DCBL , CCJ's

larris

Hi @Coupon-mad , 

Again, huge thank you for the very swift reply. 

Correct, should be one parking solution.

I was working from the template from other thread and trying to use as many items as possible, too many clearly. Wrong person because issued to me and not my wife. Tenuous link to template I know, so I will remove all items.

Just feels a bit light in arguments. Is there anything else that could add a bit more weight to my request?

 I have reviewed and removed unnecessary items

WITNESS STATEMENT

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

a. Set aside the default judgment dated ……………………

b. Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

c. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.

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 Judgement against me as the Defendant on xxxxxxxxxxxx. I am aware that the Claimant is One Parking Solution Ltd, and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

1.3. I was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident.

1.4. As soon as I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the ******* when attempting to re-mortgage my property, I then immediately sought advice and attempted to seek information as to when and why these have been issued and my legal rights

1.4.1 On 5th April I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgement.

1.4.2 On ………… I submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgement and fairly present my case.

1.5. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me using threatening letters, differing legal firms, excessive fees and their knowledge of law as an intimidation and bullying tactic in an attempt to benefit financially through extortion.

1.6. The claimant has behaved unreasonably by spreading out issues over several claims to ensure maximum disruption to defendant’s previously impeccable financial integrity. Separate CCJ claims spread over 3 years to ensure maximum damage financially to defendant.

1.7 Under CPR 13.2 The court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered. Given that CPR 6.9 (3) was not met, CPR 13.2 applies and the CCJ should be set aside.

1.8 Considering the lack of official documentation for the site, poor signage (still to this day) and unreasonable escalation of charges I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgment 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 £275 from the claimant should this request be successful.

1.9 There are only 4 open spaces in the care home where the car's driver works, which is run by the council. Despite having a permit to park in this location, the driver was unable to relocate the car because no other management was there to allow for the driver to leave the premises.

2.0 Paying this added sum of money will interfere with other living expenditures that I must cover in order to exist and support my family due to the increase in the cost of living, fuel, food, gas, and electricity.

2.1 My mental health has suffered hugely because of the CCJ, which is also having an impact on my family life and physical health.

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

Coupon-mad

 Wrong person because issued to me and not my wife.

But on what basis are you saying this was wrong? Had you provided her name and address as driver before court action?

larris

@Coupon-mad I have now removed that section as it is irrelevant, as you say. I never replied to anything and I cannot recall whether I even had the opportunity to say who was driving. I do not have any of the original correspondence either. Just thought it was a scam. 🤦🏽‍♂️ So not worth introducing that into my defense.
Should I remove 1.1 as well?

Coupon-mad

I am struggling to know what your basis is for saying that a rightfully served claim that went to the right address should be overturned and wiped by the court?

larris

Hi @Coupon-mad .

My apologies then, I have clearly got the wrong idea about whether I could fight this astronomical fine(s).
It was suggested early in this thread that I could get the CCJs set aside so I have followed that route thinking I could, so by researching the relevant threads and preparing a N244 form and the witness statement thinking that due to the type or fine and location that it maybe considered unlawful or unjust but as you have pointed out I probably have absolutely no grounds for the court to grant me it, so I feel terrible. Apologies for wasting your time.

 I don't even mind paying the fines now to get this cleared as having them on my record for a further 5 years is a major worry to me, but even paying them will not clear them. When I needed to remortgage due to childcare costs, I couldn't, and this is when I found out that the fines had become CCJ's, not just one but 3 issued in 3 different years even though the pcn's were all within a few months of each other.
The fines were issued, I thought they were a scam, I ignored them (my mistake), I then tried to get mortgage in November last year was told no, I finally got the information of CCJ from credit company. I contacted County court business centre and got details of CCJ's in April, at that point I discovered that there was 3 and one park solution have used two different legal firms.

I guess I was hoping that there was some justifiable reason to get these CCJ's set aside. I have even been back to the location on Ingram Crescent recently and there are no clear signs at the parking positions. Only a small pvc sign cable tied to a fence, that if a car parks in the bay it cannot be seen from any where at all. Poor. Just feel like I have been scammed and they have used the courts to destroy my impeccable credit history and now block my opportunity to borrow money to support family, depressing is an understatement. Anyway I digress.

Apologies for wasting your time again, and thank you for taking the time to try to assist me. It is appreciated.

larris

@Coupon-mad
Is my best course of action to contact DCBL and pay?
Thanks

Jenni_D

larris said:

@Coupon-mad
Is my best course of action to contact DCBL and pay?
Thanks

If the CCJs are registered then there's little benefit in paying - all it will do is marked the CCJs as Satisfied. (Some finance providers may be OK with that - many others won't ... hence my "little benefit" comment).

Coupon-mad

larris said:

@Coupon-mad
Is my best course of action to contact DCBL and pay?
Thanks

No. That's not what I meant.  We haven't yet seen a reason why the Judge might set the CCJs aside.  

I found out that the fines had become CCJ's, not just one but 3 issued in 3 different years.

Ok. Ignoring PCNs is once thing (a mistake but very common and not a problem), but surely you didn't ignore three court claims and three judgments in default from the Brighton Court?

This is what we are trying to establish. Please tell us the claim forms went to an old address where you weren't living?

I know Ingram Court and the Ingram Crescent Estate and have won appeals about the lack of entrance signs and the fact there can be no keeper liability as it's BHCC owned.

Don't suppose the keeper wasn't the driver?

larris

@Coupon-mad
I ignored the county court business centre letters as they weren't from Brighton I thought, niaively, that were just an intimidation tactic. I just couldn't understand why it would come from Northampton if it was a real court letter, just assumed it was DCBL calling their own building country court business centre rather than it being a real court letter to add weight to their tactic.

All letters have come to correct address, all to me. Correct, I am the keeper but my wife was driving during the alleged offences as she worked in Knoll House at the time

Coupon-mad

Correct, I am the keeper but my wife was driving during the alleged offences as she worked in Knoll House at the time.

That is about the only basis on which you could possibly hope that a Judge might think there are 'other compelling grounds' to set aside the CCJs.

That and the fact they should have been brought as one claim and three claims was an abuse and unfair (Henderson v Henderson applies - search the forum).

You could try applications (but they cost £275 per CCJ) stating that they claimed against the registered keeper, despite knowing the POFA did not apply and there could be no keeper liability on BHCC owned sites.  this is the wrong defendant - DVLA data in these cases is not supplied to sue a keeper and nor ix a keeper obliged to name the driver. Parking firms can't just sue keepers except where the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 'right to keeper liability' applies - i.e. on 'relevant land' which this is not.

OPS know this and have lost court cases in Brighton on this basis, and were also reminded by the BPA in 2019, after a formal complaint, to stop saying that keepers are liable on land that is under statutory control.

And it involved three claims that should have been one = an abuse of process and no keeper liability was ever possible.

Thus there are good grounds and reasons under CPR 13.3 to set aside all three CCJs so that this registered keeper may defend the cases. Also ask that the court orders OPS to refund all court fees to the Defendant for unreasonable conduct in pursuing a keeper re a location where they know full well the POFA 2012 does not apply and there can be no keeper liability, and for splitting the PCNs across three claims which tripled the court fees and time for this consumer to unpick, and it is trite law that a claimant must bring its entire case in one action (cause of action estoppel - authority: Henderson v Henderson).