CCJ dispute - need your help please !!

IMANK

Hi 

I have found on my recent credit report that I have a CCJ for £320 issued in AUG 2022 related to parking tickect issued on Sep 2019. The parking ticket is related to old resedentail address I lived in 3 years ago. The claimant is UK Car Park Management Ltd has not sent us the charge or any letters. They involved Goldstone to collect the debt and file the CCJ and I have not also received any letters from them, apart from text message received on my mobile which O2 marked it as SCAM. 

It seems all the commuication went to the old address despite that I did update my V5 form/ DVLA  and diriving license on time upon my address change. 

I read through CCJ forums and the Newbie form - quite helpful content to start with. 

I submitted N244 form to dispute the claim and askd to set aside.  Obviuosly this CCJ has massively impacted my credit rating whilst I am in the process of applying to a mortgage resulted in paying 6% on 2 years fixed. It is so annoying as I had excellent 999 credit score on Expedia for the last 2 years and when I needed the most I had this CCJ out of the blue!!

I drafted the below witness statement ahead of the court judgement / hearing and I would be gratful if you could read through and highlight if I have missed anything 

Thank you in advance !! 

BETWEEN:

Gladstone Solicitors (Claimant)

v

  (Defendant)

________________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT

________________________________

 

I am .................... and I am the Defendant in this matter.

This Witness Statement is in support of my application dated 01/12/2022 to

1. Set aside the Default Judgement dated 12/08/2022 as it was not properly served at my current address;

2. Order for the original claim to be dismissed

1. Default Judgement

1.1. The Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against the Defendant on 12/08/2022. The assumed claim is in respect of unpaid Parking Charge Notice 2353235 from UK Car Park Management (CPM) issued on 16/09/2019, at then residence 151 Bradstowe House, Harrow, HA1 1EL. Defendant contests this parking charge for the reasons outlined in Part 2 of this defence.

1.2 On 9/11/2022, Defendant discovered that a CCJ was lodged in her name through her Experian credit report. Defendant contacted the County Court Business Center to get some information about the CCJ. Court gave details of the Claimant. Defendant emailed Claimant to understand what the claim was and why this CCJ happened without any notice to Defendant.

1.3 On 18/11/2022, the defendant received a reply from the Claimant. Claimant’s email provided copies of the PCN and chase letters. Reading this, Defendant started to conduct her own research to the best of her ability. Defendant would like to bring to the court’s attention that the defendant isn’t a lawyer or solicitor and any research or work completed is done to the best of Defendant’s ability.

1.4 This Claim was served at an old address where the Defendant had moved out on 16/03/2020 and the Claim was not served at Defendant’s current address at .............................. where she lives since 16/03/2020. Since the claim form was not served at the correct address, Defendant thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until November 2022.

1.4.1 Defendant submits that by the virtue of Claimant sending the letters to her old address almost three years after the incident, she was not afforded any method by which to appeal nor any information about complaints procedures to the landowner. This omission prevented the Defendant from being able to get this charge cancelled by the landowner. If the Defendant could have appealed to POPLA or had been informed that the renting landowner could deal with such complaints and cancel charges, she would have done so.

1.4.2 Defendant updated her address at DVLA immediately after her move on 16/03/2020.

1.4.3 Credit reports link Defendant's name, the previous address and the current address.

1.4.4 The landlord of the old address, Greystar, sends back letters that are not accepted by current tenants. So the Claimant would have received letters that they sent to the old address back. 

1.4.5 Claimant has confirmed that they knew that Defendant no longer lived at the old address and Claimant said that they found Defendant’s new address from credit search companies. Claimant claims that they sent the Defendant a letter and a text message to confirm this new address. However, the letter was never received by the Defendant and the text message was marked as SCAM by the mobile operator and so was not noticed by the Defendant. 

1.4.5.1 The content of the letter that is provided by the Claimant now does not contain any reference to ‘address confirmation’. It looks like a scam letter that most people would not act upon with the fear of revealing identity or financial information that can be abused. If it is not an address confirmation but claim letter, the court actions should be sent to the same address as well. 

1.4.5.2 The claim is made for PCN 2353235 (Vehicle Registration: EA17FNK & Issued Date: 16-09-2019). Defendant never received any communication regarding PCN 2353235 and has no records of it. However, Defendant received PCN 2353275 (Vehicle Registration No: EA17FNK & Issue Date: 18-09-2019). This PCN was dealt with by the driver of the vehicle at the time. A striking observation about these two PCNs is that PCN 2353235 is issued to the registered keeper who has changed address and 2353275 is referred to the driver at the time who has never changed address. This is evidence of the business model, widely reported by other victims, that Claimant is using to destroy people’s credit records by exploiting the CCJ process and bully their victims into paying extortionate claims. Claimant targets people who have changed addresses to get CCJs recorded by default without any chance of a defence. 

