Judgement for Claimant (in default) received. 29 January at 11:17AM in Parking tickets, fines & parking 51 replies 1K views

Coupon-mad

Juliansnemesis said:

WS:

1. I, XXXXXXXX am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting Statement to my application dated XX/XX/XX requesting to: 

1. Set aside the default judgement dated XX/XX/XX. 

2. Order for original claim to be dismissed. 

3. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee, in addition £180 for time in preparation (12 hours as a litigant in person at a rate of £15 per hour).

2. I understand that the claimant obtained a default judgement against me as the Defendant on XX/XX/XX. I am aware that the claimant is UK Parking Control Ltd, and the claim is in respect of unpaid Parking Charge Notices. I submit that the claim should be set aside and ultimately dismissed as follows:

Claim and response pack never received. Unaware of this claim.

1. The claim and response pack was never received and I was totally unaware of the claim until the arrival of the letter of Judgement for Claimant (in default) from the County Court Business Centre (CCBC) on the XX/XX/XX.

2. The last communication I received from the Claimant was a Letter of Claim dated 10/10/2022 via QDR Solicitors. I responded to them by email on XX/XX/XX. It is clearly evident at this stage that I was replying and would never have ignored a claim had I known about it. (Copy of email attached) 

3. The missing claim pack has still not turned up to date, thus it remains unserved.

4. Further to this I am currently dealing with several other claims by the same claimant for separate PCN’s relating to the same vehicle, at the same car park where the PCN has been issued under exactly the same circumstances. These claims are XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX. All of which I have responded to promptly at each stage further highlighting that I would not have ignored this claim had I received it.

5. 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, upon receiving this Judgement for Claimant (In Default) l:

1. Acted promptly by immediately  contacting the CCBC on XX/XX/XX raising my concern in relation to the Default judgement. I was advised then by a court administrator by the name of XXXXX that I could apply to have this Judgement set aside. XXXXX then emailed me the N244 Forms. 

2. Contacted the CCBC again on XX/XX/XX and spoke with a court administrator by the name of XXXX. XXXXX informed me that the Claim and Response Pack was issued on the 12th December 2022. 

3. Strongly believe that the claim did not reach me as a result of the Postal Strikes that took place on the 11th, 14th, 15th, 23rd and 24th of December 2022. I asked XXXXX if the CCBC had received calls from other people facing the same issue to which she stated they had. 

6. I submit that the CCJ should be dismissed or at least set aside under CPR 13.2 and CPR 13.3. I was in no position to acknowledge service or submit a defence statement as the claim form was not served and therefore I had no knowledge of the claim.

7. I am prepared to swear on oath that the claim was not served and that is still the position to date.

Cause of action estoppel

1. It is my strong belief that the Claimant is purposefully abusing the court process to their own ends by submitting multiple claims for same circumstance PCN’s all of which they would have been aware of. I believe they do this to bombard any defendant such as myself with multiple claim forms to have to acknowledge service of, submit defence statements, witness statements and prepare cases for, in the hope that defendants, who mostly have no knowledge of civil law, will give up or that claims will ‘slip through the net’.

2. This further claim should never have been filed as it is a clear case of “cause of action estoppel”. And I ask that the courts dismiss this further claim as such. I have already pointed this out to the claimant previously in a Subject Access Request email dated XX/XX/XX. (Copy supplied) 

3. Cases relative to this are:

1. 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 involving the same subject matter’. This case involves the same Claimant and Defendant, The same vehicle, The same Car Park and the same manner in which the PCN was issued.

2. In Henderson v Henderson [1843]67 ER 313 The court noted the following…’when a matter becomes subject to litigation, i) the parties are required to advance their whole case, ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to reopen 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

4. By filing the first claim and failing to advance the whole case at that time, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact Parking Charges against me. The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same. 

I can robustly defend this claim.

1. Should the court not dismiss this claim I ask that it be set aside as I am confident I can robustly defend the original Parking Charge Notice. I deny contravening the parking conditions set out in the Car Park that resulted in the PCN being issued. I am already defending several similar fact claims issued by this claimant as listed above. One of these cases (XXXXXXXX) I have had successfully discontinued at the defence statement stage. 

2. I enclose a copy of my defence pdf that succeeded in achieving discontinuance in claim XXXXXXXX. This shows that I have a very good chance of successfully defending this same fact claim, should the court not in fact strike it out. Please note that this defence statement is essentially the same for each claim lodged by the claimant.

3. 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.

All very good!

Umkomaas

in addition £180 for time in preparation (12 hours as a litigant in person at a rate of £15 per hour).

Whether you'll get any of this prep time back is questionable, but you should be aware that the current l-i-p rate is £19ph, not £15ph. You need to use that. 

Juliansnemesis

Thank you all,

I will will make the changes, fill out the N244, add the referenced documents and submit it all tomorrow. 

