CCJ from 2016 fine

crispyjay1987

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lyaykpgvxsmlvlmq5ex97/xxxxxx-Defence-vs-Local-Parking-Security-Ltd-Copy.docx?dl=0&rlkey=pm6wsfd828s36nfnzdn4krzc9

Honestly will probably sound amateur but I've just tried to hit all the points at least once.

Coupon-mad

I've not read it yet but spotted the top says 'the CCBC' but if you are past CCJ set aside, you are not dealing with the CCBC.

You are dealing with your local court.

I then read the first few paragraphs and am really confused because you wrongly state that this statement is to support the CCJ set aside.  And you talk about the wrong address being used, etc. 

But isn't this meant to be your defence against the PCN, as ordered by the local Judge?  i.e. I was expecting to see a defence based on the Template Defence, with para 3 talking about the allegation and what your defence against this parking charge is actually about.  Unclear signs, or whatever.

Have you shown us the right link?

crispyjay1987

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

No. I've edited to the correct link now.

Edit - Ah Actually my defence is along similar lines. I defend the wrong address and the claimants defence also. Is it not worth including the correct address defence as well?

Coupon-mad

Nope, none of that stuff about addresses.

And the Claimants have not issued a 'defence'.  They've provided a statement and evidence.  It isn't a defence.  They are not the Defendant, you are.

Use the template defence and add your own facts about the parking event (ONLY) as paragraphs 3 and 4 to replace the template 3 and 4 which you will delete because the Template para 4 isn't really relevant to you.

So that gives you two whole paragraphs to play with to set the scene re what went wrong/how the signs were not prominent, or whatever.

Never mind dropbox links.

Please just copy & paste your factual 'defence against the parking charge itself'  draft paras 3 and 4 below.  ONLY those two.

crispyjay1987

3. The Claimant provided the photos in their Witness Statement depicting the Defendants vehicle on the site.

a. They do not provide adequate evidence of non-payment as no clear photos of the dashboard are provided nor are there any clear photos provided of the affixed PCN as the Claimant claims. 

b. No PCN was present on the Defendant returning to the vehicle, otherwise the Defendant would have addressed it immediately, particularly as the defendant continued to use the site as referenced previously.

c. It is unreasonable to suggest the Defendant would keep a parking ticket or receipt for over 6 years unnecessarily.

d. The Claimant has provided no proof of the payment machine being functional on the date in question.

e. The photos of signage at the site provided in their witness statement are dated 2 years after the alleged PCN was issued and are therefore irrelevant as they may have been altered/installed/changed/updated.

f. The quantities of £100 (or £60 if paid within 14 days) on the photos of the site signage submitted by the claimant do not reflect the £50 charge on the PCN nor the £85 in the Reminder Notice submitted in the claimants witness bundle, further compounding the statement above. 

4. The first time the defendant had ever seen the ‘Reminder Notice’ dated 10th November 2016 or the PCN dated 08/10/2016 as referenced in their witness statement bundle was on opening the email from Joshua Reid as mentioned previously. Unless the Claimant is willing to provide a receipt of recorded delivery, there is no evidence of the letter ever reaching the Defendants home. Furthermore it would make far more sense that the Defendant would act on either the PCN or the ‘Reminder Notice’ rather than 6 and a half years later, 6 months after the case had been submitted to the courts.

5. The claimant also submitted an ‘Agreement’ between Local Paring Security Limited and Tower Street Car Park dated April 2020, 3 and a half years after the alleged PCN was issued. This is irrelevant to this case as the conditions in the agreement are;

a. No concern of the claimant and are not pertinent to this case. These are simply terms agreed regarding the upkeep of the site.

b. Out of Date. The terms in this 2020 agreement have no bearing on matters in 2016.

Coupon-mad

You have of course admitted to driving in paragraph 2, so it all makes sense.

That's getting there; much better.  You will need to renumber the template as you've got an extra para 5 now.

Remove this as it makes no sense because your defence doesn't say this earlier:

"as referenced previously."

Don't assume the same Judge will hear the PCN case.

Do you actually recall what went wrong?  It isn't crystal clear in that defence if you tried to pay, or thought you did pay by app or machine, or didn't see the signs at all?

Or honestly have no idea?

crispyjay1987

Thanks for reading through. I've already sorted the paragraphs so they number correctly. Happy to bundle these together though, just seemed very long. 

I'll remove that sentence 👍

As far as I recall I paid and displayed. I used that car park regularly so last thing I want is a reputation. I see what you mean though. I've attacked it at a few angles but don't necessarily need to. The thing is I don't actually know what went wrong. There was apparently a PCN but Ive never seen one. And there was also apparently a letter, which again I had no idea until the evidence bundle was emailed. 

Coupon-mad

As far as I recall I paid and displayed. I used that car park regularly.

You should add that entire phrase to your paragraph 2 after you admit to driving (but change "I" to "the Defendant").

Thinking about your case and what is likely to have caused this PCN one day against a regular visitor who always paid and displayed, I think you should add a new paragraph, suggesting this:

- The Defendant has no idea what went wrong that day, some seven years ago (and received no letters about it) but it is reasonable to conclude that this may well have merely been a case of a minor typo in the VRM, when paying at the machine.  If so, this would be a minor 'keying error' which the BPA and the Government both direct (in their respective current/incoming Codes of Practice) must see PCNs cancelled.  If this Claimant is trying to punish a typo, not only was this 'de minimis' and not an actionable breach of a 'relevant contract or obligation' (per POFA 2012) but it would also mean that this Claimant knew all along that the Defendant paid and displayed, as their historical records showed he always did, and that there was a payment in the system that any professional parking operator could easily have matched to the car.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of payments made at the material time (all site machine and app logs) and to explain how punishing a typo could possibly be fair, or indeed disengage the penalty rule that the Supreme Court held is engaged in all private parking cases.


Also add a paragraph like the below, objecting to the interest:

- As well as denying that the Claimant is entitled to parking charges, the Defendant denies that the Claimant has incurred any 'damages' or 'debt recovery fees'.  Then there is the extortionate attempt at using a default judgment to harvest seven years' interest, which must surely be dismissed by the court.  Interest is discretionary, not an absolute entitlement and it has been falsely calculated from day one on the whole amount.  The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim to interest on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis, is reason enough to disallow the claim.  Further, this Claimant has sat on their hands and unreasonably delayed commencing proceedings by some six years, by which time the Defendant had moved house and having made no proper address checks, this Claimant set themselves up to profit from a hugely exaggerated CCJ.  As such, the Defendant also takes the point that - in the unlikely event that this claim is successful - interest should be disallowed or significantly reduced (per Claymore Services Ltd v Nautilus Properties Ltd [2007] BLR 452).

crispyjay1987

Thank you! Righty then. So altogether;

2. The Defendant acknowledges;

a. they were the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence

b. that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against them as the Defendant on 05/2022.

c. that the Claimant is LOCAL PARKING SECURITY LIMITED, and that the assumed claim is in respect of unpaid Parking Charge Notices from 02/10/2016 at my then residence xx xxxxxx, xxxxxx, Birmingham,  xxxxx

d. As far as the defendant recalls, the defendant paid and displaid On the date in question. The defendant used that car park regularly so the last thing the Defendant wanted is to get a reputation. The thing is the defendant doesn’t actually know what went wrong. There was apparently a PCN but the defendant has never seen one. And there was also apparently a letter, which again the defendant had no idea until the evidence bundle was emailed.

Claimants Witness Statement

3. The Claimant provided the photos in their Witness Statement depicting the Defendants vehicle on the site.

a. They do not provide adequate evidence of non-payment as no clear photos of the dashboard are provided nor are there any clear photos provided of the affixed PCN as the Claimant claims.

b. No PCN was present on the Defendant returning to the vehicle, otherwise the Defendant would have addressed it immediately, particularly as the defendant continued to use the site.

c. It is unreasonable to suggest the Defendant would keep a parking ticket or receipt for over 6 years unnecessarily.

d. The Claimant has provided no proof of the payment machine being functional on the date in question.

e. The photos of signage at the site provided in their witness statement are dated 2 years after the alleged PCN was issued and are therefore irrelevant as they may have been altered/installed/changed/updated.

f. The quantities of £100 (or £60 if paid within 14 days) on the photos of the site signage submitted by the claimant do not reflect the £50 charge on the PCN nor the £85 in the Reminder Notice submitted in the claimants witness bundle, further compounding the statement above.

4. The first time the defendant had ever seen the ‘Reminder Notice’ dated 10th November 2016 or the PCN dated 08/10/2016 as referenced in their witness statement bundle was on opening the email from Joshua Reid as mentioned previously. Unless the Claimant is willing to provide a receipt of recorded delivery, there is no evidence of the letter ever reaching the Defendants home. Furthermore it would make far more sense that the Defendant would act on either the PCN or the ‘Reminder Notice’ rather than 6 and a half years later, 6 months after the case had been submitted to the courts.

5. The claimant also submitted an ‘Agreement’ between Local Paring Security Limited and Tower Street Car Park dated April 2020, 3 and a half years after the alleged PCN was issued. This is irrelevant to this case as the conditions in the agreement are;

a. No concern of the claimant and are not pertinent to this case. These are simply terms agreed regarding the upkeep of the site.

b. Out of Date. The terms in this 2020 agreement have no bearing on matters in 2016.

6. The Defendant has no idea what went wrong that day, some seven years ago (and received no letters about it) but it is reasonable to conclude that this may well have merely been a case of a minor typo in the VRM, when paying at the machine. If so, this would be a minor 'keying error' which the BPA and the Government both direct (in their respective current/incoming Codes of Practice) must see PCNs cancelled. If this Claimant is trying to punish a typo, not only was this 'de minimis' and not an actionable breach of a 'relevant contract or obligation' (per POFA 2012) but it would also mean that this Claimant knew all along that the Defendant paid and displayed, as their historical records showed he always did, and that there was a payment in the system that any professional parking operator could easily have matched to the car. The Claimant is put to strict proof of payments made at the material time (all site machine and app logs) and to explain how punishing a typo could possibly be fair, or indeed disengage the penalty rule that the Supreme Court held is engaged in all private parking cases.

7. As well as denying that the Claimant is entitled to parking charges, the Defendant denies that the Claimant has incurred any ‘damages’ or ‘debt recovery fees’. Then there is the extortionate attempt at using a default judgment to harvest seven years’ interest, which must surely be dismissed by the court. Interest is discretionary, not an absolute entitlement and it has been falsely calculated from day one on the whole amount. The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim to interest on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis, is reason enough to disallow the claim. Further, this Claimant has sat on their hands and unreasonably delayed commencing proceedings by some six years, by which time the Defendant had moved house and having made no proper address checks, this Claimant set themselves up to profit from a hugely exaggerated CCJ. As such, the Defendant also takes the point that – in the unlikely event that this claim is successful – interest should be disallowed or significantly reduced (per Claymore Services Ltd v Nautilus Properties Ltd [2007] BLR 452).

Coupon-mad

Remove all this unnecessary narrative:

2. The Defendant acknowledges;

a. they were the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence

b. that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against them as the Defendant on 05/2022.

c. that the Claimant is LOCAL PARKING SECURITY LIMITED, and that the assumed claim is in respect of unpaid Parking Charge Notices from 02/10/2016 at my then residence xx xxxxxx, xxxxxx, Birmingham,  xxxxx

d. 

Instead for 2 and 3, just put:

2. The Defendant has still not seen any Particulars of Claim.  Thus, the Defendant has treated the Claimant's statement supplied prior to the CCJ set aside hearing as their statement of case and responds as follows:

3. Any breach of contract (or indeed any contract 'agreed by conduct') is denied. As far as the defendant is aware, they were likely to have been the driver and would have paid and displayed as they always did.  The defendant used that car park regularly so the last thing the Defendant wanted is to get a reputation. The thing is the defendant doesn’t actually know what went wrong. There was apparently a PCN but the defendant has never seen one. And there was also apparently a letter, which again the defendant had no idea until the evidence bundle was emailed. 


Then re-number the rest of your draft.  The rest is good.

Then continue with (again, re-numbered) the rest of the Template Defence but not the paragraph 4 in that, because it's not right for your case.