CCJ from a private car park

1505grandad

A reminder of the POC posted on 18.09.2023:-

"I am sorry for the delay.
The POC is 
"The Claim is for the sum of £106.66 being due from the Defendant in respect of a PCN for a contractual breach which occurred on xx in the private car park/land at xx in relation to a xx (previous vehicle which I no longer drive) registration mark xx. 
The PCN was issued as the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions, as displayed.
Despite demands, the charge remains unpaid. The Claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily rate of £0.02) from xx to July/2021 being an amount of £6.66. The Claimant also claims £60.00 recovery cost as set out in The Terms and Conditions and in the ATA AoS Code of practice.

Then they also add a court fee for £35, legal representative's costs £50  on top of the above explained.
Also they keep putting my previous address on the Claim form."

Do not bother with the SAR as the CEL v Chan is relevant to those POC's

JaySH

1505grandad said:

A reminder of the POC posted on 18.09.2023:-

"I am sorry for the delay.
The POC is 
"The Claim is for the sum of £106.66 being due from the Defendant in respect of a PCN for a contractual breach which occurred on xx in the private car park/land at xx in relation to a xx (previous vehicle which I no longer drive) registration mark xx. 
The PCN was issued as the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions, as displayed.
Despite demands, the charge remains unpaid. The Claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily rate of £0.02) from xx to July/2021 being an amount of £6.66. The Claimant also claims £60.00 recovery cost as set out in The Terms and Conditions and in the ATA AoS Code of practice.

Then they also add a court fee for £35, legal representative's costs £50  on top of the above explained.
Also they keep putting my previous address on the Claim form."

Do not bother with the SAR as the CEL v Chan is relevant to those POC's

Basically I want to request the letters they said they have sent to my "address" and the soft search they did as well, as proof they haven't done/ done it properly. 
Can someone explain about the CEL v CHAN more in depth?

JaySH

I am a single dad trying to cope with lots of things going on at the same time starting to write a new WS, which is a combo of CCJ WS and new WS.

**This is just the beginning of the WS, so I will be working on it now from here**

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, XX, of XXX, will say as follows:

1.  I am the Defendant in this matter and I make this witness statement in support of my application for a PCN entered against me on the xx, in default due to a defective service of Claim.

2. I was not aware of the claim made against me until I applied for some credit in XX when I found out the Claimant had obtained a default CCJ against the Defendant.

3. Furthermore the Claimant has shown no reasonable effort to ascertain any new address after receiving no response from the address held on their system or attempted to contact the last addresses shown . The Claimant had a duty to take reasonable steps to check for the correct address, in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice 22.1 and CPR 6.9, as more than 12 months have passed since the PCN on the xx and the claim on the xx.

4. I have not received any correspondence or notice regarding this matter until I became aware as per paragraph 2 above.

5. The PCN was issued on the XX and more than four months have passed since then, during which time I have not been aware of the claim or the CCJ. As per CPR 7.5, the claim should now be dismissed.

6. The CCJ was set aside on the XX. The Claimant showed on the day of the hearing a list of the possible Defendant addresses and the Defendant’s name wrongly spelled, which put the Claimant in a difficult position and to believe whether the proof shown is legitimate.

7. The Defendant has also received a response pack after the CCJ was set aside with an amount of £251.66 including added fees even though the Claimant failed to trace the Defendant’s address. The Claimant also added to the response pack photos and personal data from other claims which I will add as an attachment.

8. The Defendant has already spent £275 for a CCJ who was not served to the right address and The Defendant would like to recover.

9. I believe that I have a strong defence to the claim, and should it not be dismissed, I wish to have the opportunity to defend it properly.

10. I have set out the grounds for my application in the attached draft order.

Coupon-mad

JaySH said:

1505grandad said:

A reminder of the POC posted on 18.09.2023:-

"I am sorry for the delay.
The POC is 
"The Claim is for the sum of £106.66 being due from the Defendant in respect of a PCN for a contractual breach which occurred on xx in the private car park/land at xx in relation to a xx (previous vehicle which I no longer drive) registration mark xx. 
The PCN was issued as the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions, as displayed.
Despite demands, the charge remains unpaid. The Claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily rate of £0.02) from xx to July/2021 being an amount of £6.66. The Claimant also claims £60.00 recovery cost as set out in The Terms and Conditions and in the ATA AoS Code of practice.