I will notify QDR Solicitors and include the N244 and docs in the email to them as well.

Thanks

JN. 

Coupon-mad

I'd send their copy in February...give it a couple of weeks after your N244 goes to the CCBC.  Or don't send them a copy at all, just let them find out from the CCBC (normal process).

You don't have to copy the C into a N244 application and I wouldn't give QDR a head start.

Juliansnemesis

Hi all,

Ok I am ready to submit my N244 form and supporting documents. I have edited the WS slightly but the main gist of it is the same. If you want me to re post it here I can do.

Just to make sure I have got this right from what I have read. I am going to send an email to [email protected] The email will contain:

1) The signed N244.

2) A signed PDF copy of my WS. 

3) A word document Draft Order.

4) PDF Copies of my supporting documents.

I have filled out the N244 electronically. This is what I have put in the relevant sections:

Section 3 - An order that the Judgement in Default be struck out under the doctrine of Cause of Action estoppel. If not struck out then set aside Pursuant to CPR13.2 and 13.3 to allow the defendant to file a defence in the case. The defendant only became aware of the judgement on receipt of the Judgement for Claimant (in default letter) on 27/01/2023.

Section 5 - I have ticked 'at a hearing'.

Section 10 - I have attached to the following documents to the email: 1) Draft Order 2) Witness Statement 3) PDF Copy of email subject access request to the DPO at UK Parking Control. 4) PDF Copy of email response to Letter of claim from QDR Solicitors on behalf of Claimant. 5) PDF Copy of defence statement from previous discontinued claim.

I have printed it off signed it then scanned it back in. 

Does that all look ok? Thanks in advance.

JN 

1505grandad

A heads-up:-

"The defendant only became aware of the judgement on receipt of the Judgement for Claimant (in default letter) on 27/01/2023."

I bet there was not a middle "e" in Judgment doc.  -  if only for consistency suggest removing the middle "e" in this context  - also Google  CCJ.

KeithP

The defendant only became aware of the judgement on receipt of the Judgement for Claimant (in default letter) on 27/01/2023.

A misplaced right parenthesis there.

Should be...

The defendant only became aware of the judgment on receipt of the Judgment for Claimant (in default) letter on 27/01/2023.

Juliansnemesis

@Coupon-mad, @KeithP, @Le_Kirk, @Fruitcake, @Umkomaas,

Afternoon all,

I had my set aside hearing today in person in front of a DJ at my local county court. The DJ read both mine and the claimant's statements prior to us going in to the meeting room then questioned us both on aspects of each during the hearing.

Unfortunately the DJ in this instance found in favour of the claimant and dismissed my set aside application. I have been ordered now to pay costs of GBP 350.00 on top of the original GBP 276.00 for the judgment in default. I will try to summarise what the DJ said. I will be kicking myself for a while wondering if there was anything I didn't say that I could have etc but it did seem that the DJ had made up his mind already and was just confirming some points:

• So firstly on entering the room the DJ said that my statement was a bit confused. He said that my request to have the claim struck out would not be considered at this hearing and also dismissed my argument for Cause of Action estoppel stating that a claimant could bring separate claims for each separate PCN. He did say that there may be an argument in relation to claimant's costs.
• He stated he was aware that the government were bringing in a Code of Practice but that it didn't apply to this case as it was from 2018.
• Secondly he went straight to the issue of whether I had contravened the parking conditions which I argued I did not. I tried to raise the issue of the additional GBP 60.00 as double recovery but he stated that he wanted to decide first whether he felt I had a defence to the PCN before addressing other issues. 
• Ultimately on my evidence he decided I did not have a defence and therefore would not set the case aside.
• He also confirmed that the additonal GBP 60.00 charge was included on the signs at the car park and as such upheld that too.
• I asked about the additional GBP 60.00 in relation to double recovery and tried to speak about BEAVIS, SOMERFIELD and WILKINSON but the DJ said that each case needed to be judged separately and he was aware of cases where the GBP 60.00 had been upheld. He also said that Claimant's costs often far exceed this extra GBP 60.00!!!

I am honestly gutted about this decision but I'm also worried that it may now open the floodgates for the outstanding PCN's I have. 

• Can the claimant pass on cases to QDR which have been discontinued by DCB Legal prior to a hearing but after a claim has been lodged?
• Are individual cases genuinely looked at independently or is this case going to impact any future cases possible brought against me?

Once again thanks for all the ongoing help and advice you have given me so far.

JN.

Boat_to_Bolivia

So sorry to hear that OP. Sounds like you drew the short straw with that Judge!

Le_Kirk

Oh, tough luck that's the problem with judge bingo.  I can understand the comments concerning the defence but why would that have any bearing on the set-aside?  What was the reason for the additional £350?  What was your reason for the set-aside application; failure to serve or "some other point such as a good prospect of defending the underlying claim"?  Haven't read back through the thread.