Default CCJ filed against me and Court Letters sent to wrong address

Error1234

Hi Guys,
So just last Thursday I discovered that I had a default CCJ lodged against me. The only reason I knew about this was due to a debt recovery agency sending a postal letter to me. At once I started to do my research and write up my Witness Statement as well as my Order.
Address A - Haven't lived in there for 2 years.
Address B - Lived here for 2 years
Address C - Currently living here and its only been like 4 months.
The story:
- Moved to my new house on the October/2018 at Address A.
- I had my car parked outside my street, like right in front of my then house.
- I had a proper parking permit displayed on the car (no issues so far) as was provided by the renting agency. 
- Fast forward to October 2019. 9 PCNs were issued to me across the month of October however Parking Control Management (Uk) Limited sent the PCNs to my Address A.
- I didn't know about the PCNs until sometime in Feb 2020 when I received a barrage of debt letters. At this point my DVLA details were updated to Address B and I have proof.
- I panicked and sent an email to Trace Debt Recovery LTD to properly understand whats happening. On the email I sent my Full Name and my then current address at the time.
- Trace sent an email telling me that the parking permit I have is a copy and not the real thing [discussed this in my Witness Statement] therefore the issuance of the PCNs. But in the copies of the PCNs they emailed me, PCM Ltd states that the parking permit is not valid [I'm really confused as Trace's and PCM Ltd's statements are contradicting]
- Trace said I didn't have any choice and that if I didn't pay then the next thing to do was go to court. So I started looking for a solicitor to prepare for court while panicking.
- March 2020, Covid-19 hit, no letters or communications from the Debt collection agency or PCM ltd. Everything went quite.
- I moved to my next new address C on June-2020 [No letters or anything was sent to me even though all of my DVLA were up to date.]
- Bought a 1 year royal mail redirection like two days later.
- All DVLA details were updated again to my new address C. No news from PCM Ltd or anyone.
- Fast forward to 15-October-2020, received a debt collecting letter from 'Equita' where they informed me that a CCJ has been filed against me on July/2020 for 4 of the PCNs.
- Spent the week since last Thursday up until today [24-Oct-2020] writing up my Witness Statement for the N244 form to go for a set aside as everything was sent to a wrong address. 
- Side note: The Letter Before Claim was sent to the wrong address on March-2020 but my then driving details were up-to-date and with the details of Address B which was where I was living at the time. I have proof in terms of photographic evidence of my old driving licence with my address B. 

I have read and tried digesting everything available in this forum. I have also read the Newbies thread which related to claims being set-aside but I'm not sure if my witness statement is good enough. I also understand that time is of the essence, I'm trying to get my N244 sent to the court by Monday or by latest Tuesday so little over a week at this point.

Please could you guys take a look at my Witness Statement and:
- Tell me whether I have a wining chance of having this claim set a side
- Tell me how I can improve my witness statement and order

WITNESS STATEMENT:

I am XXXXX of XXXXXXXX and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts stated below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

1. I make this Witness Statement in support of the application for an order that the judgment in this case to:

1. Be set aside the default judgment dated XX/July/2020  as it was defectively served using an old address. 

2. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.

3. Order for the original claim to be dismissed

 

SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

1.1.1 It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

1.2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant on XX/July/2020. I am aware that the Claimant is XXXX, and that the assumed claim is in respect of unpaid Parking Charge Notices from the XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX at my then residence XXXX. I contest this charge for the reasons outlined in Part 2 of this defence. I also understand that this Claim was served at My Old Address (XXXXX) where the Defendant had moved out since October 2018 and not served at my then current address (XXXX). Confirmation of this has been in the form of old driving licence, insurance forms, bank statements, emails to Trace Recovery Ltd, mortgage documents to which they were posted and pay slips. See Exhibit XX.

1.3. The claim form was not served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until 15/October/2020 following a letter through the post by the debt collection agency XXXXX; as shown in Exhibit XX.

1.3.1 The address on the LBC, as provided to me by Gladstone Solicitors, is XXXX. I have moved out of that address XXXXXX since October 2018. From XXX/October/ 2018, I have resided at XXX and I moved to my current address at XXXX on the XX/June/2020. In support of me living at address XXX and XXXX, I can provide a scanned copy of my old driving licence, insurance forms, bank statements, emails to Trace Recovery Ltd, mortgage documents to which they were posted and pay slips. See Exhibit XX.

1.4.0 The Defendant has at no time tried to avoid paying for any known debt, and was at all times there to be found by a simple trace. It is submitted that the Claimant should have taken those reasonable steps, and would have known or should have surmised that it was likely that the Defendant was not at the old address, given the length of time from the alleged parking charge and the fact that the Claimant was receiving no reply from the Defendant.

1.5 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;

1.5.1 I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my name on the 15-Oct-2020 after a letter from debt collection agency ‘Equita’.

1.5.2 Following this on the same day,15-October-2020, I immediately emailed ‘Equita’ and ‘Gladstone Solicitors’ to get a grasp of the situation and to find out why this CCJ has happened without the defendant knowing about it. I also phoned ‘Equita’ to explain that I have not received any LBC or any court papers and that any letters were sent to my old address to which the operator couldn't help. I also requested how many days I had left so that they didn't call any bailiffs to my current address. The operator then said I would have upto 21 days to sort this matter out. Following this, I immediately contacted Gladstones Solicitors and once again explained the situation, they said that any matter with  ‘Equita’ and the 4 PCNs was to be taken up with them. They also said the remaining 5 PCNs haven't gone to the court stage yet. 

1.5.3 On 16-October-2020, the defendant received replies from ‘Equita’ and ‘Gladstone’. Equita solicitor’s email provided the claim reference number, the date at which the claim was issued and then listed the four PCNs which I was liable to but they didnt state at which court the case was sent to. Please see Exhibit XXX to show proof of these emails. Gladstone's email provided evidence relating to the PCNs and they also said to call ‘Equita’ to arrange any payments and that if i were to dispute this matter, I would need to seek out my own legal advice for which i did. 

1.5.4 On 15-October-2020, the defendant contacted the Magistrates Court to confirm the validity of  ‘Equita’s’ letter. This was my first point of call since the allegation happened in Hatfield and the Magistrates Court covers this area. However they couldn't provide me any details of the claim or any court details. They however told me to call ‘Southend County Court and Family Court’. 

1.5.5 On the 19-Oct-2020, the defendant contacted the ‘Southend County Court and Family Court’ to obtain any relevant information regarding this default judgement. From here I managed to confirm the validity of the ‘Equita’s’ debt claim. They then advised to call or email the County Court Business Center to get a copy of the CCJ.

1.5.6 On 21-Oct-2020, I emailed the County Court Business Center to request for a copy of the CCJ.

1.5.7 After not receiving any emails from County Court Business Center due to the effects of Covid-19 on 22-Oct-2020, I decided to call County Court Business Center on 23-Oct-2020.I then paid a sum of £10 to get a copy of the CCJ which was issued to me on XX/July/2020. 

1.6 The CCJ titled ‘Judgment for Claimant’ where the particulars of the claim only state that a reply to the claim form hasn't been done and that an amount of XXXXX was to be paid. Please see Exhibit XXXX for proof. The claimants only basis for taking the defendant to court was because the defendant did not reply. This will be further discussed in section 2 of this witness statement.

1.7 The Defendant has never received any previous documentation from the Claimant in this matter and was never able to properly challenge the Claimant’s claim. Furthermore,the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that they did post such communications to the Defendant’s old address, which was XXX XXXXX, without ever checking if it was the right address.

1.8 On XX/October/2020 I have wilfully submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgement and fairly present my case.

1.9 I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s correct contact details at the time of the claim.

1.11 On that basis, I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address that the Defendant no longer resides. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of my current residence despite having address and contact information from Trace Recovery Ltd. See Exhibit XXX for email string with Trace. Furthermore, my driving details at the time have been up-to-date since my then driving licence had my correct address. See Exhibit XXX. It is unclear as to how they managed to send the letters to ‘xxxxxx’’ where I have not resided in that house for at least 2 years [2018-2020].This has led to a defective service and an irregular judgement.

1.12 Furthermore, it is very clear that the claimant had only contacted DVLA only once, DVLA allows multiple enquiries to a driver's details. It should be noted that I was at address XX XXXX Street, xxxx as seen by my driving licence, see Exhibit XXX, so the claimant should have contacted DVLA again once a response was not heard. Failure to do so and the fact that they abused this process to get a quick judgement means that this claim should be stuck out. In parking control’s own sign, they say that they will get details from DVLA however, they have failed to do so when a response to the letter before claim wasn't received.

1.13 On the LBC, PCM Ltd, says they include a charge of £60 for “the time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge” however in this case they haven't even done that properly thereby charging the extra £60 is ridiculous.

1.12  The Defendant believes the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing the claim against him without ensuring they held the Defendants current and correct contact details. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

1.13 Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald 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.”

Error1234

1.14 As per the  Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) in the LBC to which they say are following, the claimant have not adhered to any of the points below: 

 2.1: This Protocol’s aims are to – 

(a) encourage early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute; 

(b) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure;

 (c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue); 

(d) support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.

If they have followed this protocol then this claim wouldn't have gone to court and wasted the courts time and resources. 

1.15 Also as per the PAP 3 [3.3], “The Letter of Claim should be sent by post. If the creditor has additional contact details for the debtor, such as an email address, the creditor may also send the Letter of Claim using those details”

The claimant has not used any other means of communication to get in contact with me. I have clearly stated my then current postal address, as well as used my email address to get in contact with Trace Recovery LTD. Trace recovery should have used due diligence to pass on these details to gladstone solicitors and PCM. Also, on XX/Feb/2020, after contacting parking control management LTD via phone, I gave my email address to PCM LTD. However, they have failed to use my phone number as well as my email address to get in touch with when a reply to the LBC wasn't received. PCM have then proceeded to use an old postal address to then send a LBC to my old address even though as seen in Exhibit XX, my address was at XXX XXX Street, XXXXX.

1.16 None of the steps in the PAP, 6 “TAKING STEPS TO SETTLE THE MATTER AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION has been used even though PCM and Trace Recovery LTD knew my phone number and email address.

1.17 Even in claimants LBC, they state “We refer you to Paragraph 2.1(c) of the PAP which obliges the parties to act reasonably and proportionately.” however the claimant hasn't even done this which whole heartedly invalidates this Default Claim.

1.18 Above entails, as per CPR 6.9 (4), that proceedings were not validly served because claimant was incorrect in assuming that this was Defendant’s last known address and did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the Defendant’s current address. This leads to no service, they were not entitled to judgment and the court must set aside the claim

1.19 The Defendant submits that by the virtue of Claimant sending the letters to his old address and not using any of the contact details available to them, he was not afforded any method by which to appeal, nor any information about complaints procedures to the landowner. This omission prevented the Defendant from being able to get this charge cancelled by the landowner/renting agency. If the Defendant could have appealed to POPLA or had been informed that the landowner/renting agency could deal with such complaints and cancel charges, he would have done so.

1.20 On the basis provided above the Defendant would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim.

1.21 Considering the above, I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £255 from the claimant should this request be successful.

ORDER DISMISSING THE CLAIM

 2.1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2.2 The Defendant would like to point out that when he moved out from XXXXXXX Street on the 5th of June 2020, he applied for a royal mail redirection from xxxxxxxx Street to xxxxxxx on the XX/June/2020.  Please see exhibit XXXXX for proof of address and proof of royal mail redirection. I received ‘Equita’s’ letter because of this redirection. 

 2.2. The Particulars of Claim, sent to me via email from the County Court Business Cener, refer to 'Parking Charges incurred on XXXXX. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates 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.

2.3 The Defendant understands that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for ‘Parking Charge Notices’ which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist.

2.3.1 During the month of February 2020, I was harassed by a bombardment of debt recovery letters from Trace Debt Recovery LTD. The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4

2.4 If the Claimant has obtained details of the vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, and used those details to make a claim for a ‘Parking Charge Notice’, the Defendant thus dispute the claim in its entirety as he does not know the wording of the contract nor does he know the means by which the contract was alleged to come into force

 2.5 There are no terms within the tenancy agreement requiring tenants to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of the parking permit. See Exhibit XXX. The defendant also denys accepting any contract with PCM Ltd.

2.6 From memory, the car has been parked in this part of the road for well over a year and no tickets have been issued so the correct parking permit was used and no issues were raised but then in the month of October 2019, multiple parking tickets were issued for the same offence and were sent to an old address. An address in which I have not occupied for at least 2 years.

2.7 Please see exhibit XXXX where all parking fines and the LBC were sent to the wrong address. Please also see exhibit XXXX to show that my address at the time was XXXX XXXXX XXXXX.

2.8 If the court is asking the defendant a possible reason as to why a valid parking permit is not displayed, then the defendant would say that it is because the parking permit has slipped off. The defendant vaguely remembers that the windscreen of the car freezes over during the mornings of October and when the sun comes out and the windscreen thaws, the moisture may have caused the tape to weaken and thus have caused the permit to fall off away from the view of the parking attendant. With the way my car is designed, I believe that there are many spaces, pockets and places where the parking permit could have fallen into and made it impossible for anyone to notice the parking permit. I offer this statement to the court as one possible reason and cannot confirm if this definitely was the case. My last possible reason for the non display of the parking permit would be because I was not provided the parking permits at the correct time from the renting agency or the Hatfield Council thereby leading to the issuance of the parking fines in the month of October 2019.

Error1234

Lastly, I would like to point out to the court that after the month of October 2019, no other parking fines have been charged against me which means that I have held the correct parking permit. Please see Exhibit XXXX

2.8.1 The car in question had an electrical fault at the time, recalling from memory, and couldn't be moved. Also due to the poor lighting in the spot where I was parked, it was impossible to verify if the parking permit had fallen over and slipped away. Please see Exhibit XXXXX

2.9 The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the tenancy agreement. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

2.10 Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car over 12 months later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

For the Claimant to have obliged the Defendant to provide the drivers details at the time of said breach the Claimant would be required to apply for a ‘Norwich Pharmacal Order’, the Defendant is not aware of any such order being made upon him

 2.11 The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the tenancy agreement and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.

 Furthermore, given the time delay of approximately more than a year from the alleged breach of contract, it is unreasonable to expect the Defendant to have a record of who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offence.

2.12 In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under an onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of the tenancy agreement, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof).

2.13. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

2.14 The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

 2.15 For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £XXX per PCN, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

2.15.1 Evidence of how a parking charge which the BPA Code of Practice sets a ceiling for, of not more than £100, has escalated to a brazen attempt at triple 'recovery' reaching over £800 despite the POFA also stating that a keeper can only be pursued for the sum on the Notice to Keeper (double recovery not being allowed).

 2.16 Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.

 2.17. I further submit that the parking charge notice is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following reasons:

a. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The claimant is not the landowner of the car park in question and will have no proprietary interest in it. This means that the claimant, as a matter of law, will have no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder and only they would have been able claim for any damages or trespass.

b. No Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so they must demonstrate their actual or genuine pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any driver of the vehicle of which I was the registered keeper. I further submit that any loss to the landowner (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be minimal.

c. The Charge is an Unenforceable Penalty: I further submit that the parking charge is nothing but an unenforceable penalty as it is not based on any loss suffered due to the alleged infraction.

 d. No Contract with the Claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance, and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the claimant to the driver. Therefore, there is no consideration from the driver to XXXX.

2.18. On this basis I believe that the claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.

2.19. In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as the current keeper of the vehicle I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the claimant.

2.20 Even if the court is not satisfied that my case meets the criteria relating to a mandatory set aside due to defective service (13.2), I will say that I also meet the criteria for the CCJ to be set aside on the grounds of 13.3:

(1) In any other case, the court may set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12 if – 

(a) the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; or

(b) it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why - 

(i) the judgment should be set aside or varied; or

(ii) the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.

(2) In considering whether to set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12, the matters to which the court must have regard include whether the person seeking to set aside the judgment made an application to do so promptly.

2.21 Additionally, Trace debt recovery ltd has stated that “The permit displayed is not valid as it is a copy.”. See Exhibit XXXX As seen in Exhibit XXXX  and I have physical proof that the parking permit is a real permit and not a copy. However, in the PCN sent to my old address at XXX, they say it is because of “Not properly displaying a parking permit” These two contradicting accusations from the debt collection agency as well as the PCM makes it as if they are lying and using underhanded techniques to falsely accuse me.

2.22 I invite the Claimant to show evidence that they have complied with the POFA or alternatively, show evidence of the driver's identity, to prove that this is the right defendant.

2.23 The LBC sent via email from Gladstones, see Exhibit XXXX, states that the total amount owed was £XXXX however, they only have taken only 4 of the PCNs to court and have used debt collection agency ‘Equita’ to collect the owed debt. If the LBC was for all of the PCNs then how come they are only chasing me for £914.82 and not the whole sum? I feel like this is an underhand technique to focus my attention on the 4 PCNs and then when I failed to notice the rest of the PCNs then it would have already been take to court and another CCJ filed against me. Due to this I invite the court strike out this claim.

2.24 The CCJ applied against me was for £824.82 however the debt collection agency used ,’Equita’, is asking me for £914.82. The amount has been inflated by £90 without any reason or explanation.

2.25 In the street the car in question was parked, there were many other cars parked without permits. This has been a regular occurrence and cars without parking permits would park here on the street of XXXXXX regularly and continuously and no action from PCM has been taken on them. They have been continuously let off the hook and thereby this grace should be extended to me as well. 

2.26 The signage states that a contract is formed between the driver and PCM. Since no driver was identified by PCM ltd then any contract formed via the sign is invalid and the defendant is not liable to any of these charges.

2.27 Furthermore, the signage contains a very small font which cannot be read properly.

2.28 PCM has not issued any parking tickets to the windscreen of the car thereby not alerting the motorist that a parking ticket has been issued.

2.24 On this basis I believe that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and absent the above being produced in short order, the Defendant asks the court of its own volition to strike out this claim and to order the Claimant to refund the Defendant's costs for attending, namely the £255 Court fee in bringing this set aside case, despite not being shown to be liable for any parking charge at all.

2.2 I invite the court to reconsider this CCJ because I’ll be applying to medical school next year and if this CCJ is not stuck out of my record then I wouldn't be able to get a loan to study medicine and thus I couldn't become a doctor.

2.2 I would like to point out to the court that when I was in the midst of negotiations with Trace Debt LTD, Trace LTD claimed that I was out of the negotiation period and that the next stage was court. Since then I was under stress to find a solicitor or anybody to help me with the court case. Whilst waiting for court details, I received no further communications to mediate this matter or to further pursue any ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’. Even though I emailed Trace LTD my correct postal address at the time, they have simply ignored it and blatantly sent the LBC to my old address.

2.2 The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

2.23 Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

 Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this defence 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.

Umkomaas

That's almost 6,000 words to plough through if anyone in lockdown curfew wants something to do this evening. 

@OP - I think you need to seriously crop this down. And I mean seriously. 

Ferrybird

The N244 is an application to ask for a hearing to be set aside- you're not arguing the facts yet. The application should just gave a brief outline of why a hearing to set aside should be granted. The WS above is what you would use at that hearing, so you're almost a step ahead of yourself.

Keep the stuff about you changing address and that the claim was wrongly served on an old address. Then talk briefly about acting promptly after finding out about the CCJ. Then go on to say you were denied opportunity to defend the claim as the form was improperly served - but I don't think you have to give your defence points now. That will come when the court grants a set aside hearing and asks for your WS and defence. 
I filled in my n244 before I found this forum. It was only about 3 paragraphs with a couple of documents attached to prove my address, and that was enough to get me a set aside hearing where I wrote a longer WS (like the one above) and a defence using the template in Newbies.

KeithP

You should also file a Draft Order.

Maybe something like this one here.

Redx

As above , it's 2 separate hearings about 2 different issues

Error1234

Umkomaas -  True, it is a bit too long. I will crop it down.
Ferrybird - Oh I see, I guess I jumped the gun a bit. Okay, I will try to cut it down and try to keep it short and concise.
Thank you guys very much for the quick replies. 

1505grandad

FYI  -  Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd are IPC AoS members not BPA.

Ferrybird

It's not a bad thing you jumped the gun as you can just save the above and edit it a bit when the time comes to submit your bundle of docs for the hearing. 

Have a look at my thread too as I'm applying for a set aside and some of the advice I've been given might be helpful for you.

Also @Sebastian83 is going through the same process at the moment.

I've found tracking a few threads and reading the forum as often as possible helps with getting your head round things. 

Good luck!

D_P_Dance

These are  not fines.   Nine times out of ten they are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, sometimes it can lead to cancellation.,

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers. On 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, and hopefully this will become law shortly