Parking CCJ set aside, some advice required

Boat_to_Bolivia

Great news. Well done.

Coupon-mad

Great stuff! Wasn't expecting that.  You now have a no-risk punt at getting your money back.

EpsomJim

Yes, really good news. Thank you all so much for your kind assistance so far. Yesterday was a real load of my mind!

Coupon-mad said:

Great stuff! Wasn't expecting that.  You now have a no-risk punt at getting your money back.

Me neither. He had to explain it a couple of times, but a nice surprise.

EpsomJim

B789 said:

Excellent news, well done. Sounds like you had a decent judge and it is good to note that a "satisfied" CCJ that has been set aside can be contested again and if you win then the claimant has to reimburse you.

Just show us the PoC from the original claim and your defence should be straightforward.

Thank you.

In terms of PoC, obviously fairly limited! Here is what was on the claim form:

The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXXXXX (the 'Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at The Station - c1223 - The Station Broadway Stoneleigh Epsom Surrey KT17 2JA, on 19/10/2016 thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN').

The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.

THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN, £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £69.04 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.

So £229.04 claimed, plus £35 court fee, plus £50 legal representation fee making £314.04. I actually paid £336 due to extra interest(?)

Coupon-mad

State at the start of your defence that you were forced to pay £336 which District Judge xxxxxxx at a CCJ set aside hearing on (DATE 2023) has ordered to be refunded in full, if the defence succeeds at a final hearing.  This is due to the Claimant failing to properly serve the claim and thus the payment made was due to the wrongful CCJ, not as an admission . Liability for the parking charge has always been denied.

Then carry on with the Template Defence.  In fact I would use the defence by @Johny86.

Those POC are woeful.  You should add this in your early paragraphs 2 and 3:

There is nothing to say what the alleged actionable conduct by the driver way back in 2016 actually was, nor does it specify the term allegedly breached.  Could be an allegation of not paying, not displaying, no permit, overstaying, wrong VRM input, not paying within the first observation period, not parking within a bay...the list goes on!  How is the Defendant supposed to respond meaningfully to seven year old allegations that are simply not made in this POC?

This is made worse by the scattergun attempt to pin the charge on the Defendant as 'driver/keeper' despite the fact that any professional private parking firm knows (or should know) that a station location is not 'relevant land'.  There is only one piece of legislation about this and the PoFA 2012 schedule 4 specifically and deliberately excludes byelaws land from the right to keeper liability. There is no method or rule of law by which a registered keeper can be held liable at this location, so that should never have been pleaded. 

EpsomJim

Thank you, that's all excellent advice. Will come back with draft defence.

(As it happens, I do know what the PCN was for: overstaying. I got the details from an SAR during the set-aside prep. I had to attend hospital because my daughter was rushed in, so was unable to add any extra time on).

1505grandad

"As it happens, I do know what the PCN was for: overstaying. I got the details from an SAR during the set-aside prep. I had to attend hospital because my daughter was rushed in, so was unable to add any extra time on)."

Just checking  -  so woeful PoC not relevant  -  has driver been outed if any communications with claimant?

EpsomJim

1505grandad said:

Just checking  -  so woeful PoC not relevant  -  has driver been outed if any communications with claimant?

I think extremely unlikely. I only found out about the claim six months post-CCJ stage, and an SAR to the parking operator did not show any response to the letters they suggest they sent.

EpsomJim

Right - back from a work trip, and defence drafted.

It follows the template that you suggested almost exactly @Coupon-mad , so I am only posting the bits where it differs from the standard text.

I have looked again through the materials that the PO sent me following my SAR. I'd say the Notice to Keeper (which they've called a First Reminder Notice) is non-compliant in a number of ways. In addition, they have provided a scan of the Notice to Driver (ticket), which also looks non-compliant. Perhaps because they've only given me the front side, so I can't see what's on the reverse!

I'm going to keep anything relevant to the specifics for my Witness Statement, and just go with standard arguments in Defence. Given the length of time that's elapsed, and the inability for me to check contemporaneous signage (nothing on Street View), that's really all I can do.

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

DRAFT DEFENCE

1.      This defence relates to a Default Judgement that was entered by the County Court Business Centre on xx.xx.22, and which the Defendant paid to satisfy on xx.xx.22. That Judgement was set aside at a hearing which took place on the xx.xx.23 before Assistant District Judge XXX at the Croydon County Court.

2.      The Judgement was set aside due to the Claimant failing to properly serve the claim, which was sent to an address the Defendant had not lived at for four years.

3.      The judge in that hearing ordered that the amount paid to satisfy the initial Default Judgement should be refunded if the Defendant succeeds at a final hearing. Payment was solely made due to the wrongful Default Judgement and its impact on the Defendant’s ongoing house purchase, and not as an admission of liability.

4 - standard

5.      While it is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, liability is and always has been denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars given they state they are claiming the ‘unpaid PCN from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle’.

6-8 standard

9.      The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. This is particularly unreasonable given the extreme length of time between the alleged contravention – October 2016 – and the time of the eventual claim – April 2022.

10-20 standard

21.      This Claimant did not incur any additional costs for the original claim (not even for reminder letters) because the (already high) parking charge more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called an automated letter-chain business model that generates a healthy profit. Any additional costs incurred by the Claimant since the original claim stem purely from its incorrect serving to an address where the Defendant no longer resided, and the set aside process mentioned above.

22-25 standard

Costs

36.      In the matter of costs, the Defendant has expended a considerable amount of time on both the original set aside process and this additional defence.

37.      Throughout the process, the Claimant’s conduct in this matter has been unreasonable. As pointed out by the judge in the set aside hearing they knowingly issued the claim to an address where the Defendant was no longer resident, despite being in receipt of information stating his current address. They then contested the Defendant’s reasonable request to refund the application costs for the set aside, both in their Witness Statement and at the hearing itself.

(then standard costs request)