Then they also add a court fee for £35, legal representative's costs £50  on top of the above explained.
Also they keep putting my previous address on the Claim form."

Do not bother with the SAR as the CEL v Chan is relevant to those POC's

Basically I want to request the letters they said they have sent to my "address" and the soft search they did as well, as proof they haven't done/ done it properly. 
Can someone explain about the CEL v CHAN more in depth?

No need.

Just read the Transcript, which is self explanatory.

There is also an entire September(?) thread here about it, possibly by a user called Brightlinks (not sure). We don't need to explain it again on thread after thread.

And a there's a Contestor Legal blog about it.

Start again with your WS.

You don't need any of that beginning stuff, if the CCJ is already set aside. Surely that's not what @Troublesum1 put in their final WS?

A good example of a WS (not a CCJ case) that uses Chan and other strike outs, is by @_blueberry_ and they were awarded £500 costs for the unreasonable conduct of the Claimants.

All usernames are links to their posts.

JaySH

Thank you very much.
By the way I have the response letter from BW Legal, so I could scan and add here?
They  explain about the source been an online template and replied that all my arguments are not relevant to the case.

What shall I add to my new WS, as basically the PCN was sent to the original address, but later move to another address which they never followed up (even they sent proof they did a soft trace which was wrong, as they failed with the original dates of the movement and even spelled wrong my surname).

The defence was copied in the forum prior to send my Defence.
I am reading different threads but I find more helpful the thread about blueberry you mentioned about.
I couldn't find the final WS from troublesum1, but I will re-read again, as there are two similar posts.

The points I am thinking to work on are:

- The costs of the claim with added fees. Mentioning about the Claimant failing to trace original address, therefore any added fees are irrelevant as the Defendant never got any chance to follow the PCN.

-Signage and timing. At the time of the PCN, there was a long bumpy road that takes you into a cafe near the beach. At that time there was no JustPark app and the telephone signal is bad making difficult to pay via phone. The time to get back walking to the P&D is probably near to 10 min if you are a fit person. Sometimes you have to drive back if you are running out of time making you lose your parking space. The signage was by the P&D but as you drive in, there was no markings to indicate the parking area, or more signage alongside. In fact, funnily enough they are now building a new signage by the beach....as far I can't remember there wasn't one or if so, not that easy to find.
They add a google map photo from the car park and wrote with a pen the areas where the signage was, but this is not proof enough as since then it has changed a lot.
-Missed letters before court action. I never got any letters from the court or BW Legal about a hearing date, altough they probably sent a few letters before threating to go to courts. But as I said I was living somewhere else.

Adding exhibit Cel v Chan 

But as you mentioned before this isn't any longer about the CCJ, but I believe some part of my previous statement is relevant isn't?

Le_Kirk

Your witness statement is now about the underlying claim not the set-aside.  Your WS, as well as using Chan etc., should/could follow the one written by @_blueberry_ but making sure that the narrative supports and backs up what you put in your defence.  Click on the poster's name to get to their profile and then find their threads (there are only three) and it is the one "Missed letter before ........"

Coupon-mad

By the way I have the response letter from BW Legal, so I could scan and add here?

No, we don't need to see it again and nor do you, given the below is a template seen in every BW WS in every BW thread!

They  explain about the source been an online template and replied that all my arguments are not relevant to the case.

What shall I add to my new WS?

Use blueberry's one as your base and replace their facts with your own facts about the car park, do you know who was driving, did the driver see any signs, were they authorised to be there, etc.  

JaySH

Finally I have a date for the final hearing so will keep you updated.
They sent a letter with a discount as well. 

JaySH

Coupon-mad said:

JaySH said:

Finally I have a date for the final hearing so will keep you updated.
They sent a letter with a discount as well. 

You should contact this person:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6512602/investigating-bw-legal-for-malpractice#latest

The thread has been closed.

Not letting me get in the post or find out who was it. It says permission error. Sorry.