Claim received for unpaid Parking Charge Notice

Coupon-mad

 I feel the Government is enabling this madness. Seriously.

No the Government is looking to end the worst of it.  Albeit, I feel the MoJ has been naive and utterly let down consumers by letting the lunatics take over the asylum (letting roboclaim moneygrabbing aggressive bullies take over the small claims track).

You surely have read our threads about the new Code of Practice and all the work the DLUHC are doing, and have been doing for 5 years?  The rogue industry is being regulated.

Use your case as evidence in your reply to the DLUHC's current Call for Evidence.

Afrochap

Coupon-mad said:

 I feel the Government is enabling this madness. Seriously.

No the Government is looking to end the worst of it.  Albeit, I feel the MoJ has been naive and utterly let down consumers by letting the lunatics take over the asylum (letting roboclaim moneygrabbing aggressive 'thugs' take over the small claims track).

You surely have read our threads about the new Code of Practice and all the work the DLUHC are doing, and have been doing for 5 years?  The rogue industry is being regulated.

Use your case as evidence in your reply to the DLUHC's current Call for Evidence.

Great. Will definitely do that.

Will see how the first claim goes.

Afrochap

Afrochap said:

Coupon-mad said:

 I feel the Government is enabling this madness. Seriously.

No the Government is looking to end the worst of it.  Albeit, I feel the MoJ has been naive and utterly let down consumers by letting the lunatics take over the asylum (letting roboclaim moneygrabbing aggressive 'thugs' take over the small claims track).

You surely have read our threads about the new Code of Practice and all the work the DLUHC are doing, and have been doing for 5 years?  The rogue industry is being regulated.

Use your case as evidence in your reply to the DLUHC's current Call for Evidence.

Great. Will definitely do that.

Will see how the first claim goes.

I just tried to pay and they are saying total debt is £296.32. However, judgement lists £269.60. 

Coupon-mad

There's a fee for pressing that button for judgment.  About £27?

Afrochap

There's no itemisation on there website ot anything of such just a single figure £296.32.

Coupon-mad

Afrochap said:

There's no itemisation on there website ot anything of such just a single figure £296.32.

Here's a similar one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80199350/#Comment_80199350

Afrochap

Coupon-mad said:

Afrochap said:

There's no itemisation on there website ot anything of such just a single figure £296.32.

Here's a similar one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80199350/#Comment_80199350

This is ridiculous. 

To be sincere, I'm feeling ljme going down the N244 route of its just to teach them to not mess around with people. 

The more I learn about this the more irksome it gets.

I'm aware and apprecaite you guys are not dishing out legal advise but in your opinion what do you think the chances are of an N244 being successful if I make the argument of Estoppel? 

I'm feeling I would rather give the Courts £275 than give these chancers a dime. 

Also, approximately how long does the Set Aside application takes once submitted? 

Coupon-mad

I think you have a chance, with a good Judge.

You could try:

1.  CPR 13.2 applies - arguably, the time to defend had not expired. The defence was not late but was wrongly blocked by the system due to the premature action of the C's bulk litigators. The period for filing a defence is in rule 15.4.

"15.4.—(1) The general rule is that the period for filing a defence is— (b) if the defendant files an acknowledgment of service under Part 10, 28 days after service of the particulars of claim."

It was premature of the C's reps to click the button for default judgment out of hours but before the 28th day was over.  They did this the same day your defence was due and you were about to put it in and the dates/times of your posts on this thread - which can't be altered - prove it.  Further, the Claimant knew you'd defend, as you had acknowledged this second claim and had defended the first claim;

2.  even if the Judge is not with you on that, the second claim should as a matter of trite law, be estopped (blah blah cause of action estoppel...should have been just one claim) so under the Overriding Objective the second claim should be struck out.  It is a fault of the MCOL system that it is so easy - a click button exercise - which allows bulk litigators for single Claimants to split parking charges up into several duplicated facts claims with generic POC and no human checks to identify cases that involve the same Defendant/location/vehicle (same alleged contractual breaches).  Duplicate claims increase costs exposure, waste time for Defendants and the courts and place an unfair burden on victim consumers, by causing them to put their real lives 'on hold' and spend much of the year with the headache of juggling several claims, which should have been filed as one;

3.  notwithstanding the above, even if CPR 13.2 is not satisfied, there are good reasons why the court should set aside this CCJ using its case management powers and discretion under CPR 13.3 and allow you to defend.  To deal with this application justly and at low cost, the existing defence to the first claim should stand as the defence for the second claim and (if the second one is not dismissed due to cause of action estoppel) the two mirror image claims turn on duplicate facts and should be consolidated to be heard together. 

BUT BY APPLYING TO SET ASIDE A CCJ THIS DOES NOT PUT THE CCJ OFF.  IT IS NOT FROZEN. YOU GET A CCJ.

HOPEFULLY TEMPORARILY.  BUT:

YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT WILL HAPPEN AND THAT YOU ARE RISKING IT STAYING PUT AS A SATISFIED CCJ, IF YOU CAN'T CONVINCE A JUDGE AND END UP PAYING IT OFF.

Afrochap

Coupon-mad said:

I think you have a chance, with a good Judge.

You could try:

1.  CPR 13.2 applies - arguably, the time to defend had not expired. The defence was not late but was wrongly blocked by the system due to the premature action of the C's bulk litigators. The period for filing a defence is in rule 15.4.

"15.4.—(1) The general rule is that the period for filing a defence is— (b) if the defendant files an acknowledgment of service under Part 10, 28 days after service of the particulars of claim."

It was premature of the C's reps to click the button for default judgment out of hours but before the 28th day was over.  They did this the same day your defence was due and you were about to put it in and the dates/times of your posts on this thread - which can't be altered - prove it.  Further, the Claimant knew you'd defend, as you had acknowledged this second claim and had defended the first claim;

2.  even if the Judge is not with you on that, the second claim should as a matter of trite law, be estopped (blah blah cause of action estoppel...should have been just one claim) so under the Overriding Objective the second claim should be struck out.  It is a fault of the MCOL system that it is so easy - a click button exercise - which allows bulk litigators for single Claimants to split parking charges up into several duplicated facts claims with generic POC and no human checks to identify cases that involve the same Defendant/location/vehicle (same alleged contractual breaches).  Duplicate claims increase costs exposure, waste time for Defendants and the courts and place an unfair burden on victim consumers, by causing them to put their real lives 'on hold' and spend much of the year with the headache of juggling several claims, which should have been filed as one;

3.  notwithstanding the above, even if CPR 13.2 is not satisfied, there are good reasons why the court should set aside this CCJ using its case management powers and discretion under CPR 13.3 and allow you to defend.  To deal with this application justly and at low cost, the existing defence to the first claim should stand as the defence for the second claim and (if the second one is not dismissed due to cause of action estoppel) the two mirror image claims turn on duplicate facts and should be consolidated to be heard together. 

BUT BY APPLYING TO SET ASIDE A CCJ THIS DOES NOT PUT THE CCJ OFF.  IT IS NOT FROZEN. YOU GET A CCJ.

HOPEFULLY TEMPORARILY.  BUT:

YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT WILL HAPPEN AND THAT YOU ARE RISKING IT STAYING PUT AS A SATISFIED CCJ, IF YOU CAN'T CONVINCE A JUDGE AND END UP PAYING IT OFF.

Good morning and thanks for your help. 

I will just pay it and report it to Levelling Up and also note this in my witness statement for the first claim. 

I do t want any footprint on my credit file as I'm die to start a remortgage application in the coming months. 

Afrochap

Paid. 

I will be taking the following actions 
1. Make a complaint to Gladstones themselves indicating they requested a judgement at just 7pm on the day of deadline and I will reporting this to the Legal Ombudsman.
 
2. File this with Levelling Up 

3. Mention it on my witness statement for the first claim, as its part of what happened. 

Is it too late for a counter claim on the first one? 

Received confirmation of payment email from them also indicating that they will informing the courts within 5 working days that payment has been made. As I do not trust them, I will doing this myself.