UKPC PCN Fine/CCJ - please advise

Coupon-mad

Your wording still doesn't reference the actual Clause in the BPA CoP, nor do you mention attaching the CoP as an exhibit (which you must).  You should also quote from the new incoming statutory DLUHC Code as this person has done nicely: 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79667347/#Comment_79667347

You need to read mire threads just like yours. We have hundreds and we answer the same questions every week!

The dates on your DRAFT ORDER are left blank (think about what a draft order is and who it's for/the purpose of it...).  This is if course on a separate page, a WORD DOC (not a PDF like your signed WS).

2. Costs to be reserved.  - (Is this the correct wording for requesting set aside fee returned?)

No  it's not.  Read the threads I linked for you already. They put it correctly.

rodriguez51

Coupon-mad said:

Your wording still doesn't reference the actual Clause in the BPA CoP, nor do you mention attaching the CoP as an exhibit (which you must).  You should also quote from the new incoming statutory DLUHC Code as this person has done nicely: 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79667347/#Comment_79667347

You beed to read mire threads just like yours. We have hundreds and we answer the sane questions every week!

The dates on your DRAFT ORDER are left blank (think about what a draft order is and who it's for/the purpose of it...).  This is if course on a separate page, a WORD DOC (not a PDF like your signed WS).

2. Costs to be reserved.  - (Is this the correct wording for requesting set aside fee returned?)

No  it's not.  Read the threads I linked for you already. They put it correctly.

I have at least 12 different threads open at the same time right now, its definitely a lot to take in.

I've added the reference of the clause in and downloaded the ICP's CoP. I can't find which bit to reference as an exhibit from the document though, it's massive. How can I find the clause section? I've also changed the wording for the costs on the DO. Took the dates out as I seen you mention in another thread how its not relevant as I'd prefer it struck out and buried on the whole.

DRAFT ORDER
CLAIM No: XXX
BETWEEN:
UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED  (Claimant)
-- and --
XXX (Defendant)
______________________________________________
DRAFT ORDER
______________________________________________

IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The default judgment dated on X be set aside.
2. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee and the claim to be struck out.
3. Should the Claimant discontinue the Claim after the CCJ is set aside, paragraph 1.2 shall cease to have effect and the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £275
4. All enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.

NOTE- Should I reference the other ccj claim number and wanting them combined for a single hearing and both refunded on this or is the mention in the WS sufficient?

EDIT:

Not sure if worth noting but I have not seen anything ccj related on any credit reports yet, the first ccj was over a year ago now. The court also said there isnt a warrant number issued to either of these cases too. Probably impertinent but wanted to mention

rodriguez51

1505grandad said:

Para 1.9  -  "The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses (of) results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country."

Is (of) rrquired?

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

I would use "parking event" instead of (this)  -  there is no crime involved.

"As I had work commitments, the vehicle sale was supervised by a relative who did not change the "(ownership)"

Should (this) be "Registered keeper"?  -  the only address DVLA is the RK

Great spots, noted and updated thank you

rodriguez51

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

a. Set aside the default judgment dated XXX, as it was not properly served at my current address.

b. Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

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

d. I also reference a further separate claim for default judgment XXX in which I have made separate N244 applications to the court, as this too was not properly served at my current address, both issued by the same claimant for substantially similar particulars of claim.

e. In order to save the court and both parties time I politely request the court for one single hearing for all the above claims.

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

However I was not the owner or driver at the time of the event. As I had work commitments, the vehicle sale was supervised by a relative who did not change the registered keeper.

2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on XXX. I am aware that the Claimant is UK PARKING CONTROL Ltd, and that the assumed claim is in respect of unpaid Parking Charge Notices.

3. The claim form was not served at my current address, and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgment following a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd.

The address on the claim is XXX. I was living at my current address at the time of the event at XXX. In support of this, I can provide a copy of my bank statements and an Experian Credit report showing my address listed at XXX if required.

Please see the attached appendix a & b displayed on page X

4. 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;

5. I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the XXX.

6. On the XXX, I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgment.

7. XXX I have willingly submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.

8. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held my correct contact details at the time of the claim.

9. On that basis, I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address that I no longer reside. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of my current residence. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an old address and an irregular judgment.

