Parking Eye - Set Aside | Ready?

Coupon-mad

FinesAreBad wrote: »

Hi,

Can you please read over my SA and my SoC and let me know if I should change, add something? I have already submitted all the evidence with my application. I've included a table of reference with them and I will reference them in the SA when I finalise it.

Thanks.

---

SA content

---

1. Request

1.1 The Defendant asks the court to set-aside the default judgement issued on the XX/XX/XXXX.

1.2 The Defendant asks the court costs to be reserved.

2. Reasoning

2.1 I was not aware of the claim made against me prior to learning about the CCJ in XX/XX.

2.2 All documents sent by the Claimant and the court have been delivered to an old address of mine. I was thus denied a fair trial and the opportunity to properly defend my case.

2.3 I purchased the vehicle with registration XXXXXX on the XX and it was registered at XX. I moved away from that address on the XX.

2.4 I had arranged with my old landlord to get my post until I received my logbook. I then sent my logbook back to the DVLA to get my address updated and waited for a few weeks to hear back from them as on the DVLA website it states it can take up to 6 weeks to receive a new logbook.
2.5 I didn't receive anything until XX, so I contacted the DVLA and it turned out they never received my logbook. I was told I had to pay a fee to get my logbook reissued. I completed the form and paid the fee XX I only received my reissued logbook in XX.

2.6 I have done my best to keep my details with the DVLA up-to-date. The DVLA updated my address a week after the Claimant requested my details from the DVLA.

2.7 Since learning about the CCJ I have been trying to establish a meaningful conversation with the Claimant in an effort to reduce costs for both parties.

2.8 This includes a representation made to the Claimant by a member of parliament, XX who is my MP.

2.9 The Claimant has not followed the Pre-action Practice Direction and has ignored direct correspondence from me and a member of parliament for nearly XX months, although promising and reassuring the MP that they are going to contact me.

2.10 Compliance with the Pre-Action Direction is not voluntary. It is part of the CPR and is binding. It requires both parties to engage in a meaningful conversation in an effort to avoid litigation. 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)) and the power to remit (or increase) interest 16(c)/(d). Such sanctions can apply even against a successful party (paragraph 16).

2.11 Paras 3, 8 and 12 of the PD set out its purpose, which is to primarily to avoid litigation (para 8) by laying down a procedure which allows the parties to:
- understand each other’s positions (para 3)
- make decisions about how to proceed (para 3)
- explore settlement/consider ADR (para 3)
- support the “efficient management” of any proceedings and reduce costs (para 3)
- “stocktake” and review their respective positions after following the PD by exchanging information, to see if proceedings can be avoided and to “at least” narrow the issues (para 12).

2.12 Paras 6(a) & (c) oblige a Claimant to enter into a meaningful dialogue with a Defendant at an early stage by imposing specific obligations to:
- explain the claim in a Letter Before Claim,
- provide relevant core documents, and
- answer any questions asked by the Defendant in sufficient detail for the Defendant to understand and respond

2.13 The Claimant had a reasonable doubt to believe my details are incorrect as I did not reply to any of their letters or any of the court papers. As a parking company which specializes in issuing and recovering PCNs daily, the Claimant has certainly been in this situation before and;

2.14 has had a good reason to believe they did not have my correct details. Yet they proceeded with further litigation actions, which has caused me great distress and hardship.

2.15 It is noted that because of such unreasonable behaviour of parking companies, Government in their right mindset have announced a CCJ review due to parking companies exploiting the legal system in December 2016. 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.”

2.16 I note that parliament has been well aware of the MO of such private parking companies, and on the 15th of March 2019 a Bill was enacted to limit the damage they cause to normal people’s life.

2.17 I ask the court to consider all points in my Draft Order and;

2.18 Costs, as listed in my Schedule of Costs be reserved.

---

SoC content

---

In the County Court at XXX

Claim No.: XXX
Between

PE XX
(Claimant)

-v-


XX
(Defendant)

DEFENDANT'S SCHEDULE OF COSTS



Ordinary Costs, as stated in Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.2(e)


Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 03/10/2019 (7.5 hours x £19.22) £144.15

Return mileage from home address to Court (5 miles x £0.45) £2.25

Parking near Court £5.10

Sub-total £151.50

---

Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

Court fee for N244 application for set-aside: £255.00

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (8 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19.00 per hour) £152.00

Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage: £15.00

Sub-total £422.00

---

£ 573.50 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED

I agree with KeithP.

Very good preparation by the way!

FinesAreBad

KeithP wrote: »

In your Costs Schedule, I would move "Court fee for N244 application for set-aside: £255.00" into the 'ordinary costs' section.

You don't want a judge to read 'unreasonable behaviour' and not read further.

Hi Keith, thanks I will do that. I was a bit hesitant about that as well

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I agree with KeithP.

Very good preparation by the way!

Hah. Thank you I am really happy you think everything else looks good!!!

henrik777

You need to emphasise restrictions place on them by the KADOE contract with the dvla.

This restricts them from checking an address without a reasonable cause and in any event, no more than 26 weeks later.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/183591/response/451890/attach/5/FOIR3720%20Annex%20C.pdf


Instead you are focusing on saying you tried your upmost to keep the dvla informed with the reality being it's pretty insignificant. They should have used a tracing agent which is pretty common practice.

FinesAreBad

Thanks for pointing that out. I will add a sentance that a simple trace could have prevented any litigation and try and expand on that a little more.

Coupon-mad

Add that ParkingEye regularly use their debt arm Equita to trace people's addresses and it is wholly within their gift and normal business model to do so.

FinesAreBad

All documents have been submitted.

What other documents am I allowed to take with me?

I have received some last minute correspondence from PE and they have included their Letter without prejudice in their response to my application. They state that I have not responded, so I forwarded my response as proof. They stated that they will add my response to a file for their law agent. They will be represented by someone from LPC l.a.w.

As they seem to be able to add documents just like that, what extra documents am I allowed to take? Can I take copies of my correspondence with them today?

KeithP

Without prejudice documents cannot be discussed at court.

FinesAreBad

KeithP wrote: »

Without prejudice documents cannot be discussed at court.

Seems like they are planning to anyway. Hopefully the judge will dismiss their point once I mention it.

FinesAreBad

Is it worth me asking the court to ensure that the lawyer they are sending has 'Rights of Audience'? Do I need to bring a copy of anything? I'm thinking because LPC is in London and the case is in Wales they most likely will ask someone else to do it?

Coupon-mad

They might not send anyone if this is a set aside hearing, but if they do the person is unlikely to have RoA...however convincing a Judge to kick that person out and admit the Judge has been getting it wrong all these years, is a big ask.

Most of those who lay rep, no longer try to challenge RoA.

Remember if they failed to take steps to ensure that they filed the claim at your last known address, and yet they knew your last known POSTAL address (did they, from your response?) then a set aside is mandatory anyway.

As explained by henrik777 in post #23.