Mystery CCJ - any support appreciated

LJG83

I’ll start the process of calling CCBC and paying/submitting this weekend if so. 

henrik777

So,
Moved house September 2018
Parking event November 2018

V5 updated 1/4/19
Court claim initiated 3/4/19
Default judgment April 2019



To me this makes your 13.2 argument much less than 100%. 5 months is relatively short. 50/50 at best. I'd still argue it because if you win then you should almost certainly get full costs and promptness etc doesn't enter the equation.

The whole VCS/Excel situation is a great fallback position under 13.3 but costs are far from certain.

KeithP

1. The default judgment dated XXX must be set aside judgement entered under Part 12 due to defective service under Rule 13.2 as it was not properly served to my current address.

Replace the word my there with the Defendant's.

LJG83

henrik777 said:

So,
Moved house September 2018
Parking event November 2018

V5 updated 1/4/19
Court claim initiated 3/4/19
Default judgment April 2019



To me this makes your 13.2 argument much less than 100%. 5 months is relatively short. 50/50 at best. I'd still argue it because if you win then you should almost certainly get full costs and promptness etc doesn't enter the equation.

The whole VCS/Excel situation is a great fallback position under 13.3 but costs are far from certain.

Thanks, appreciate your honesty. I’ll ensure that 13.3 is also referenced on the NE244 form as a fallback. 

LJG83

Just a quick update on this. 

I had the hearing in which the set aside was agreed. I’ve been given 28 days to file a defence now. 

Unfortunately the judge wouldn’t refund me the set aside fee as he stated I should have had the correct address for my car with DVLA. Is this normal practice? 

Could I ask for a refund in my defence for this fee? 

Is there any action I need to take to get the CCJ removed from my file too? 

The judge also ended by saying that some cases are now being decided without a hearing. 

nosferatu1001

Doesnt matter if it is normal or not. It is up to the judge. Suck it up, i am afraid. You shoudl have said that the address beingup to date wouldnt have helped as they can only check once, or that they should have realised after zero communication they never had the right address, etc. 

Not a hope. Defending the claim is totally unrelated to set aside. Your ship has sailed
No, should happen automatically

Yes, on papers. You dont want that, of course, and you will have read DOZENS of threads by now telling you that papers ia  bad idea for obvious reasons. 

LJG83

Coupon-mad said:

How is this any different than this thread/stage?  
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6144802/ccj-parking-fine-help/p7

Please read it as if the advice is for you, to save us repeating it again. This forum is like Groundhog day and if people would just read the threads we regulars do they'd know what to do next and that, yes it is normal that a Judge may not agree to Order the C to refund your fee if he/she thinks you played a part in your own downfall.

Advice is already on every other CCJ set aside thread, and I keep repeating - SEND A DEFENCE AND A WS AND EVIDENCE TOGETHER.  All explained in the linked thread but read about ten or more (please) to get up to speed and see what other people have prepared at the same stage.

Thanks for the advice. My only questions were around the set aside fee and getting the CCJ removed which have been previously answered. 

I was aware of what action I needed to take (albeit I hadn’t seen the mention of a WS too due to courts bypassing) but thank you for reiterating - the defence temple is really good. 

LJG83

This is a famous Berkeley/VCS/Excel case in Sheffield where I’ll claim not to be the driver.

I’ve used the defence template. In the additional points part of the template am I on the right track as per below? 

18. The facts are that the vehicle, registration *********, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was photographed by ANPR entering and exiting THE BERKELY CENTRE CAR PARK in Sheffield on XXX. 

 

19. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s);. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. 

 

20. The terms and conditions shown on the signage within the car park do not state that a PCN will be issued for failure to purchase a ticket; this information is only present in the general section of the signage which is not part of the ‘terms and conditions’ and therefore not legally binding. 

 

21. The Claim is made in the name of Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (Company No. 02498820), whereas the signage displayed at the location in question was, and is, in the name of Excel Parking Services Ltd (Company No. 02878122), a separate legal entity. Any contract, in a private car park, can only be formed by signage, and it is therefore submitted that if there was any contract, it would have been between Excel and the Defendant. Vehicle Control Services were not a party to such a contract, and therefore cannot sue on it. 

 

22. The logo in the bottom and top right of the signs is for Excel Parking Services and not Vehicle Control Services who are making the claim in this case. In addition, it is clearly indicated in the Terms & Conditions sign (icons) adjacent to the ticket machine that tickets are issued in the name of Excel. This creates uncertainty as to which is the contracting party.

 

 

23. 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.

24. At the date of the parking event in issue, the Claimant did not have Sheffield City Council’s consent to display their contractual parking sign advertisement (or any of their other parking signs at the material location) that was essential for them to have been displayed lawfully, pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (“the Regulations”). Section 30 of the Regulations, as also Section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, provides that any unauthorised display of an advertisement that requires Express Consent to be displayed is a strict-liability criminal offence. The parking contract on which the Claimant relies and was allegedly entered into by the driver’s act of parking is not lawfully enforceable for it being a contract that was illegal at its formation and cannot be applied retrospectively. At the date of the parking event in issue the parking contract with the driver existed only by virtue of the Claimant’s criminal act of advertising their contractual terms and conditions of parking in statutory breach and was therefore a void contract to be treated as if it never existed. Ex turpi causa non oritur action. The claimant cannot pursue legal remedy, if it arises in connection with its own unlawful act. 

 

25. The letters submitted in by Vehicle Control Services imply a parking enforcement contract is in place between Vehicle Control Services and the landowner. However, the front page of the contract for parking enforcement services at Berkeley Precinct dated the 28 September 2018 is for Excel Services, implies the contract is actually with separate entity Excel Services and not Vehicle Control Services therefore puts reasonable doubt onto which company actually had a parking contract in place at the time. This demonstrates that any contract would have been between Excel and the Defendant, and that Vehicle Control Services were not a party to such a contract, and therefore cannot sue on it. 

 

26. According to section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, for a contract to be executed (in other words, valid) it must be signed by TWO authorised persons from each party, or a Director AND a witness. Since there is only one signatory from each party, the contract fails to have been properly executed. The signatures are not dated so there is no proof that the contract was signed before the date of the alleged parking event.

 

27. Therefore, reverting to the previous contract that exists which is between Vehicle Control Services (not Excel Services) and Lambert Smith Hampton, I aver it states 2 hours free parking and therefore as the alleged contravention is 73 minutes makes this claim invalid. Vehicle Control Services know this to be the case as there have been many dismissed cases and discontinued claims.

LJG83

Thank you in anticipation 

KeithP

Your para 20 - suggest you leave out the last bit - the words following the semi-colon.

Your para 22 - perhaps the last sentence could be better written as "Clearly Vehicle Control Services Ltd, the Claimant, is not the contracting party".

But just a general observation - there appears to be an awful lot of repetition in you paras. How many times do you need to explain that VCS and Excel are two different entities - one can sue you and the other can't?