Unexpected CCJ

verdomde

1st page (i got the redacting wrong)

verdomde

Hmm, annoyingly it was adjourned when I arrived (so the security said). This means they will contact me to reschedule, so I drove 2 hours and took an extra days holiday for nothing

KeithP

Without reading back over two hundred replies, why have you chosen to have this case heard at a court two hours away?

verdomde

an hour there and back because of traffic, I wasn't aware there was a choice?

Boat_to_Bolivia

Yes @KeithP over 200 posts of advice and help for the OP..A CCJ set aside achieved but not much more....sadly the learning curve wasn't taken on board and followed through....

I can understand the frustration of the regulars who give up their free time to offer help especially when it seems a thankless task!

Please don't give up.

Coupon-mad

verdomde said:

an hour there and back because of traffic, I wasn't aware there was a choice?

The case was allocated by the CCBC to your nearest court when you submitted your set aside application, so I assume there is no closer County/Family court that hears civil money-claims.  This is certainly true in parts of South London, for example, where cases all go to Clerkenwell or Shoreditch (something like that) as the more local courts are closed or no longer used for money-claim hearings.

There probably is only Norwich Court that hears such cases, in your area.

If there is some bare minimum I can do to make it seem not 'wholly unreasonable' to reply on the already supplied witness doc then please let me know.

No such doc has been 'already supplied'.  You haven't supplied a WS yet in support of your Defence.

The only WS you did, was attached to your N244, way back when you applied to set aside the CCJ and that was a narrow document, all about why the CCJ should be set aside.  It isn't useful now to aid your defence v the PCN.

So you got lucky!

You will get a new hearing date and the 'bare minimum' WS can be done and you'll PROBABLY get away with it due to this delay!  Phew...

Your Judge has already told you what a 'bare minimum WS' looks like - read paragraph 10 of the Order.

You could do it in 45 minutes flat.

Open a Word doc, put in the top & bottom stuff the Judge told you to put (explained in para10 of the Hearing Order) and add some paragraphs in the middle that start with the 'intro' paragraphs copied from the WS by @aphex007

...then you write what you want to say about the PCN.  Like he did!  Only your story, not his.

Attach some photos of lack of signage taken from the right year (see Google Streetview images).  Add anything else that assists your case - remind us, what is your case about?

Then add the end half of aphex's WS.

Job done in under an hour.

Show us your draft!  We will always help.

Boat_to_Bolivia

I'm a dog with a bone... @verdomde come on, you can do this.

CM has given you chapter and verse.. don't let that go to waste, you are getting expert advice from the Lady who knows!

Le_Kirk

I know I have been away but I cannot have missed the end of this saga! No response from @verdomde for over a week.  As someone else said upthread, I hope that is because they are working on the correct WS and have submitted it!

verdomde

Hello all, I'm still here, and will try and get something sorted this week.
The thing I sent in july 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6368143/unexpected-ccj/p13
is on page 13, it is the same case number as this, for clarification  - I need that and a Witness Statement as well?

At any rate I will try and improve on it if I can this week and do a witness statement as per coupon mad (thanks again).

I emailed the court to complain about it being adjourned without any kind of warning (in fact they still haven't sent me anything about the adjournment). Someone got back to me asking to prove the cost of my day off before they could advance my complaint- it'd be nice to get some kind of reimbursement- that was not a fun day.
So I've been waiting to here something back, new dates, explanations etc, but still nothing, so i've just been trying to avoid the stress of it. 

@Fruitcake kindly looked at the photo's the pictures are actually of portrait signs, just compressed wierdly.
They also say

The image of the sign in the landowner contract exhibit only has five icons. The yellow icon at the bottom right of the group is missing. The facsimile of the sign in the contract is in "portrait" format)- so are the ones at the site
It is evident therefore that the sign in the contract is different to the signs at the site. It is reasonable to believe on the balance of probabilities that the terms of the landowner contract are different to those displayed on the signs at the site, and therefore the terms of the landowner contract cannot be conveyed upon the motorist.

It is evident therefore that the sign in the contract is different to the signs at the site. It is reasonable to believe on the balance of probabilities that the terms of the landowner contract are different to those displayed on the signs at the site, and therefore the terms of the landowner contract cannot be conveyed upon the motorist.

Can that bit be used- do i have to compare the contract to the signs at site and prove it?


There is a sign when entering the car park, they are all on light posts.

On the pics there are 12 cars between signs, this seems far?
If parking on the side of the car park furthest from the shops there are no signs

If parking directly in front of the co-op and going into the shop the nearest signs are 4 car width away, so yo would never see them unless detouring from your path, is that worth saying?











This bit is good too (just sticking it in this comment for my reference)

There are no images of the vehicle parked at the site.

There are no images of the signs taken at night in the same light conditions as that of the alleged event. There is no proof that the claimant's signs would have been readable at the time of the alleged event, nor that the defendant's vehicle was parked near any of the signs at the site.
The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Contract schedule and Ts and Cs attached or otherwise supplied comprise the whole contract.*



Parking charges in the amount of £100 reduced to £60 for early payment.

No mention of additional charges such as fake add on debt collection/admin costs, therefore they are not permitted by the landowner contract. Note the words highlighted above. *
The contract shown in the claimant's WS is the "whole contract". Adding the fake charges is outwith that contract and therefore not permitted by the landowner.

@not_a_hope:
it is likely a driver visited the site to shop at 18.04, left the site shortly after and then returned later (after the silly no return within 2 hours rule no-one would see in the small print on those signs). Lots of people have been caught out by PPCs for going back to a shop for a bottle of milk. 

The PPCs are supposed to look for orphan images showing the vehicle leaving and returning to site later. However that doesn’t earn them any money.

I would certainly be pointing out the ANPR photos show how dark it was and that any signs that might form the basis of a contract would be completely unreadable. Their terms and conditions can’t be read it daylight!

verdomde

I took these photos last night, or maybe the night before, showing the distance between signs in front of the co-op, and that the signs are on lamp posts, but a: they are side on to the lights, so aren't actually illuminated, and b: some of the lamps arent working, in the entry post sign pic you can see another un-illuminated lampost with a sign behind.
The light on the signs in my pics is mostly from the pure gym, which wasn't there in 2020, the lidl in it's place would've been closed.