CCJ Help Please

Emma1516

WITNESS STATEMENT

I am …..and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated 30th June 2022 requesting to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated 7th April 2022 as I received no correspondence and was unable to defend myself.

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 I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking event.

2 I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on 7th April 2022. I am aware that the Claimant is Highview Parking Ltd, and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from August 2016, I contest this charge for the reasons below which will form my draft defence.:

- no paperwork was ever received at my address regarding a ccj, if I had received it I would have acted promptly in addressing the matter as I am doing now

3 CPR 13.3 provides for a set aside that may be allowed if there is 'good reason'. I never received a claim form and was therefore not aware of the default judgment until 27th June 2022 whilst applying for a new mortgage only to discover I had bad credit according to the mortgage company search.

4 I then joined Equifax in order to obtain my full credit report this is when I discovered the CCJ on my file 

5 I called the Northampton County Court Business Centre on the 29th of June 2022 to find out the particulars who confirmed it was filed by DCBL legal, I then immediately contacted DCBL Legal who told me it was relating to a pcn from august 2016

6 I now remember this event and the initial letter I received about this at that time, I had called and explained the reason it had taken us a little longer to return to the car that day was due to the fact my mum had ulcerated legs and so it took her a lot longer to walk anywhere, she also had arthritic knees and was obese. I never to this day heard anything else so had the honest belief that it was cancelled.  Nothing further was heard until the shock of me discovering the CCJ in June 2022.  I logged into Equifax to find out what was going on and it says I have a CCJ issued on 7th April 2022.

7 The claimant knew about this because I had called in 2016 to explain the situation and so they were no longer entitled to pursue the PCN and it should have been cancelled immediately to end the indirect discrimination. I believe the parking charge notice  to be unlawful because under The Equality Act 2010 section 19 

7.1

Section 19

Indirect discrimination

(1)

A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's.

(2)

For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's if—

(a)

A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic,

(b)

it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it,

(c)

it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and

(d)

A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(3)

The relevant protected characteristics are—

• age; 
• disability; 
• gender reassignment; 
• marriage and civil partnership; 
• race; 
• religion or belief; 
• sex; 
• sexual orientation. 

Disabled persons with protected characteristics cannot be held to arbitrary time limits applied to able bodied persons if it causes detriment (which this did, and the Claimant knew back in 2016). 

7.2 Please see below a link to an article regarding supermarkets taking advantage of disabled people and profiting from over stays :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8488737.stm

7.3 Please also find attached medical evidence I would like to submit regarding my mums conditions

 

8 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;

9 I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the 27th June 2022.

10 On 29th June I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgment

11 On the 1st July 2022 I filed a complaint with Royal Mail 

12 On the 5th July 2022 I have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.

13 I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me when they knew from my contact in 2016 that the car was transporting a passenger with a disability. To pursue an alleged 'overstay' at a shopping centre car park, against the carer of a passenger with protected characteristics who needed more time, is discrimination and this is an offence by the Claimant. The Defendant relies upon the principle that no one should profit from their own unlawful conduct, in this case in failing to identify disabled visitors and to offer them a mechanism to exempt their vehicle from the arbitrary fixed time limit that applies to able-bodied shoppers.

14.  The Defendant had every right to think this old PCN was long since cancelled because statute law overrides any unfair contractual terms that cause detriment to disabled persons and their carers. This is a claim that should never have reached this stage and should undoubtably be dealt with properly at a hearing, and dismissed by the court or discontinued by the Claimant.

15 Considering the above 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.

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.

Emma1516

Hi @Coupon-mad does this look ready for submission now, I was struggling to understand the ehrc bit but I am still reading up
on it, thanks for your help again couldn’t have sorted it without your advice

Coupon-mad

May have missed it but on a skim read, I'm not seeing the EHRC statutory code of practice example about TOURS that I told you about.

It's vital.  A Judge will not know that the EA requires adjustments of time limits unless you show that it does.

Emma1516

@Coupon-mad I’ve been searching for this and reading through the code but the reason I left it out was because I couldn’t understand which part I needed to add, sorry to be a pain but what is TOURS please

Coupon-mad

You simply search the EHRC Code document for that word.

Control & f on a laptop.

1505grandad

If I may:-
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/servicescode_0.pdf

Then as above  -  control + f and "tours" in box

Emma1516

Thanks you both I’ve finally worked out how to do it, I will adjust my witness statement and repost

Emma1516

@Coupon-mad, I have made more adjustments, do you think I’ve worded everything ok, would like to get it emailed across tomorrow thanks again for your help

WITNESS STATEMENT

I am …..and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated 30th June 2022 requesting to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated 7th April 2022 as I received no correspondence and was unable to defend myself.

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 I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking event.

2 I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on 7th April 2022. I am aware that the Claimant is Highview Parking Ltd, and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from August 2016, I contest this charge for the reasons below which will form my draft defence.:

- no paperwork was ever received at my address regarding a ccj, if I had received it I would have acted promptly in addressing the matter as I am doing now

3 CPR 13.3 provides for a set aside that may be allowed if there is 'good reason'. I never received a claim form and was therefore not aware of the default judgment until 27th June 2022 whilst applying for a new mortgage only to discover I had bad credit according to the mortgage company search.

4 I then joined Equifax in order to obtain my full credit report this is when I discovered the CCJ on my file 

5 I called the Northampton County Court Business Centre on the 29th of June 2022 to find out the particulars who confirmed it was filed by DCBL legal, I then immediately contacted DCBL Legal who told me it was relating to a pcn from august 2016

6 I now remember this event and the initial letter I received about this at that time, I had called and explained the reason it had taken us a little longer to return to the car that day was due to the fact my mum had ulcerated legs and so it took her a lot longer to walk anywhere, she also had arthritic knees and was obese. I never to this day heard anything else so had the honest belief that it was cancelled.  Nothing further was heard until the shock of me discovering the CCJ in June 2022.  I logged into Equifax to find out what was going on and it says I have a CCJ issued on 7th April 2022.

7 The claimant knew about this because I had called in 2016 to explain the situation and so they were no longer entitled to pursue the PCN and it should have been cancelled immediately to end the indirect discrimination. I believe the parking charge notice  to be unlawful because under The Equality Act 2010 section 19 

7.1

Section 19

Indirect discrimination

(1)

A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's.

(2)

For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's if—

(a)

A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic,

(b)

it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it,

(c)

it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and

(d)

A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(3)

The relevant protected characteristics are—

• age; 
• disability; 
• gender reassignment; 
• marriage and civil partnership; 
• race; 
• religion or belief; 
• sex; 
• sexual orientation. 

Disabled persons with protected characteristics cannot be held to arbitrary time limits applied to able bodied persons if it causes detriment (which this did, and the Claimant knew back in 2016). 

7.2 Please see below a link to an article regarding supermarkets taking advantage of disabled people and profiting from over stays :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8488737.stm

7.3 Please also find an example below about the illegal arbitrary time limit from The Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice for service providers:

Example:

A stately home has guided tours of grounds which depart at 30minute intervals. The guides are told to follow a strict timetable and to complete the tours within 45 minutes. Disabled people with mobility impairments are put at a disadvantage by this practice. When challenged by a group of disabled persons, the park management realise:

• thatthepracticeisindirectlydiscriminatingagainstsuchdisabledpersons and that they need to consider whether there is any justification for the practice;
• that making reasonable adjustments by permitting one group more time would be incompatible with the policy, as groups following on the slower group would be held up;
• they could achieve the same level of profit from guided tours by removing the strict timetable and permitting tours to overlap; and
• the indirectly discriminatory effect on persons with a mobility impairment is unnecessary because they can achieve their business aim of profit by adopting other means of achieving tour group volumes.
  As a result they remove the practice of following a strict timetable not just in the case of persons with mobility disabilities, but for all visitors.

 

8 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;

9 I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the 27th June 2022.

10 On 29th June I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgment

11 On the 1st July 2022 I filed a complaint with Royal Mail 

12 On the 5th July 2022 I have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.

13 I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me when they knew from my contact in 2016 that the car was transporting a passenger with a disability. To pursue an alleged 'overstay' at a shopping centre car park, against the carer of a passenger with protected characteristics who needed more time, is discrimination and this is an offence by the Claimant. The Defendant relies upon the principle that no one should profit from their own unlawful conduct, in this case in failing to identify disabled visitors and to offer them a mechanism to exempt their vehicle from the arbitrary fixed time limit that applies to able-bodied shoppers.

14.  The Defendant had every right to think this old PCN was long since cancelled because statute law overrides any unfair contractual terms that cause detriment to disabled persons and their carers. This is a claim that should never have reached this stage and should undoubtably be dealt with properly at a hearing, and dismissed by the court or discontinued by the Claimant.

15 Considering the above 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.

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.

Coupon-mad

No point emailing the CCBC at the weekend out of hours. They lose emails in a huge black hole (not joking).

See what others add but every paragraph needs a number and the Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice for service providers needs linking as well. You can't just quote something a Judge will never have heard of, you must show the Judge what you mean and also state that this is a statutory Code, therefore it has legal effect and is mandatory, not guidance. To breach this EHRC statutory Code is an offence in itself, in addition to offences under the Equality Act 2010.

You haven't referred anywhere to the evidence you are attaching about your Mum's medical conditions.  You need to refer to attachments to explain their relevance, giving each one an exhibit number.

You should clearly state that her conditions meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 and that as soon as the Claimant took your call, as a consumer-facing service provider bound by disability law, they should have recognised that and their statutory duty to make a 'reasonable adjustment' of time.  If they had needed further evidence they should have asked for it, but they didn't, they just went quiet and you received no further letters.

And attach mum's own signed & dated short witness statement, corroborating what you say (same headings and statement of truth as yours).  She should confirm she was in the car that day as you always transport her on such outings and when she shops at a retail park, it is painful to walk for too long. She certainly needs more time than most people because she needs to stop and rest...blah blah...and she is aware that you phoned to complain about the unexpected PCN and she fully believed it was cancelled, given that you explained her medical conditions and that's why you needed more time on this occasion.

Where you talk about the Post office/Royal Mail, explain why you are complaining and that post often goes astray because....(blah blah). Then add: Whilst this is not the fault of the Claimant, the initial charge should have been cancelled six years ago and should never have led to a court claim 

Change phrases like 'please find below' and 'please see a link' to 'In support of my argument that the case should never have been brought to court and that there are very good reasons to set the CCJ aside and allow the Claimant to revisit their obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the relevant EHRC Code of Practice and discontinue the claim (if not dismissed by the court) I will rely upon:

(a) ...(BBC article, explain relevance)

and 

(b) ...The EHRC statutory Code (explain relevance)... give a link and quote the tours example and explain how that relates to this case - what it shows is required under the law once a service provider is made aware of the needs of a disabled person.

You should explain that in this context, 'disabled' does NOT mean Blue Badge holders only.  This case is not about using disabled bays or physical adjustments to remove barriers to accessibility. Many people are caused detriment by inflexible policies like time limits and it is enough that a passenger or driver meets the definition of disability, to trigger the duty to make a 'reasonable adjustment' which in this case meant an overstay allegation was not just unfair but illegal to enforce against this passenger and/or their driver/carer (both are protected by the law).

You need to FULLY understand that last bit because (if they fight your application) any PPC will talk about Blue Badge Holders only, as if no other persons with protected characteristics exist.

They will also say "we didn't know because we use ANPR and had no idea about any disabled visitors needing more time".  Well...that's the problem highlighted by the BBC article and it is illegal not to make reasonable adjustments once they did know (when you phoned).

Emma1516

WITNESS STATEMENT

I am …..and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated 30th June 2022 requesting to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated 7th April 2022 as I received no correspondence and was unable to defend myself.

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 I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking event.

2 I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on 7th April 2022. I am aware that the Claimant is Highview Parking Ltd, and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from August 2016, I contest this charge for the reasons below which will form my draft defence.:

2.1 no paperwork was ever received at my address regarding a ccj, if I had received it I would have acted promptly in addressing the matter as I am doing now

2.2 This parking should never have been taken to court for reasons I will explain further below regarding my mums disabilities who was a passenger in my car on the day and time the charge was issued

3 CPR 13.3 provides for a set aside that may be allowed if there is 'good reason'. I never received a claim form and was therefore not aware of the default judgment until 27th June 2022 whilst applying for a new mortgage only to discover I had bad credit according to the mortgage company search.

4 I then joined Equifax in order to obtain my full credit report this is when I discovered the CCJ on my file 

5 I called the Northampton County Court Business Centre on the 29th of June 2022 to find out the particulars who confirmed it was filed by DCBL legal, I then immediately contacted DCBL Legal who told me it was relating to a pcn from august 2016

6 I now remember this event and the initial letter I received about this at that time, I had called and explained the reason it had taken us a little longer to return to the car that day was due to the fact my mum had ulcerated legs and so it took her a lot longer to walk anywhere, she also had arthritic knees and was obese. I never to this day heard anything else so had the honest belief that it was cancelled.  Nothing further was heard until the shock of me discovering the CCJ in June 2022.  I logged into Equifax to find out what was going on and it says I have a CCJ issued on 7th April 2022.

7 The claimant knew about this because I had called in 2016 to explain the situation and so they were no longer entitled to pursue the PCN and it should have been cancelled immediately to end the indirect discrimination. I believe the parking charge notice  to be unlawful and In support of my argument that the case should never have been brought to court and that there are very good reasons to set the CCJ aside and allow the Claimant to revisit their obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the relevant EHRC Code of Practice and discontinue the claim (if not dismissed by the court) I will rely upon:

(a) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8488737.stm This article highlights the discrimination caused by these type of parking charges, due to the ANPR not being able to recognise if a driver or passenger has any type of disability.

(b) https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/employercode.pdf

The Ehrc Code is relevant in this case as it clearly states a person with a disability should not be held to arbitrary time limits as this is not only discriminative but unlawful, here is an example from the document which is particularly important to this case as my mum due to her conditions has to take regular breaks due to pain and discomfort in her legs and knees, the code states what is required under the law once a service provider is made aware of the needs of a disabled person, in this context, 'disabled' does NOT mean Blue Badge holders only.  This case is not about using disabled bays or physical adjustments to remove barriers to accessibility. Many people are caused detriment by inflexible policies like time limits and it is enough that a passenger or driver meets the definition of disability, to trigger the duty to make a 'reasonable adjustment' which in this case meant an overstay allegation was not just unfair but illegal to enforce against this passenger and/or their driver/carer (both are protected by the law).

Example:

A stately home has guided tours of grounds which depart at 30minute intervals. The guides are told to follow a strict timetable and to complete the tours within 45 minutes. Disabled people with mobility impairments are put at a disadvantage by this practice. When challenged by a group of disabled persons, the park management realise:

• thatthepracticeisindirectlydiscriminatingagainstsuchdisabledpersons and that they need to consider whether there is any justification for the practice;
• that making reasonable adjustments by permitting one group more time would be incompatible with the policy, as groups following on the slower group would be held up;
• they could achieve the same level of profit from guided tours by removing the strict timetable and permitting tours to overlap; and
• the indirectly discriminatory effect on persons with a mobility impairment is unnecessary because they can achieve their business aim of profit by adopting other means of achieving tour group volumes.
  As a result they remove the practice of following a strict timetable not just in the case of persons with mobility disabilities, but for all visitors.

(C) The Equality Act 2010 states my mothers conditions meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 and that as soon as the Claimant took my call, as a consumer-facing service provider bound by disability law, they should have recognised that and their statutory duty to make a 'reasonable adjustment' of time.  If they had needed further evidence they should have asked for it, but they didn't, they just went quiet and I  received no further correspondence from Highview Parking Limited, in support of this argument here is a link to The Equality Act 2010 and also the relevant section

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

Section 19

Indirect discrimination

(1)

A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's.

(2)

For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's if—

(a)

A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic,

(b)

it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it,

(c)

it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and

(d)

A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(3)

The relevant protected characteristics are—

• age; 
• disability; 
• gender reassignment; 
• marriage and civil partnership; 
• race; 
• religion or belief; 
• sex; 
• sexual orientation. 

Disabled persons with protected characteristics cannot be held to arbitrary time limits applied to able bodied persons if it causes detriment (which this did, and the Claimant knew back in 2016). 

 

8 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;

9 I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the 27th June 2022.

10 On 29th June I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgment

11 On the 1st July 2022 I filed a complaint with Royal Mail concerning this and other mail going astray as we have often had our mail go to different addresses for example neighbours sometimes receive our letter and we have received theirs, Whilst this is not the fault of the Claimant, the initial charge should have been cancelled six years ago and should never have led to a court claim 

12 On the 5th July 2022 I have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.

13 I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me when they knew from my contact in 2016 that the car was transporting a passenger with a disability. To pursue an alleged 'overstay' at a shopping centre car park, against the carer of a passenger with protected characteristics who needed more time, is discrimination and this is an offence by the Claimant. The Defendant relies upon the principle that no one should profit from their own unlawful conduct, in this case in failing to identify disabled visitors and to offer them a mechanism to exempt their vehicle from the arbitrary fixed time limit that applies to able-bodied shoppers.

14.  The Defendant had every right to think this old PCN was long since cancelled because statute law overrides any unfair contractual terms that cause detriment to disabled persons and their carers. This is a claim that should never have reached this stage and should undoubtably be dealt with properly at a hearing, and dismissed by the court or discontinued by the Claimant.

15 Considering the above 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.

16 I attach a witness statement from my mum to support my defence exhibit 1a

17 I attach a letter from my mums Doctor with regards to her various appointments for dressings and her referral to the leg ulcer clinic exhibit 1b

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