10. I also refer to 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.

11. The Defendant was 'there to be found' for the sake of a 29 pence bulk Experian trace or similar very inexpensive and immediate credit reference agency address check. I would then have been notified of this judgment and could have taken action to prevent it. Checking for a new address is mandatory in the BPA Code of Practice (exhibit A) so this Claimant is knowingly in breach.  Further, the new statutory DLUHC Code of Practice (stalled ONLY due to a challenge about the level of parking charges, and no other clauses are affected) states:

12.“If a driver, keeper or hire company does not respond to a notice of parking charge or subsequent correspondence, or a parking charge has not been paid in full, reasonable endeavours - including contacting credit reference agencies to undertake a ‘soft trace’ - must be undertaken by the parking operator and/or its appointed debt recovery agent to establish the correct correspondence details of the driver, keeper or hire company before commencing enforcement action. Where a new address is discovered the notice of parking charge should be re-issued at the original rate but with a further 28 days from service for a response (payment or appeal).”

13. I updated DVLA promptly and they updated my records on XXX confirming I was no longer the keeper of the vehicle after the date of sale XXX. I also requested details of the buyer so I could direct the claimant to them however due to data protection they would not divulge the information. If the claimant were to contact the DVLA with the appropriate probable cause I would assume the information would be made available to them.

14. Given that more than 4 months has passed from issue of proceedings and service of the claim was defective (i.e. it was never served) I submit that this particular claim is dead and the period for service cannot be extended by this application process. I have no details of this claim, therefore, if the Claimant believes there is a cause of action then the correct procedure would be to file a claim afresh and to the right address, after furnishing me with the information required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, issued this time to the correct address for service for myself, which is XXX.

15. The Claimant has issued a further claim, xx, xx, xx and xx against myself with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The issuing of two claims in a less than 4 weeks, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. 

16. In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:
(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”  I politely request the court to consolidate the further four claims to be determined all together at one hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant for filing five single claims.

17. The filing of two separate claims for duplicated parking charges is wholly unreasonable, and has cost me a hugely disproportionate £550. The Claimant should have brought their whole case as one single claim and should have checked the address before filing the claim as required under the Civil Procedure Rules and BPA CoP 23.1c. 

18. According to publicly available information, my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses of results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald on 23 December 2016 "announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses."

The Minister added, "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. That in the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.” Furtherance to points raised in 3. above.

19. 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 fees of £275 from the claimant should this request be successful, or a total of £550 should the Court agree to one single hearing for both claims.

I believe that the facts stated in this case 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.

signed

XXX…………………………………………….
[Name of the Claimant] or
[The Claimant’s Litigation Friend, [insert name] ] [date]

 

- - - - - - - - - - - -

 

DRAFT ORDER
CLAIM No: XXX
BETWEEN:
UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED  (Claimant)
-- and --
XXX (Defendant)
______________________________________________
DRAFT ORDER
______________________________________________

IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The default judgment dated on XXX be set aside.
2. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee and the claim to be struck out.
3. Should the Claimant discontinue the Claim after the CCJ is set aside, paragraph 1.2 shall cease to have effect and the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £275
4. All enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.

 

Changes in bold, is this okay now? I'm still trying to find the section regarding the clause in the BPA CoP to screenshot and exhibit

Not_A_Hope

Version 8 of the BPA COP dated Jan 2020 states:-

24.1c Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.

And again in para 

32.1b Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the person being written to is the correct party.

Le_Kirk

See my post on 21 December at 9:43AM you still wrote "the defendant" when it should be, for a witness statement, written in first person.

KeithP

I believe that the facts stated in this case are true. 

That isn't the right wording.

Coupon-mad

I think para 7 is superfluous.

rodriguez51

Not_A_Hope said:

Version 8 of the BPA COP dated Jan 2020 states:-

24.1c Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.

And again in para 

32.1b Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the person being written to is the correct party.

Thank you for this. Screen grabbed the CoP passages and added them to the evidence appendix.

KeithP said:

I believe that the facts stated in this case are true. 

That isn't the right wording.

How would you word it?

If everything else looks fine I will send this tomorrow and see what comes back. Cheers

KeithP

KeithP said:

I believe that the facts stated in this case are true. 

That isn't the right wording.

How would you word it?

I would word it in the same way as it is worded in the Template Defence thread and in the second post of the NEWBIES thread and in almost every other Defence you might find here.

That sentence should read...

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.