How to get a CCJ From parking eye set asside

Le_Kirk

canonman said:

Coupon-mad said:

The N244 (and attached documents) just goes to the CCBC.  Promptly!

I will get this done today, thanks for your help. Would you send the document signed for to the CCBC?

No, just use e-mail.

Coupon-mad

canonman said:

Coupon-mad said:

The N244 (and attached documents) just goes to the CCBC.  Promptly!

You can always hold back the Draft Defence for now, and say in your Witness Statement that a Draft Defence will be supplied before the CCJ set aside hearing, once the Claimant has sent information requested to understand the claim.

I will get this done today, thanks for your help. Would you send the document signed for to the CCBC?

No.

Show us your planned Draft Order and WS.

canonman

Please imagine you have the N244 Form

1) Name
2) defendat 
3) I did not receive any paperwork for this claim or any other documentation for this CCJ or any other correspondence from the claimant. I would like to set aside the CCJ.
4)no
5) at hearing
6) Blank
7) blank
8) Blank
9) Blank
9a) Blank
10) The evidence set out in this box below - Copied from Savonsa 

1-The Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into by conduct or otherwise whereby it was agreed to pay a parking charge and it is denied that this claimant (understood to have a bare license as managers) has to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.
2-It is admitted that Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.
3-I believe there was no signs at the entrance, smaller sign on the wall of the actual building at the time in question and added at a later date since McDonald had just reopened after closing for a month for renovations and obvious now appointing a private parking operator which was unknown to regular customers such as myself. Even the present signage are not legible from inside the car while driving due to the size of the font used., Claimant must give motorists to be able to read through these terms before they can be deemed acceptable.
4-I believe also the ANPR system is not a 100% accurate even the British Parking Association warn their members to check for.
BPA: as with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use: a) Repeat users of the car park inside a 2 hour period sometime find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an overstay. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur. b) some drive in/drive out motorists such as myself being a taxi driver that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked.
5-The particulars of claim set out an incoherent statement of case and quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the claimant maybe relying upon. Claiming costs/damages on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5,14,3.
That is the official Government guidance on the consumer right Act 2015 legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71. The Defendant avers that the CRA2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6,10,14 and 18 in Sch2, NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the system court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be unfair.
6-It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable. The Defendant’s position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98,100,193,198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015)UKSC67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd Chd(2011)EWHC4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135. Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper. At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge would appear to be penal and unrecoverable.
7-Even if the claimant had shown the global sum claimed in largest font on clear and prominent signs which is denied they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter chain. It is denied that the claimant have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.
8- The claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case, then add damages for automated letter costs not even if letters were issued by unregulated debt recovery third parties.
9-The claimant’s signs vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA. Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.
10-It should be noted that the new statutory code of practice on 7/02/2022 will introduce a cap of £50 on private parking charges and will ban additional debt recovery charges also material change notices where there is any material change to any pre existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been for public parking. The parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of change making it clear that new terms and conditions/ charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.  Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available, the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land. 
Although the new COP not yet in effect this highlights the unfairness and predatory nature of the charges added.
11-The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim.
I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court maybe 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.

the above is what i am stuck on, or if what above is even correct. As i mentioned on the thread i dont know what i am even being charged for. So you suggested that i can always hold back the Draft Defence for now, and say in your Witness Statement that a Draft Defence will be supplied before the CCJ set aside hearing, once the Claimant has sent information requested to understand the claim.

but would i replace 10- with 
As i do not have any information from the defendant and I have requested all information via a SAR. A draft defence will be supplied before the CCJ hearing once the defendant has the required information to understand the claim. 

canonman

Is there anything else I should add?

Galloglass

Since this one is an oddity (PE using DCBL as @Umkomaas says) could you tell me the 3rd and 4th letter of the claim? ParkingEye use "FC" so was wondering if this was a PE claim or a DCBL one. Should have a different code though.