1.4.5.3 Defendant did not update CPM, the Claimant’s client, about the address change because Defendant believed that there were no outstanding PCNs after Landlord Greystar confirmed all outstanding PCNs were paid or cancelled on 25/11/2019 and until the day of moving out 4 months later from this date, Defendant did not receive any claims from CPM. Had any claims been made during this time, the landlord would have cancelled it, as they were very helpful and never made any fuss about cancelling any PCN that Defendant took to them.

1.5 This CCJ has caused undue hardships for the Defendant, whose credit rating have been debunked to near useless values, thus severely crippling her in her daily life. 

1.5.1 As a result of this CCJ, Defendant was not able to take a 2 years fixed mortgage at 5% and had to apply for a 6% mortgage which has resulted in a high monthly interest cost to the Defendant. This means her mortgage payment has increased by £300 per month for the next 2 years.

1.5.2 This CCJ has risked the Defendant becoming not employable because she is a chartered accountant and her employer has a strict policy of a clean Credit and Background Check. Defendant has a three year old boy who is vulnerable and is put at risk by the actions of the Claimant. 

1.6 The Defendant has at no time tried to avoid paying for any known debt, and was at all times there to be found by a simple trace, a phone call or email. It is submitted that the Claimant and their client CPM should have taken those reasonable steps, and would have known Defendant was not at the old address, given the length of time from the alleged parking charge and the fact that the Claimant and Claimant’s client received the letters they sent, returned back to them.

1.7 On 24/11/2022, the defendant started to fill out the N244 form and started to write up this Witness statement.

1.8 Considering all of the above, the Defendant was unable to defend this claim properly. Defendant believes that the Default Judgement against her was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside.

2. ORDER DISMISSING THE CLAIM

2.1. Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle ****** at the time of the alleged offence. There was no ticket on the car windscreen on the day of the alleged offence.  CPM sends PCNs in the post, they do not put them on the car. Defendant never received this PCN in the post either. 

2.1.1 Defendant was the tenant of Landlord, Greystar between 15/03/2019 and 16/03/2022 and rented a flat and a parking space in the car park under the building where the alleged contravention took place. 

2.1.2 Defendant was in her 40th week of pregnancy on the date of the alleged offence.  She had strong contractions on the date of offence as well as the last weeks of the pregnancy which prevented fitting the car perfectly in the bay. However, the position of the parked car did not deny space to another user or impede other motorists or restricted traffic flow or impede access to emergency vehicles. The car park was never full to half its capacity. 

2.2 The claim is made for PCN 2353235 (Vehicle Registration: ******** & Issued Date: 16-09-2019). Defendant never received any communications regarding PCN 2353235, either in post or on the vehicle. However, Defendant did receive PCN 2353275 (Vehicle Registration No: ******* & Issue Date: 18-09-2019).  This PCN was dealt with by the driver of the vehicle at the time. 

2.2.1 Defendant has dealt with all claims from CPM immediately without ignoring any of their claims. Dealing with a PCN 235327 issued two days after PCN 2353235 issued (which is subject to this claim) and ignoring a previous one does not make any sense.

2.2.2 Claimant was not able to resolve Defendant’s objections to the PCN and referred the Defendant to contact their client CPM directly. Despite chasing CPM personally and through the landlord Gresystar, Defendant had no collaboration from CPM to establish the problem in this PCN 2353235.

2.3 Defendant took any ticket that she received from CPM and Landlord Greystar always cancelled them for her. Had she received this PCN 2353235 in post, she had no reason to ignore it. This is also why the Defendant had no reason to believe she had to update CPM about her address change as also explained in 1.4.4.3.

2.4 The Defendant further submits that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:

2.4.1. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is not the landowner of the car park in question and has no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, will have no lack of standing to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder, and only they would have been able to sue for any damages or trespass.

2.4.2. No contract with the Claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the Claimant to the motorist; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the motorist to CPM.

2.5 On this basis the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.

2.6 Alternatively, if the Claimant disagrees with the above, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least all of the following information:

2.6.1. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge

2.6.2. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)

2.6.3. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)

2.6.4. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper

2.6.5. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter

2.6.6. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

2.6.7. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.

2.6.8. Evidence how a parking charge which the BPA Code of Practice sets a ceiling for, of not more than £100, has escalated to a brazen attempt at triple 'recovery' reaching over £315 despite the POFA also stating that a keeper can only be pursued for the sum on the Notice to Keeper (double recovery not being allowed).

