge notice issued by the Claimant is not PoFA 2012 compliant, and therefore the Claimant cannot hold the registered keeper of the vehicle automatically liable.
2.4. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that any notice to keeper must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since the Defendant has not received any documentation, the Defendant submits the Claimant has not complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against the Defendant as the registered keeper.
2.5 . Furthermore, as the alleged contravention occurred over two years ago, the Defendant is unable to confirm or deny visiting the stated car park on the specified date, nor confirm the driver (there was more than one person insured to drive the vehicle ----). The Defendant is therefore unable to name the driver, as well as being under no obligation in law as keeper to do so. This was confirmed by the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that the registered keeper can only be held liable under the PoFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.
2.6. The Defendant further submits that the parking charge notice is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following reasons:
a. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is not 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 claim for any damages or trespass.
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 driver; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the driver to Civil Enforcement Ltd.
2.7. In order to make informed decisions and statements in defence as former keeper of the vehicle, the Defendant will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant. These have been requested on 08/05/19 via email, but as yet the Defendant has not had a reply or any acknowledgement of this correspondence.
2.8. Given this alleged contravention occurred over two years ago, the Defendant understandably no longer has proof of the ticket they would have purchased to park at the stated car park. However, the Defendant categorically states that they have never knowingly parked at the stated car park without purchasing a valid ticket, nor overstayed any such ticket. The Defendant therefore puts it to the Claimant to prove that any contravention did occur, but they have as yet not provided any such proof.
2.9. On this basis the Defendant believes that the claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.
Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
Full name: ---
Dated 10/05/19
Signed
Evidence:
Annex A: Proof of new address (Confirmation of purchase letter)
Annex B: Email to Civil Enforcement Ltd
Annex C: Particulars of Claim
Annex
Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016
Annex E: Letter received at new address from Past Due Ltd
Annex F: Copy of PofA 2012 Schedule 4.
Huge thanks in advance for any help you can give.
I have spent considerable time looking at the Newbies thread and other links to try to write a good argument for a set aside for a CCJ we have just discovered as part of mortgage checks. On calling the court it appears this was for an unpaid PCN issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd back in March 2017. We never received any paperwork relating to the PCN as we had moved 15 months prior (we made a mistake in not updating car registration details immediately in the stress of a move before Christmas). We did have a postal redirect on, but this only lasted a year, and I guess we never realised in that time we hadnt updated car details.
I would really appreciate any comments on the draft order I have cobbled together from the many threads I have read - I find some of the terminology and legalities confusing and would hate to write anything incorrect or that might put a judge's back up (I am well aware it was our responsibility to update the car details), or leave out anything important.
Here goes...
DRAFT ORDER
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT: xxxxxx
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
And
MR ---- (Defendant)
CLAIM No: ---
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The default judgment dated --/02/2018 be set aside.
2. Costs to be reserved.
3. Unless the Claimant serves a copy of the claim form on the Defendant by 4pm on XX/XX/19 paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect and the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £255 and the claim shall be struck out.
4. If the Claimant serves the claim form as directed in paragraph 3 the Defendant shall file and serve a defence by 4pm on XX/XX/2019.
5. Should the Claimant discontinue the Claim after the CCJ is set aside, paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect and the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £255 plus the Defendant's costs for attending and preparing for the hearing.
6. All enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.
WITNESS STATEMENT
7. I am
and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated --/05/2019 requesting to:
a. Set aside the default judgment dated --/02/2018 as it was defectively served using an old address.
b. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.
c. Order for the original claim to be dismissed on the basis that the Defendant has a reasonable defence, or to be re-heard at a new hearing.
1 SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The claim apparently relates to an alleged debt arising from parking in a private car park.
1.2. I understand that the claimant obtained a default judgment against me as the Defendant on --/02/2018. However, the claim form was not served at the Defendant’s current address, but to their previous address (
), where the Defendant had moved from in December 2015. Confirmation of this is in the form of confirmation of purchase from ---- (Annex A).
1.3. The Defendant has at no time tried to avoid paying for any known debt, and was at all times there to be found by a simple trace. It is submitted that the Claimant should have taken those reasonable steps, and would have known, or should have surmised, that it was likely the Defendant was not at the old address, given the length of time from the alleged parking charge and the fact that the Claimant was receiving no reply from the Defendant.
1.4 The Defendant not aware of the default judgment until 08/05/19 when they were informed of something on their credit report as part of mortgage checks for renewing their mortgage. On further investigation the Defendant found a CCJ on their credit record from County Court Business Centre. On telephoning the County Court Business Centre for further information, the Defendant was informed that this CCJ related to a parking charge for a private car park, issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd (the Claimant) for an alleged contravention on --/03/2017.
