CCJ issued after being misled by private parking firm - VCS

Rmc2018

Good Morning all, so as predicted VCS have ignored my email and have neither agreed or refused to give permission for the set aside so it looks like I now have to go down the contested (which I have just realised I have been misreading all the while, sorry for my ignorance)  route. Unfortunately due to a family bereavement I have been unable to complete all documentation however I have attached the pieces completed - 
N244
Draft Order - only 3 points as not sure what else to add?
Witness Statement  (proof referenced but not attached)

I am still yet to put together my draft defence but hoping to have that done by the end of the day

if you could help in reviewing the attached, giving your honest response I would appreciate it grately 

Rmc2018

N244 - page 1 

Rmc2018

N244 - page 2,3

Rmc2018

DRAFT ORDER
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM BUSINESS CENTRE 

 

BETWEEN 

 

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES (VCS) LTD (Claimant)

And

---

(Defendant)

District Judge

---

UPON THE APPLICATION of the Defendant dated 08 January 2021  and the annexed witness statement of xxxx dated 08 January 2021

---

IT IS ORDERED that:

 

1.     The default judgment dated 21st October 2020 be set aside.

2.     Costs to be reserved.

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

 

Rmc2018

WITNESS STATEMENT

I am XXXX and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated XXXX requesting to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated 21 November 2020 on the basis that the Claimant has acted wholly unreasonably and misled a litigant in person 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

1.2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default judgment against me as the Defendant on 20/11/2020. I am aware that the Claimant is Vehicle Control Services, and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notices from 26/05/2020. I contest this charge for the reasons outlined in the attached draft defence.

1.3. On 12th June 2020 I appealed against the PCN issued to me on 26/05/2020. On the date in question, I was returning to a pharmacy to retrieve my purse, I was in not in possession of any means of paying for a ticket and as the car park was empty, I was unable to advise this to a traffic warden. Due to covid guidelines and social distancing requirements I was unable to quickly retrieve my purse, I queued up for 5 minutes, retrieved my purse and returned back to my car which had been issued with a Notice to Keeper. 17 days later I received a letter in the post from the claimant requesting I pay £100. 

1.4. The above was appealed on 26/05/2020 and I have not received a response to this to this day 20/01/2021. 

1.5. Between the dates of June 2020 and November 2020 however, I have received further threatening letters from the Claimant, which each time I have received including the last piece of documentation being a Default Judgment, I have called the claimant asking why such documents were being sent to me when my original appeal had still not been responded to. I was advised during each call by numerous call handlers to ignore all documents whilst awaiting a response to my appeal, however no response was ever received. 

1.6. This poor advice was repeated up until the point of me receiving a Judgment for Claimant (in default) on 21/10/2020. Once again I called the claimant, however as opposed to accepting the further poor advise given I demanded a constructive response from the claimant asap. 

 

1.7. On 21/10/2020 I received a call back from the Claimant and spoke with a call handler named Mark (Exhibit RM01) who confirmed that all previous advice given between June and November was incorrect and that in order to settle the claim he was in a position to reduce the charge to £185.

 

1.8. In Exchange of me agreeing to pay the fee of £185 direct to the claimant, I was advised that in return the call handler was able to “hold the matter” “pull the case from the third party involved” and “bring the matter to a close”. This was also reiterated in the follow up letter I requested from the claimant for confirmation (Exhibit RM02) that also stated that ‘we will accept the balance of £185 as FULL and FINAL settlement of the claim raised”. 

 

1.9. During this call on 10/11/2020 I was led to believe that the default Judgment had been placed on hold by the claimant. The claimant granted me until November 30th to pay the outstanding claim in result of the case being settled. I paid the full balance on 25/11/2020 as agreed with claimant and was led to believe that the matter and claim was settled as advised. 

1.10. No further correspondence has since been received from the Claimant or any other party regarding the claim

1.11. I was not aware that the CCJ was active and present on my credit file until 05/01/2021 when a credit check was performed on my name and I was informed of the CCJ.