2.6.9. Show evidence that they have complied with the POFA or alternatively, show evidence of the driver's identity, to prove that this is the right defendant

2.7 Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

2.8 In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as keeper of a vehicle, I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant.

2.9 The Defendant has never received any previous court documentation from the Claimant in this matter and was never able to properly challenge the Claimant’s claim. Furthermore,the Defendant puts the Claimant and their client CPM to strict proof that they did post such communications to the Defendant’s old address, which was 151 Bradstore House, Harrow, HA1 1EL, without ever checking if it was the right address.

2.10 The Defendant believes the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing the claim against her without ensuring they held the Defendants current and correct contact details. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

2.11 On this basis I believe that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and absent the above being produced in short order, the Defendant asks the court of its own volition to strike out this claim and to order the Claimant to refund the Defendant's costs for attending, namely the £275 Court fee in bringing this set aside case , despite not being shown to be liable for any parking charge at all.

2.12 Claimant has no excuse: it has been represented by solicitors who are known to deal [almost] exclusively with these types of claims and who are professionally bound to know the law and comply with relevant obligations/procedures.

2.13 In considering the reasonableness of Claimant’s conduct the court should take into account its position as a professional parking company whose day to day business is issuing PCNs and pursuing motorists for payment. It is therefore a seasoned litigant which should be fully conversant with the court rules and its obligations. Additionally, Claimant is specifically bound by its CoP (compliance with which is mandatory) to know the relevant legislation which binds it as a parking company. In comparison, Defendant is a litigant in person, an ordinary person with no experience of the court (yet has managed to comply with all of his obligations and the court rules).

2.14 The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Coupon-mad

That's really out of date.  The statement of truth changed over 2 years ago.

The claimant is obviously not Gladstones solicitors.  They are not a parking firm.

Start again and use and adapt what you find in more recent 2022 CCJ set aside threads, e.g. by:

@Brokenchief

@Jack5656

@msx999

@aluminiumminimumimmune

1505grandad

As above  -  and Gladstones are not the claimant.

No middle "e" in "Judgment"  -  Google CCJ

Johnersh

It's simple:

1. Car parked
2. Dvla details obtained pre move in 2019
3. Lots of correspondence (no reply)
4. C simply issue proceedings 3 years later with no checks as to the correct address for service

Read the cpr - service of the claim form.

You don't get to rely on a last known address if there is reason to believe it may not be current (such as never receiving any response to correspondence). A Credit check would probably have sufficed to find you.

https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2019/02/13/back-to-basics-31-service-of-the-claim-form-at-the-last-known-address-five-key-points/ 

IMANK

Thank you All for your help. 

I went back and read through 2022 CCJ cases. There is an argument on 4 months dead claim and fully written here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6351901/getting-ccj-set-aside-for-parking-ticket-even-if-ai-didnt-let-dvla-know/p2

The PCN was issued on Sep 2019, and the CCJ on Aug 2022. 

Do I use this argument in my case? 

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

No-one here is saying not to use it just because a brand new unknown poster piloted in to disagree with our regular solicitor poster, Johnersh.

The argument potentially (and provably) works and trying it has no downside.

The date of PCN is irrelevant.

IMANK

Hi All 
I used the old witness statement above when submitted N244 form to set aside. The court has accepted my application and my hearing is now confirmed on 16th of March. 
I am not sure if I still need to update statement of truth?  what is the best way to approach this and add few arguments and supportive evidence? 

I really apprecaite your support. 

Thank you 
Iman 

Fruitcake

The statement of truth requirement was changed some time ago. If yours is only one line then it is the wrong one.

A search engine of your choice should bring up the correct one.

IMANK

Thank you Fruitcake. 

I have put together the below statement to support my orignially submitted witness statement.  Can you please review? I hope this now bridges the gaps. 
As the hearing is on 16th of March, shall email or post this additional statement and supportive evidences? 

BETWEEN:

Car Park Management Limited - CPM (Claimant)

v

-----------------   (Defendant)

________________________________

Additions to WITNESS STATEMENT submitted on 01/12/2022 

________________________________

I am ----------- of Flat 17 Raffles House, 67 Brampton Grove, Hendon NW4 4BU and I am the Defendant in this matter.

This is an additional Witness Statement in support of my application dated 01/12/2022 to 

1. Set aside the Default Judgment dated 12/08/2022 as it was not properly served at my current address;

2. Order for the original claim to be dismissed as it was not served within 4 months of the issue, pursuant to CPR 7.5 and the Claimant having failed to apply for an extension, pursuant to CPR 7.6.

3. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee. In addition £190 due to Defendant’s time in preparation (10 hours as a litigant in person at a rate of £19 per hour) 

1.1 This Claim was served at an old address;151 Bradstowe House, Harrow, HA1 1EL. where the Defendant had moved out on 16/03/2020, more than two years before this claim was made on 22 April 2022. In support of this I have provided a copy of my council tax statements, showing change of address confirmation from Harrow and Barnet councils (Evidence A), and V5C copy from the DVLA (Evidence showing the change to my new current address, Flat 17 Raffles House, 67 Brampton Grove, Hendon NW4 4BU on 12/03/2020.

1.2. Defendant lived in the old address;151 Bradstowe House, Harrow, HA1 1EL for a year paying rent for a parking slot under the building. During that time, the Defendant received a few tickets from CPM which were dealt with and canceled immediately by the landlord. This particular ticket was never sent to the Defendant. Defendant was at that address for 6 months after the issue date of this ticket, but did not receive any parking charge notices.

1.3. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Within 14 days of the incident in question, I was still residing at: OLD ADDRESS 151 Bradstowe House, Harrow, HA1 1EL, i.e., the address used by the Claimant. During this time, or at any time before my departure on 16/03/2020, I have not received any documentation from the Claimant at said address. I submit the Claimant has not complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against me as the Registered Keeper in any case.

1.4. Claimant claims that they sent the Defendant a letter and a text message to confirm the new address of the claimant. Defendant has not received any such letter from the claimant but they now found a text in their spam box. It was treated as a phishing attempt by the mobile phone operator (Evidence C)

1.5. 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. They had my mobile number. They sent me one text message but it was filtered by O2 as spam. They could have called me. Failure to carry out proper checks to establish the right address for service before filing a claim not only breaches the CPRs but also the pre-action protocol for debt claims and the British Parking Association Code of Practice. The Claimant acted wholly unreasonably by negligently or deliberately disregarding all rules and caused the claim to be improperly served. Car Park Management Limited failed to serve it at all.

British Parking Association Code of Practice 2012 - Version 7, January 2018, clause 23.1c which states: “Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the Notice To Driver / Notice To Keeper /reminder letters, take reasonable endeavors to ensure that the person being written to is the correct party.”

1.6. Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against the defendant without ensuring they held the correct contact details at the time of the claim. As a residential parking site operator acting on behalf of the landlord (ie. as agents), they did not even email the landlord to check if the tenant is still living in the building. This is a failure to make even the most basic checks prior to commencing proceedings.

1.7.  On that basis, Defendant believes the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address at which the Defendant no longer resides. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of my current residence despite having 25 months to establish an address. This has led to a defective service and an irregular judgment.

1.8. 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.

1.9. Given that more than 4 months had passed from issue of proceedings and service of the claim was defective (i.e. it was never served) the Defendant submits that this particular claim is dead and the period for service cannot be extended by this application process.  The Defendant had 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 the Defendant with the information required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, issued this time to the correct address for service for this Defendant, which is Flat 17 Raffles House, 67 Brampton Grove, Hendon, NW4 4BU

1.10.  The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £215 to the original £100 parking charge. The Claimant is not complying  with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 with the sum that it has sought through this claim. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

1.11.Defendant was in her 40th week of pregnancy on the date of the alleged offense.  I had strong contractions on the date of offense as well as the last weeks of the pregnancy which prevented fitting the car perfectly in the bay. In support of this I have provided a copy of my son’s birth certificate (Evidence D). 

1.12. This CCJ has caused undue hardships for the Defendant, whose credit rating have been debunked to near useless values, resulting in her mortgage application being declined and not being able to provide a home for her child. Defendant has a three year old son who is vulnerable and is put at risk by the actions of the Claimant.

 

1.13.For all or any of the reasons stated above, I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgment against me was issued incorrectly. I ask the court of its own volition to strike out this claim and to order the Claimant to refund the Defendant's costs for attending, namely the £275 Court fee in bringing this set aside case, despite not being shown to be liable for any parking charge at all.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this defense 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.

Le_Kirk

If that is a witness statement, why have you used the statement of truth for a defence?

Coupon-mad

I'd remove 1.4.

Not sure why you are sending a new WS, surely all this was already in your old WS?

Surely the thing to be sending now (before the hearing) is the Skeleton Argument (as seen in the thread by @Brokenchief and others) which appends the 4 case authorities and the IPC Code of Practice section about checking addresses.

And append a costs assessment.

An old statement of truth won't matter!