Imperial War Museum North - Excel Parking Services Ltd. Amount claimed £288.52 from 05/02/2016!

Coupon-mad

The order appears to have been issued by them on the 13th September, so I assume they just have a slower mail service than dcb?

That doesn't work, because the court will also have posted the Order to DCBLegal.  I'd ring the court and ask why you weren't sent anything.

And please clarify:

DID THEY SERVE THE AMENDED POC TO YOU IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER DEADLINE IN THE SPRING?

longtale_Parker

I've spoken to the court and they confirmed our address, and said the letter/ order would have been posted as normal... they have no responsibility for ensuring it arrives and can't explain why it didn't.

When I rang the court and provided the Claim reference, the advisor at first said this case had been struck off, following their rejection of the PoC and because the claimant had failed to submit an amended PoC before the deadline of 9th February.

When I picked up on that status, she read the file a bit further and confirmed an application to reinstate the case had been granted and an updated PoC (dated 27th May by dcb) had been accepted. She couldn't explain under what grounds the reinstatement had been allowed and said something along the lines of "I know it doesn't seem fair that a deadline can be missed, but the case may continue, to someone who may not be conversant with court proceedings, but ...".

So, in answer to CM's question - No, the amended PoC was not served in spring (but missing the deadline has been allowed) and the PoC arrived today

Coupon-mad

Can you show us the latest Order?  Is it clear that the court knew the deadline had been missed AND that no amended POC had been served to you, and the Judge let it all go?

longtale_Parker

Here is the order - I can't answer the other questions... but if you google the judge's name... 

The scribbles, bottom right, reflect the dates I discussed with the Advisor:
12/1/22 - Order from court to update the PoC (as it was previously invalid)
9/2/22 - Case Struck off because the amendment had not been provided
27/5/22 - Date of signature on the PoC typed by dcb

Coupon-mad

Another example of Claimants being given far more slack than Defendants.

This sort of entrenched pro-Claimant rubbish is an example of why we need private parking cases not to go to court claims, if they can possibly be avoided.  The court is not the right place for these scam charges.

We also have another current case where the local court mucked up a hearing and told the D it had been adjourned, but in fact it hadn't and it was heard behind his back. Complaints fell on deaf ears, and he is now having to pay £108 to make an application to get the court to even look at his complaint and to set aside their own unfair order that went against him.

Utter madness.  What motorists and HM courts need is one ADR that parking cases can be referred to, even if a claim has been filed.

If PPCs knew their cases would go full circle back to the new 'Single appeals service' and not be fast-tracked to a CCJ or confusing legalese procedure & potentially 'scary' hearing before a Judge, it would make them keener to contact people properly and to engage with late appeals where a genuine dispute still exists.

Having the SAS as the only ADR even at court stage would be perfect, as long as it's run properly.  The Adjudicators would be fully conversant with private parking cases and the burden would be lifted from the courts.

And it would all but drive away the roboclaim bullies from private parking, which is vital. The focus should be on parking management and not PCNs, and not enforcement.

Johnersh

1. You need to be supplied with a copy of the claimants application.

2. Subject to (1) I would apply to strike out the claimants claim seeking costs on the following basis:

A. The respondent to an application should be served notice unless there is reason for it to be ex parte (such as an injunction, where notice would defeat the purpose)

B. The application after strike out and after the statute of limitations applied materially prejudices the defendant, extending the currency of the litigation beyond the period intended by Parliament and inevitably compromising the defendants ability to respond or obtain evidence. It's not enough that the claim was issued, since objectively the particulars never complied with the cpr requirements. 

C. There being no good reason for failure to comply with the preceding order until after strike out and expiration of limitation.

I simply can't fathom on the information available how the Denton criteria are met or how/why this was ordered on the papers unless the court has assumed D was served and has lodged no objection.

Notice of an application

23.4

(1) The general rule is that a copy of the application notice must be served on each respondent.

(2) An application may be made without serving a copy of the application notice if this is permitted by –

(a) a rule;

(b) a practice direction; or

(c) a court order.

(Rule 23.7 deals with service of a copy of the application notice)

Service of a copy of an application notice

23.7

(1) A copy of the application notice –

(a) must be served as soon as practicable after it is filed; and

(b) except where another time limit is specified in these Rules or a practice direction, must in any event be served at least 3 days before the court is to deal with the application.

(2) If a copy of the application notice is to be served by the court, the applicant must, when he files the application notice, file a copy of any written evidence in support.

(3) When a copy of an application notice is served it must be accompanied by –

(a) a copy of any written evidence in support; and

(b) a copy of any draft order which the applicant has attached to his application.

(4) If –

(a) an application notice is served; but

(b) the period of notice is shorter than the period required by these Rules or a practice direction,

the court may direct that, in the circumstances of the case, sufficient notice has been given and hear the application.

(5) This rule does not require written evidence –

(a) to be filed if it has already been filed; or

(b) to be served on a party on whom it has already been served.

longtale_Parker

Thanks @Johnersh - In what form do I request a copy of the application and for the case (again) to be struck out? Do I need to include these in an Amended Defence or is it the case that I simply write to the court separately to request a strike out?

I can confirm that a copy of the application has not been sent to us (D). I wouldn't be too surprised though if, like the Court, the Claimant says it would have been sent.

Thanks, as ever...

Johnersh

The application has been made ex parte (without notice) so the usual provision applies. Don't sit on this - see bold section:

Application to set aside or vary order made without notice

23.10

(1) A person who was not served with a copy of the application notice before an order was made under rule 23.9, may apply to have the order set aside(GL) or varied.

(2) An application under this rule must be made within 7 days after the date on which the order was served on the person making the application

longtale_Parker

Thank you - I'll contact the court tomorrow to confirm how to submit and who the application must be sent to. The key dates, as far as I can make out are:
Order made by the court 13/09/2022
dcb letter (pack) 22/09/2022
- received by us 23/09/2022

Taking these into account, the key date is when we received (were served) the order, so a submission needs to be in on the 30th in order to be "within 7 days"?

Thank you (all) again - It's amazing that the courts seem to assist the parking companies by not making things like this clear to oiks like me. The fact they seem to have flouted all the rules and conditions regarding timelines and information sharing - and the courts trust them to play by the rules (e.g. why would they trust these bandits to share the application details when they know of the sharp practices in other areas and the opportunity it would give for a D to resist)?

It is just simply unfair to run things in this way - if it wasn't for you guys it would be a whole lot worse too! 

longtale_Parker

... so, we can submit an email request which "might be considered" though the judge may insist that we submit a formal request to strike out on form N244. A formal submission comes with a fixed fee of £275 - which would save us £13.52 were it to be successful.

We're going to try the email route, using the following arguments:
The case was struck out, based on an order which gave C until 09 February 2022 to resubmit a compliant PoC - which they failed to do
The Application to Reinstate was submitted after 27/05/2022 and processed on the 07 June 2022 (both these dates are more than 6 years after the original event, which was 05 February 2016)
The C did not send us a copy of the Application to Reinstate nor their supporting evidence

If I draft that request and post here - would you please be able to help refine?