1.5 On 08/05/19 the Defendant emailed the data protection officer at Civil Enforcement Ltd (the Claimant) to submit a Subject Access Request to have the original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and other data held on the Defendant sent to them. To date no response has been received by the Defendant (Annex
.1.6. On 09/05/19 the Defendant contacted the Court a second time to request further details of the Default Judgement. The Particulars of Claim only give ‘Claim for monies relating to a parking charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of the terms and conditions’ as the reason for the Claim. In support, details the court had emailed to the Defendant have been provided. (Annex C)
1.7. The Defendant has never received any previous correspondence from the Claimant in this matter, therefore they were never able to challenge the original charge nor the judgment. Further, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that they did post such communications to the Defendant’s address.
1.8. It is reasonable to suggest that given the lack of response to the Claimants letters prior to issuing proceedings, it would not be unreasonable for the Claimant to think the Defendant would no longer be living at ----. In that case, the Claimant ought to have taken reasonable steps to ascertain the Defendant’s current whereabouts in accordance with CPR 6.9(3). Had the Claimant done so, then it would have realised that the Defendant no longer lives at ----, which is the address the Claim Form was served. At the time of the default judgement the Defendant was on the electoral roll at their address, and was registered at the new address for council tax, all bills, banking and driving licence. As the Claimant (and any debt collection agencies/solicitors they may have instructed to contact the Defendant) had received no correspondence from the Defendant at any point, and the Defendant had not responded to the court summons, it is suggested that they had reasonable cause to question whether they were using an accurate address and that simple searches could have provided them with the correct address.
1.9. The Defendant believes the Claimant has behaved unreasonably by not ensuring they used the Defendant’s correct contact details. According to publicly available information the Defendant’s circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results in an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system.
1.10. Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016 (Annex D). The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald QC MP on 23 December 2016 announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses. The Minister added:
"It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. 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.”
1.11 To further demonstrate the irresponsible working of the Claimant on sending notices to old addresses, the Defendant would like to cite the incident on ---/11/2017 when they were contacted by ‘Pastdue Credit Solutions’ via a letter to the Defendant’s new address (----), requesting to contact DVLA regarding a pending car tax. As a law-abiding citizen, the Defendant immediately contacted DVLA and got the registered address modified to the current address and also paid the pending car tax with any associated fine. This clearly shows that other debt collection agencies have behaved in a responsible manner, by making alternative attempts to contact the Defendant when their notices went unanswered as they were delivered to an old address, to make the Defendant aware of an outstanding payment. The Claimant never took such measures and kept on sending the notices to the Defendant’s old address. This clearly shows a disregard for correct working practices by the Claimant who is clearly just interested in exacting monetary gains by deliberately sending notices to old addresses and never making a rightful attempt to contact the Defendant. A copy of the copy of mail send to the Defendant’s new address has been attached (Annex E).
1.12 In contacting Pastdue Credit Solutions to gain a copy of the letter sent, they confirmed to the Defendant that if they don’t get any response from the address provided to them by the DVLA, they check the details against other records, such as Experian or the electoral roll. Again, this clearly shows that the Claimant does not take the reasonable steps to locate the correct address, and has made no such effort in this case, merely relying on a previous address.
1.13. The above points show that the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) (4) where they had reason to believe that the address of the Defendant is an address at which the Defendant no longer resides or carries on business. The Claimant was incorrect in assuming that this was the Defendant’s last known address and did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business despite having 11 months to establish an address between the alleged incident (March 2017) and the default judgment (February 2018). This has led to a defective service and an irregular judgment and the Court must set aside the claim.
1.14.. A further reason to set aside the claim is that if the claim form was received and the Defendant was given sufficient details about the claim against them, it was more likely than not that the Defendant would have defended the claim and/or satisfied the outstanding debt, however the Defendant was not given this chance. In the Court of Appeal case Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1478 LJ May said the following:
“Rule 13.3 (1) (b) has a disjunctive alternative, so that the court may set aside or vary judgement entered in default if it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why the judgement should be set aside or varied or the Defendant should be allowed to defend the claim. In my view, this is plainly extendable to circumstances where the Defendant has not received the claim form and particulars of claim before judgement was entered against him. It is not an absolute right, but does not have to depend on the Defendant having a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The Court therefore has sufficient power to do justice in these cases and will, no doubt, normally exercise this discretion in favour of a Defendant who establishes that he had no knowledge of the claim before judgement in default was entered unless it is pointless to do so. The Defendant, for instance, may justifiably want to have the judgment set aside on the basis that, had he known about the claim, he would have satisfied it immediately without having an embarrassing judgement recorded against him.”
1.15. In summary, the Defendant has acted promptly when they found out about the judgement. The Defendant has explained why they did not respond to the claim issued. The Defendant believes that service of the claim form was invalid, and that there is also a real prospect of defending the claim (please see paragraphs 2.1-2.9 below). The prejudice The Defendant would suffer by not being allowed to defend this claim greatly exceeds the prejudice to the Claimant if the judgement is set aside. For these reasons, the Defendant respectfully asks the Court to set aside the judgement under CPR part 13.
