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 QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Gladstones and CPM CCJ - old address
duckieb
Posts: 64 Forumite
Hi all. I have made a new thread as I was confusing everyone by talking about my 2 different issues! I have left the old thread for further advice about my claim.
As a summary, in August I was applying for a new mortgage on my flat and it was rejected because of credit rating. I found 2 CCJs against me which I knew nothing about. I work in the NHS and have worked over multiple hospitals, and it seemed I accrued some PCNs along the way. In a panic I paid one as it was within 30 days. Then second CCJ was from March 2019, and it is for an alleged PCN on my first day of work at a new hospital over 1 year ago. The PPC is UK CPM and the solicitors are Gladstones. I do not remember if I drove or if I was dropped off with my husband stopping there for a bit, nor do I remember any parking ticket. All correspondence went to my old address, except for one LBC from Gladstones which apparently came to my new address but I have never seen it. The claim and CCJ all went to my old address.
I applied to have it set-aside and did the N244 paperwork and a witness statement with the help of you wonderful people on here. I have now had the case allocated to my local court and they are due to set a date for the set-aside hearing. However the judge has asked I file a defence by 22nd October and they will then set the date after this. I am now a bit stuck and would be grateful for any advice or help.
I am unsure how to phrase the defence. I have drafted one below - however it is vague and generic as I do not have the particulars of the claim or the original notices. A SAR submitted to CPM resulted in some rubbish response from them after weeks, and Gladstones sending me the letters before claim and nothing more which are vague and rubbish. I have emailed the hospital to try and get it cancelled although I know it is too late for that. I am concerned a vague defence will not be looked upon favourably. I have posted below and am grateful for any advice.
Finally, am I right in thinking that when I serve this defence, I attach all evidence in my emails to Gladstones and the Courts. And when I go to the hearing, I take everything in a ring binder with printed copies of evidence/PoFA/regulations I've referred to/witness statement etc etc? Do I do a Schedule of Costs as well and send with the defence, or is that for the claim hearing if the set-aside is granted?
I have spent literally hours reading through so many threads, and have come out the other side confused and disheartened as to how I will pull this off.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXX
BETWEEN:
UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
DRAFT DEFENCE
Preliminary
1. The initial notices and particulars of claim have not been seen by the Defendant. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an amended defence should the Claimant add to or expand his particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the particulars.
2. The Witness Statement and evidence submitted earlier are repeated. These are also served to the Claimant.
Background
3. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
4. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
5. It is neither admitted nor denied that on 14th March 2018 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at XXX. Due to the length of time passed since the alleged incident the Defendant is unable to accurately recall the date in question.
6. The order to the claim be dismissed due to the following reasons, which are further outlined below –
a. Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012)
b. Unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge, in contravention to the BPA Code of Practice and established legal precedents
d. Claimant has no evidence of landowner authority or a legal contract, in contravention to the BPA Code of Practice
Failure to follow Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4
7. It is neither admitted nor denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
8. The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.
9. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.
10. The claim form and subsequent County Court Judgement (CCJ) have not been served at the Defendant’s current address and the Defendant became aware of the CCJ incidentally when checking credit rating on 20th August 2019. The Defendant understands that the Claim and CCJ were served at an old address (XXX) However, the Defendant moved to a new address in January 2017. In support of this, the Defendant can provide confirmation from Wandsworth County Council showing the updated details for the purposes of paying Council tax.
11. The Defendant has also not seen any previous documentation from the Claimant in this matter and thus was never able to properly challenge the Claimant’s claim.
12. The claim form and subsequent CCJ have not been served at the Defendant’s current address despite the Claimant having become aware of the Defendant’s new address. As per Freedom of Information Request (FOIR3988) from June 2014, the claimant knew about the DVLA allowing the use of Credit Reference Agencies and Tracing Agencies, and the sensible reasons for using, specifying that similar circumstances to be applying equally to the car parking industry, but has been clearly ignored and not followed by the Claimant. This demonstrates sharp practice and no attempt to ensure the Claim was properly served, as well as an abuse of old address in an attempt to obtain a default CCJ.
COPY OF DVLA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (FOIR3988) APPENDED AS EVIDENCE
13. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant would have needed to comply with the requirements of 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.
14. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that this any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since the Defendant has not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the CCJ, the Defendant submits the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against the Defendant as the Registered Keeper in any case.
Failure to set out clearly parking terms, Lack of Landowner Authority, Abuse of Process
15. The Claimant allegedly sent the Defendant a letter purporting to be a 'letter before claim' but it did not include essential information including details of what the alleged breach was, any photographs taken, what time it occurred and for how long, and proof that a breach actually occurred. This amounts to a failure to comply with Practice Direction 6 (a). This claim is being made over 1 year after the alleged breach took place, and after all this time without adherence to Practice Direction 6. The expectations of the court outlined in Practice Direction 3 have not been met.
16. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
17. Should UK Car Park Management Ltd provide evidence to substantiate their claim then it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN. Therefore, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.
18. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £258 is an unenforceable penalty clause.
19. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
20. The claim includes interest charge but does not include dates used for calculation. As such, this is in breach of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 (2).
21. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The original claim includes additional charges of £158, for which no clear calculation or explanation is given, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
22. Overall the costs on the claim are disproportionate and are an abuse of process. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(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
(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.
23. 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. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
24. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.
25. It is trite law that non-existent and untrue 'legal costs' are also unrecoverable. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims.
26. 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.
27. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.
28. 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 earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firms claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating: ''It is ordered that The Claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The Claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
29. That is not an isolated judgment striking out a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Southampton Court on 27th September 2019, Judge Giddins struck out two claims by BW Legal for abuse of process (case numbers F4DP5264 & F4DP5279). In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:
''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''
30. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.
31. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
32. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.
Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief
As a summary, in August I was applying for a new mortgage on my flat and it was rejected because of credit rating. I found 2 CCJs against me which I knew nothing about. I work in the NHS and have worked over multiple hospitals, and it seemed I accrued some PCNs along the way. In a panic I paid one as it was within 30 days. Then second CCJ was from March 2019, and it is for an alleged PCN on my first day of work at a new hospital over 1 year ago. The PPC is UK CPM and the solicitors are Gladstones. I do not remember if I drove or if I was dropped off with my husband stopping there for a bit, nor do I remember any parking ticket. All correspondence went to my old address, except for one LBC from Gladstones which apparently came to my new address but I have never seen it. The claim and CCJ all went to my old address.
I applied to have it set-aside and did the N244 paperwork and a witness statement with the help of you wonderful people on here. I have now had the case allocated to my local court and they are due to set a date for the set-aside hearing. However the judge has asked I file a defence by 22nd October and they will then set the date after this. I am now a bit stuck and would be grateful for any advice or help.
I am unsure how to phrase the defence. I have drafted one below - however it is vague and generic as I do not have the particulars of the claim or the original notices. A SAR submitted to CPM resulted in some rubbish response from them after weeks, and Gladstones sending me the letters before claim and nothing more which are vague and rubbish. I have emailed the hospital to try and get it cancelled although I know it is too late for that. I am concerned a vague defence will not be looked upon favourably. I have posted below and am grateful for any advice.
Finally, am I right in thinking that when I serve this defence, I attach all evidence in my emails to Gladstones and the Courts. And when I go to the hearing, I take everything in a ring binder with printed copies of evidence/PoFA/regulations I've referred to/witness statement etc etc? Do I do a Schedule of Costs as well and send with the defence, or is that for the claim hearing if the set-aside is granted?
I have spent literally hours reading through so many threads, and have come out the other side confused and disheartened as to how I will pull this off.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXX
BETWEEN:
UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
DRAFT DEFENCE
Preliminary
1. The initial notices and particulars of claim have not been seen by the Defendant. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an amended defence should the Claimant add to or expand his particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the particulars.
2. The Witness Statement and evidence submitted earlier are repeated. These are also served to the Claimant.
Background
3. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
4. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
5. It is neither admitted nor denied that on 14th March 2018 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at XXX. Due to the length of time passed since the alleged incident the Defendant is unable to accurately recall the date in question.
6. The order to the claim be dismissed due to the following reasons, which are further outlined below –
a. Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012)
b. Unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge, in contravention to the BPA Code of Practice and established legal precedents
d. Claimant has no evidence of landowner authority or a legal contract, in contravention to the BPA Code of Practice
Failure to follow Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4
7. It is neither admitted nor denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
8. The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.
9. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.
10. The claim form and subsequent County Court Judgement (CCJ) have not been served at the Defendant’s current address and the Defendant became aware of the CCJ incidentally when checking credit rating on 20th August 2019. The Defendant understands that the Claim and CCJ were served at an old address (XXX) However, the Defendant moved to a new address in January 2017. In support of this, the Defendant can provide confirmation from Wandsworth County Council showing the updated details for the purposes of paying Council tax.
11. The Defendant has also not seen any previous documentation from the Claimant in this matter and thus was never able to properly challenge the Claimant’s claim.
12. The claim form and subsequent CCJ have not been served at the Defendant’s current address despite the Claimant having become aware of the Defendant’s new address. As per Freedom of Information Request (FOIR3988) from June 2014, the claimant knew about the DVLA allowing the use of Credit Reference Agencies and Tracing Agencies, and the sensible reasons for using, specifying that similar circumstances to be applying equally to the car parking industry, but has been clearly ignored and not followed by the Claimant. This demonstrates sharp practice and no attempt to ensure the Claim was properly served, as well as an abuse of old address in an attempt to obtain a default CCJ.
COPY OF DVLA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (FOIR3988) APPENDED AS EVIDENCE
13. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant would have needed to comply with the requirements of 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.
14. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that this any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since the Defendant has not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the CCJ, the Defendant submits the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against the Defendant as the Registered Keeper in any case.
Failure to set out clearly parking terms, Lack of Landowner Authority, Abuse of Process
15. The Claimant allegedly sent the Defendant a letter purporting to be a 'letter before claim' but it did not include essential information including details of what the alleged breach was, any photographs taken, what time it occurred and for how long, and proof that a breach actually occurred. This amounts to a failure to comply with Practice Direction 6 (a). This claim is being made over 1 year after the alleged breach took place, and after all this time without adherence to Practice Direction 6. The expectations of the court outlined in Practice Direction 3 have not been met.
16. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
17. Should UK Car Park Management Ltd provide evidence to substantiate their claim then it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN. Therefore, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.
18. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £258 is an unenforceable penalty clause.
19. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
20. The claim includes interest charge but does not include dates used for calculation. As such, this is in breach of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 (2).
21. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The original claim includes additional charges of £158, for which no clear calculation or explanation is given, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
22. Overall the costs on the claim are disproportionate and are an abuse of process. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(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
(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.
23. 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. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
24. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.
25. It is trite law that non-existent and untrue 'legal costs' are also unrecoverable. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims.
26. 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.
27. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.
28. 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 earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firms claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating: ''It is ordered that The Claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The Claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
29. That is not an isolated judgment striking out a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Southampton Court on 27th September 2019, Judge Giddins struck out two claims by BW Legal for abuse of process (case numbers F4DP5264 & F4DP5279). In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:
''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''
30. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.
31. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
32. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.
Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief
0
Comments
-
Bump for replies over the weekend.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Bumping for some help over the weekend, though I know everyone has far better things to do. My deadline for filing the draft defence is Tuesday! However since it is a draft, am I right in thinking that it is just the defence and not all the evidence/schedule of costs etc, and that if the set-aside is granted I can then revisit the defence and amend as this is a draft?
Also I have a hearing date for the set-aside - 10th January 2020.0 -
Yes that's right.am I right in thinking that it is just the defence and not all the evidence/schedule of costs etc, and that if the set-aside is granted I can then revisit the defence and amend as this is a draft?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra work.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
I'm definitely complaining to my MP. Also that's good news re just a draft defence. Any comments re the actual content of it? Is it too vague? I just don't have the previous letters/PCNs to actually base it on despite submitting a SAR0
-
So sorry for another post - just wondering if any comments re above defence? Awful/acceptable? I will send it in tomorrow morning and send to UK CPM, but just want to check it is not diabolical.0
-
Aren't point 10 & 12 the same?0
-
Point 10 was supposed to be stating how everything went to my old address so I couldn't respond, and point 12 that they consciously knew of my new address but still sent claim and CCJ to old one. If they sound too similar I can just make it into one point.0
-
I would amalgamate them.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Keep the defence "(a) the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim" separate from your set aside.
Aside from being cumbersome combining the application and defence, in your case it's something you're not really intending to rely on as you are saying they KNOWINGLY sent to an old address which is a mandatory set aside.
I'd encourage you to read https://legalbeagles.info/library/how-to-set-aside-a-county-court-judgment-ccj/ but don't go to their forum as you'll just confuse the heck out of yourself. Stick to this thread.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 345.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 251K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 450.9K Spending & Discounts
- 237.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 612.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.3K Life & Family
- 250.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards