CCJ issued by Excel at my place of work!, options for getting it set aside?

aardll

pictures (some not all) and the statement they've sent in the post:

https://1drv.ms/u/s!An4jieABPB5sqkrzy_1WWkOn7ytX?e=zf45WA

aardll

if anyone has any time to look through the above and give me any pointers I'd be massively appreciative, I'm currently cracking on with the witness statement and evidence now

Coupon-mad

I have no time to look at all that and why would anyone need to, given this is a template WS seen in every case already? You were surely expecting this paperwork.

Instead of uploading all their template gubbins like it's something new, why not simply search the forum for Ibrahim...the employee's name at the top, and show results as posts.

Already demolished.

nosferatu1001

Ineed, their WS are garbage> they always are. Just templates, demolished dozens of times.

Its very unusual not to have a hearing date, yet have a date to exchange WS and exhibits.

aardll

Hello all,


being as excel are now saying they are claiming 145 for each am I safe to point out the abuse of process points listed in previous threads for over inflated costs?

aardll

already noted in previous letter coup wrote, ignore previous post

aardll

First pass at witness statement, took some of the points you put together in the letter Coupon, initial feedback?


IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
CLAIM No: xxx
CLAIM No: x
BETWEEN
Excel Parking Services Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
xxx (Defendant)
Witness Statement
1. I, xxx of xxx am the defendant in this matter

2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief

3. Due to the dates of alleged incidents (nearly one year ago and over) I am unable to recall the events of those days in detail. As already mentioned in my defence I work for a charity on the business park and have an allocated bay. Occasionally due to circumstances beyond my control the work car park is sometimes oversubscribed and parking spaces are not always available even to those with designated bays. On those infrequent occasions in order to ensure I am able to get into work on time I have had to park in the retail car park, moving my vehicle into the work car park once a bay becomes available

4. The claimant has presented evidence in their witness statement which is misleading, making it seem that the signage is clear and comprehensible. Referring to the signage present when entering the business park (item x) it is absolutely obvious that it anything but, the text is completely tiny and illegible which can be clearly seen when comparing it to the other signage present on the picture

5. I have also looked at the signage in the retail car park and which to make it aware to the court that Excel place a sticker on the sign in the retail car park thereby changing the return period. It is highly plausible that the days Excel have alleged I overstayed by ten minutes that I may have left the car park and returned

6. I wish to also note that Excel Parking have a car parked on the road with a camera present in it which charges motorists who even stop on the road to read the signage (evidence item x), this is a complete nonsense and is further proof of the unreasonable and unlawful way they operate

7. Based on the point above I deny that I ever knowingly entered into any contract with Excel Parking

8. The claimant has provided photographs of my vehicle with the misleading red and black pieces of paper on them which clearly say “this is not a parking charge” on them (evidence item x). Why would the claimant leave a piece of a paper on my vehicle with this wording on then pursue me for parking charges via litigation later on without my knowledge?

9. I recall checking the website noted on the piece of paper and finding no record of my vehicle in there. It was my assumption that I was either being subjected to some sort of scam or because I was authorised to park on the business park there was nothing more for me to do

10. The claimant has questioned why I chose to sit back for 4 months and do nothing about the claims. I knew nothing about the claim because the claimant issued the first CCJ to my old address then proceeded to send a second claim to the wrong address in May 2019 despite my details being correct with the DVLA in March 2019

11. Both claims therefore suffered from defective service and were set aside

12. I also believe this constitutes a breach of GDPR regulations as Excel are using incorrect data about me and not even bothering to check it’s correctness.

13. I contacted the business park facilities manager who informed me that she would ask for the charges to be reduced back to £30 (evidence item x) but excel completely ignored this and proceeded to continue to pursue me via litigation

14. Despite me filing a defence, the Claimants did not inform the court that they wished to proceed, or paid a hearing fee, and instead

15. They have passed the data to DCBL (unlawfully, given the stage the matters are at) and instructed them to send the attached letter (evidence item x) demanding monies and referring to the old CCJ number of one of the claims, as if the set asides had never happened, and

16. In blatant disregard for the Practice Direction, the Claimant has made no attempts to enter into a meaningful dialogue with me or at least narrow the issues, and has continued to demand monies despite the mandatory set sides granted by the Court in July

17. I remain £510 out of pocket for attending a hearing and for the applications to set aside these CCJs - the costs were reserved - and all the Claimant has done is allowed the matter to remain dormant, ignored the court process and then sent a bailiff letter, which must be an abuse of process

18. In summary and in support of there being a want of a cause of action or justification for the continued conduct of this Claimant:

19. In the Practice direction, Para 13-16, sanctions: compliance with the PD is not voluntary, nor is it a 'guide' to best practice. It is part of the CPR and is binding. Parties are expected to comply with it. The court may punish those who do not. Inter alia, the court's powers include a costs order, and this may be on the indemnity basis (16(a) and (b)).

20. The Claimant's unreasonable conduct extends well beyond the pre-action phase and has continued during these proceedings - no attempt to answer my reasonable requests, its Particulars of Claim were incoherent and incomprehensible, the issuing of a knowingly inflated claim by adding 'damages' already covered by a parking charge (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 confirms this) and the issuing of two claims with substantially identical particulars.

21. The claimant had noted in their WS that the second charge being £185 was an honest mistake, which I don’t believe for a moment – they are seasoned litigants who operate on a “robo claims” business model and were simply trying to add unreasonable charges in an attempt at double recovery

22. It seems that the claimant feels it acceptable to note that they made an honest mistake yet are more than happy to pursue individuals via litigation for allegedly overstaying in a car park for about 10 minutes (it is my understanding that carparks are supposed to give 10 minutes grace periods)

23. This amounts to an abuse of process, attempting to waste the Court’s time and making me liable to two instances of costs and indeed two set aside fees costing over £500 alone. This runs contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1 - the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost.

24. In considering the reasonableness of the Claimant's conduct I feel the court should take into account its position as a professional parking company and member of the IPC trade Body, and that it is a seasoned litigant which should be fully conversant with the court rules and its obligations.

25. In comparison, I am litigant in person, an ordinary person with no experience of the court (yet has managed to comply with all of obligations, deadlines and the court rules despite the huge costs thus far and the research and work involved taking many hours and causing loss of personal family time and peace of mind, impacting on most of this year).

26. I wish to note that I have three diagnosed mental health conditions; diagnosis letter attached as evidence. The level of stress and additional sickness this has caused me being put through the fear of not being able to secure a mortgage which could affect my ability to stay in my own home in addition to the constant fear that bailiffs may turn up on my doorstep has been insurmountable. The mental illness I suffer from causes me extremely high levels of stress to the point that it makes me physically sick and unable to even move. I have lost weeks at work due to sickness directly caused by the appalling and unreasonable behaviour of Excel Parking

27. Excel parking operate in a predatory manner, scaring motorists and vulnerable people into paying unfair parking charges. This type of behaviour by private parking firms has to stop. I refer to evidence item x which was debated in the house of commons:

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

DoaM

Item 4 doesn't "scan" right for me .... saying something is "tiny and illegible" and then immediately using the words "which can be clearly seen" may give the wrong impression.

I know what you're trying to say - but I think you may need to rephrase this item to make it obvious what you mean.

General comment - there are a number of grammatical errors; too many for me to have time to properly read through and point out - a couple of examples below. Hopefully someone else will have the time and desire to do so.

4. is absolutely obvious that it anything but
5. and which to make it aware to the court

aardll

Thanks,



gone back through and fixed some of the grammar issues, I'm just looking for general pointers on things I absolutely need to get into the WS to ensure the best chance of beating them.


I feel like it's missing something - is it worth including the abuse of process points coup outlined in another thread?

Umkomaas

I feel like it's missing something - is it worth including the abuse of process points coup outlined in another thread?
aardll is online now

I haven't trawled back through the entire thread, but are they claiming £60 for contractual/debt collection costs? If so then you do a supplementary WS to cover the Abuse of Process angle, using the words from post #14 (by CM) in beamerguy's thread on AoP.