2. ORDER DISMISSING THE CLAIM
2.1 The Defendant believes that the original parking charge notice has no merit and should thus be dismissed. 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 driver.
2.2. The Claimant has obtained details of the vehicle for which the Defendant was the registered keeper and used those details to raise a parking charge notice. The Defendant disputes this charge in its entirety as the Defendant does not know the wording of the contract nor do they know the means by which the contract was alleged to have come into force.
2.3. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to the vehicle ---- any notice to keeper issued 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. The Defendant submits that the Claimant cannot provide such evidence and further submits that the parking charge notice issued by the Claimant is not PoFA 2012 compliant, and therefore the Claimant cannot hold the registered keeper of the vehicle automatically liable.
2.4. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that any notice to keeper must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since the Defendant has not received any documentation, the Defendant submits the Claimant has not complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against the Defendant as the registered keeper.
2.5 . Furthermore, as the alleged contravention occurred over two years ago, the Defendant is unable to confirm or deny visiting the stated car park on the specified date, nor confirm the driver (there was more than one person insured to drive the vehicle ----). The Defendant is therefore unable to name the driver, as well as being under no obligation in law as keeper to do so. This was confirmed by the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that the registered keeper can only be held liable under the PoFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.
2.6. The Defendant further submits that the parking charge notice is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following reasons:
a. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is not 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 claim for any damages or trespass.
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 driver; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the driver to Civil Enforcement Ltd.
2.7. In order to make informed decisions and statements in defence as former keeper of the vehicle, the Defendant will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant. These have been requested on 08/05/19 via email, but as yet the Defendant has not had a reply or any acknowledgement of this correspondence.
2.8. Given this alleged contravention occurred over two years ago, the Defendant understandably no longer has proof of the ticket they would have purchased to park at the stated car park. However, the Defendant categorically states that they have never knowingly parked at the stated car park without purchasing a valid ticket, nor overstayed any such ticket. The Defendant therefore puts it to the Claimant to prove that any contravention did occur, but they have as yet not provided any such proof.
2.9. On this basis the Defendant believes that the claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.
Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
Full name: ---
Dated 10/05/19
Signed
Evidence:
Annex A: Proof of new address (Confirmation of purchase letter)
Annex B: Email to Civil Enforcement Ltd
Annex C: Particulars of Claim
Annex
Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016Annex E: Letter received at new address from Past Due Ltd
Annex F: Copy of PofA 2012 Schedule 4.
Huge thanks in advance for any help you can give.
0
Comments
-
I find some of the terminology and legalities confusing
Not only confusing, but plain daft. Even the Foreign Office has stopped using French to send Notes Verbale
The PPC has obviously scammed you so complain to your MP.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.
Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Just a quick update - I’m pleased to say we have had the judgement set aside. I’m so impressed at how quickly this has happened, we were expecting a much longer wait.
We submitted the application for set aside less than 2 weeks before the hearing.
The application was largely the text in my first post, with just a few tweaks.
We had to wait about 40 mins from the stated hearing time, and I was allowed to attend (my husband was the actual defendant) after the usher asked permission from the judge.
The judge said that we had acted promptly (one of the things he has to consider) and he was satisfied that we had done enough to show there was a prospect of defending the claim.
He did tell us to be careful though or relying on information from the internet, and that the daily mail was not a source that should possibly be quoted as expert!
We were disappointed that he would not consider awarding costs or reserving them. He said that in order to do so he would have to find CEL at fault, and we had been in the wrong by not updating our address details with the DVLA. I wish we had maybe tried harder to show that they were unreasonable not to check again (we had printed out the freedom of information request from 2014 from the DVLA to support this, and the quote from the BPA code of practice that says companies should make reasonable attempts to ensure they are contacting the correct party before getting to the claim stage), but we didn’t find it easy to know when to interject, and the judge seemed unswayable on this so we weren’t sure it would have worked anyway.
He did suggest we may like to consider whether it is worth us taking the claim back to court, or whether we just decide to pay to end it. I guess we will wait to see the details of the alleged incident and the paperwork from CEL, as we haven’t seen anything yet, before we make a decision.0 -
LOL, it is 100% worth seeing the whites of their eyes in court or watching them discontinue! CEL rarely continue to a hearing after the slap of a set aside.
You are extremely likely to win and no-one is telling you to cite Daily Mail articles. He sounds a bit patronising...
What a shame he didn't consider them at fault for not bothering to trace you.
Not enough Judges seem to know that the CCJ consultation was caused by the likes of CEL and their deliberate choice not to bother to trace people is MUCH more 'fault' than your oversight.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards