Court form received help requested

sadwithoutmynelson

Haha girls and guys  

I was going yo contact cpm as advised by Henrik777 to agree a bundle ? I applied for the sar in December 2019 and got it in April 2020. 

With the 6 point draft , I saw Chucky1000 had one that I think you had devised. Is this a template I can use ? Excellent result for chucky1000. I’m in a dreamland this could happen to me. 

The hearing is on the 25 August so I have a little time although I’m quite stressed till I have the paperwork in an am currently working full time from home so would rather get them in sooner rather than later but will be sure to post them on here so it can help others also .

Really very much appreciate the help. Thankyou 

Coupon-mad

Ah, so put together your bundle then email UKCPM's solicitors (NOT UKCPM!) to ask if thy wish to add anything to the bundle for the set aside hearing on 25 August.  State that as this is your hearing to hear your application, you are not expecting them to submit the agreed bundle but you are ready and you give them seven days to provide what their client may wish to include. 

When you email the agreed bundle to the court, include your phone number in the event of a telephone hearing but don't go out of your way to ask the other side for theirs!  It's up to them if they wish to attend and submit their phone nuber to the court, so don't assist them to join the call, don't ask for their number (but of course, if they provide it, you'll have to include it in the bundle...)

sadwithoutmynelson

Ok brilliant . Will start putting the bundle together as yes it’s a telephone hearing .  And the 6 point draft - can I use the template? Thankyou 

Coupon-mad

Yes, certainly.

sadwithoutmynelson

Thankyou. I shall use the draft order you have done from chucky1000. Thankyou 

sadwithoutmynelson

DRAFT ORDER
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT

 UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)

And

Miss # #(Defendant)

District Judge

UPON reading the Defendant's application dated

IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The default judgment dated # be set aside.

2. Costs to be reserved.

3. Unless the Claimant serves a copy of the Claim Form on the Defendant by 4 pm on DD/MM/2020 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 DD/MM/2020 .

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 the hearing.

6. That all enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.

7.  Both claims (Claim number # and Claim number #) should be struck out for multiple abuses of the court process and the pre-action protocol. The two claims are exaggerated and have no prospects of success.

Do i need to add anything else to this? I understand this is only to remove the ccj and not the whole case 

sadwithoutmynelson

Witness Statement
I am # and i am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement for application dated # August 2020 requesting to : 
a) Set aside the default judgment dated #2020 for the reasons outlined below
b) Order for the original claim and second claim to be dismissed due to multiple abuses of the court process and the pre-action protocol. Claim number # and claim number #
c) Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee

DEFAULT JUDGMENT
I am the registered keeper at the time of the alleged parking event . However i was not the driver on the date in question. The claimant has offered nothing in the way of evidence as to the identity of the driver. 

I understand the claimant obtained a default judgment against me as the defendant on 17/03/2020. I am aware the claimant is UK Car Park Management Limited and that the assumed claim is in respect of unpaid parking charge notice from # at my residence of #. I contest this charge for the reasons outlined.

I received two duplicate claims Claim number # and claim number #. (MCOL chronology is attached). The Claimant has taken advantage of a litigant-in-person to get a CCJ for a second (duplicate facts) claim whilst i was dealing with the first one.   

A defence had been filed on 13/01/2020 and i was at N180 stage and believed i had done all that was required, having been bombarded with paperwork for years, and now overwhelmed by two claims when the Claimant should have filed only one,.  

A Subject Access Request was made to the claimant on the 20/12/19 by email. The Claimant responded with a request to fill details on their site. I did this on 29/12/19. Confirmation of my request was sent on the 30/12/19. On the 28/02/20, i sent an email stating i had not received my Subject Access Request. On 02/03/20 a received a reply stating it was being chased up. I finally received the Subject Access Request on 7 April 2020. 

From the point of Letter before Claim stage this Claimant has played fast and loose with the pre-action protocol (PAP) and the court process in order to intimidate the Defendant and obtain a CCJ on the one hand, whilst continuing with the first claim on the other. 

Using discretionary grounds, the court is invited to recognise the good reasons why the second claim should be struck out and that CCJ should be set aside, due to the Claimant's multiple failures, including:

Pre-action stage:

(a) failing to advance their whole case in one single, compliant Letter before Claim appending a copy of the contract (the sign) they are relying upon;

(b) failing to break down the unconscionable sum of £160 per PCN, no doubt because it constitutes double recovery;

(c) failing to pay regard to the wording and enclosures needed for Letters before Claim, as required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims;

(d) failing to attach the Reply forms required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims;

Commencement of proceedings stage:

(e) failing to advance their whole case at the time of filing their first claim on 09/12/2019.  By issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, there has been an abuse of the civil litigation process.  The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same as another.

In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”

In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:

(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

There has been no reasonable diligence exhibited in this case by the Claimant. 

Whilst the Defendant did receive the second claim form in February and acknowledged it, in the same week a Directions Questionnaire for the first claim arrived and was duly completed, so there was no attempt by the Defendant to ignore or avoid responding to the court papers as they arrived.  Given that a defence (copy attached) had already been filed via MCOL, the Defendant believed that the matter(s) were being transferred to their home court and never expected that the Claimant had actually issued more than one claim after all these months/years, in a ''drip, drip'' form of harassment.  To then trip a consumer up for not repeating the defence they've already filed is surely conduct that the court should not countenance.

Furthermore, in addition to the above, it should be highlighted that the integrity and law abiding intention of the defendant should be taken into consideration on the basis that;
On the 20/3/2020, i received the letter in the post from the courts notifying of county court judgement against me and acted expediently. I immediately rang the county court business centre to obtain the relevant information relating to this default judgment. Despite suffering from Covid 19 symptoms, very late that evening at 00.31 on 21/3/2020, after researching the process and my rights, i filed a set aside in order to present my case. No intentional attempt to avoid following the courts due process was made. 

Simultaneous to the multiple claim processes for action estoppel, i was symptomatic in Covid 19 and self isolating from the 13/03/2020, due to working in multiple NHS premises. I also had a heightened anxiety level and a greater than normal level of  stress due to being responsible for vulnerable parents alongside the added pressure to return to work. 

Due to the unreasonable behavior of the claimant  and their multiple failings, I believe the default judgement against me should be set aside and i ask the courts to kindly reimburse the fee of £255 from the claimant should this request be successful 

Statement of Truth
I believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. 

Signature

Date

sadwithoutmynelson

Would greatly appreciate some feedback on the draft order and the witness statement. i actually wasnt even driving the car at the time as although i am the registered keeper of that car which got the ccj on it, i am not even insured on that car and do not even drive it as i have a company car that i was and am using.
The company car is the claim where liabilty has been transferred to me. So they are both on my name.  Thankyou all so much for your help. 

Coupon-mad

CPM LIMITED (Claimant)

They are not called that - you need their full, correct company name as per the claim form.

We will have a look tomorrow, reply by the evening to ask again, if we don't reply...

sadwithoutmynelson

Coupon-mad said:

CPM LIMITED (Claimant)

They are not called that - you need their full, correct company name as per the claim form.

We will have a look tomorrow, reply by the evening to ask again, if we don't reply...

Apologies - UK Car Park Management Limited