1.12. 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;

1.12.1. I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the 5th January 2021.

1.12.2. On 5th and 6th of January I contacted both the County Court Business Centre and the claimant to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgment.

1.12.3. I was advised by CCBC that the claimant had not advised the court of the agreement that was made regarding the settlement of the claim directly with the claimant and that as I had not paid the fee by 21/11/2020 a CCJ was placed on my file 

1.12.4. On contacting the claimant, I was advised that the information given during the call on 10/11/2020 was correct and that VCS had nothing to do with the claim, however I am aware that they are the claimant. 

1.12.5. On 12th January 2020 VCS were served an email (Exhibit RM03) requesting permission to set aside the CCJ based on the misleading information and contradicting time frames given by the claimant resulting in me settling the claim 4 days after the claim date (but within the date given by VCS). The claimant once again failed to respond.

1.12.6. On 20th January 2021 I have wilfully submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgement and fairly present my case.

1.13. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me whilst providing incorrect information in regard to the position of my claim and the next steps I was required to take. 

1.14. It is my view that the claimant has behaved unreasonably by not ensuring that I was made aware of the correct status of the claim, confirming during the dates of June 2020 and November 2020 that it was still at the appeal stage and that the documents being served were in error due to covid and a backlog of cases being worked. 

1.15. It is my view that the claimant has behaved unreasonably by paying no regard to the dates allocated for me to settle the claim and failed to explain the importance of when the payment should be made in order to avoid a CCJ. The claimant set the date that was outside the 30 day deadline (which I was unaware still applied following the settlement terms agreed by claimant).  

 

1.16. Clearly, when it is still within the first 30 days to prevent a CCJ and the Defendant calls the Claimant in distress and shock at receiving a letter saying they are about to get a CCJ, the priority of an honest and fair trader with an experienced legal team who deal with the small claims process every day, would be to explain the implications and deadlines. Instead, I was completely misled by the call handler who prioritised the trader's interests of getting my money as opposed to my interests.  This is contrary to the fairness and transparency doctrines in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and must be reason why the court should use its discretion to set aside the CCJ, order the claimant to pay back the £255 court fee and the £185 paid by the defendant under duress and false pretences, and allow the Defendant to defend the case. 

 

1.17. The defendant has held employment within the Financial Industry for 15 years, this shows that I am not a financially naive person who could be put at blame for such misunderstanding.  This is a clear case of  a financially astute person being taken advantage of, either deliberately or by neglect by the claimant.  

1.18.  Considering this witness statement, I therefore respectfully request that the Court sets aside the judgment in this claim.

Statement of Truth

 

I believe that 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 

.......................... 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

DATE xx/xx/xxxx 

nosferatu1001

6 points, same as any other contested set aside. 
Search on the forum or google, will find a longer one. Why rreserve costs? You want your hearing fee paid back NOW

Le_Kirk

There was a six-point draft order posted by someone today.  This one: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6233299/set-aside-ccj-with-parking-session-paid/p1

Rmc2018

@nosferatu1001 @Le_Kirk
Thank you both, I am amending the draft order now but should I include the following as there is no enforcement against me as I have already paid the claim?
- That all enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application?

Rmc2018

DRAFT ORDER
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM BUSINESS CENTRE 

 

BETWEEN 

 

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES (VCS) LTD (Claimant)

And

---

(Defendant)

District Judge

---

UPON THE APPLICATION of the Defendant dated 08 January 2021  and the annexed witness statement of xxxx dated 08 January 2021

---

IT IS ORDERED that:

 

1.     The default judgment dated 21st October 2020 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 [date] paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect and the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £255 plus the £185 paid by the defendant under duress and false pretences 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 [date].

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 £185 paid by the defendant under duress and false pretences plus the Defendant's costs for attending the hearing.

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

nosferatu1001

Yes, clearly there cannot be any enforcement.