CCJ for PCN I knew nothing about

Coupon-mad

when I changed my address with DVLA for the car

That date is bottom left on the V5C if you still have that car.  If not, if you don't have evidence just state approx dates and reiterate that you were not served with the claim and the Claimant BREACHED THE CODE OF PRACTICE (have the relevant clause URL link or printout with you) because they failed to do a 28 pence 'soft trace' to check an address before litigation.


"Any other things I need to bear in mind?" 

That the Judge might start with a fixed (WRONG) view that all a PPC has to do is get a DVLA address and can use that random (old) car address for a claim, with zero address checks, years later.

AND ASK FOR YOUR £275 COSTS TO BE ORDERED REPAID BY THE CLAIMANT!  If the Judge will not agree (and is nit minded to strike out the claim as well as set aside the CCJ) ask for costs to be 'reserved' asa fall-back request ... but that's not what you really want, you want the £275 ordered back NOW due to the failures of the Claimant, which caused the CCJ.

Read the threads by @Jack5656 and @parkingpains1 and @Harvez63 to see how their hearings went.

Re-read your WS and be familiar with all arguments.  Your WS is great - I'm using it as an example.

hallie28

I don't still have the car - I sold it 4 weeks after the PCN is meant to have been issued (the finance agreement I have is from selling the car). As I was unaware that there was a PCN, I didn't have the opportunity to keep any proof from the V5

Coupon-mad

I edited my reply to add more advice.

hallie28

Update - the hearing was cancelled due to lack of availability of Judge's. 

It does mean that I have now seen Gladstones defence which I have copied below. There is a lot in the defence about the specifics of the PCN. Am I right in believing I am not 'defending' the specifics of the PCN at this stage as my purpose is to challenge the legalities around the CCJ, rather than the PCN. BUT, knowing the defence is useful if the judge doesn't throw it out and requests that I submit a defence and process it through the small claims track. 

Advice on how to defend this will be appreciated. They state that they (solicitors) did an Experian check which revealed an alternative address, that they wrote to this address, and I didn't respond. They have not added this letter in their evidence. I am not aware that they wrote to me at my actual address, but if they did, I surely still have a defence, as they chose to favour the old address given by DVLA, when this information isn't just a 'snapshot' of location and not intended for this purpose. 

Also - what does the paragraph at the end mean, when they ask for it to be set aside and for me to file my defence?

hallie28

The Defendant has made an application to set aside the Judgment in default obtained on the 14th November 2022 in relation to this claim.

4. The Defendant prays in aid of the application: i. That they were not living at the address where the Claim Form was served, at the time that proceedings were issued; 1

 5. The Claimant wishes to oppose the application and has provided instructions to my Firm to provide a witness statement in the following terms.

6. Due to the Parking Charge Notice (hereinafter referred to as ‘PCN’ as appropriate) to which this claim relates remaining unpaid, the Claimant referred the matter to my Firm for the purposes of recovery on or around the 1 st June 2022.

7. The case management system operated by my Firm confirms that acting in accordance with the clients instructions a ‘Letter Before Claim’ was sent to the Defendant at OLD ADDRESS; this being the address supplied by the DVLA as being the address of the Defendant named herein at the time of the contravention.

8. When no response was received to that correspondence my Firm carried out a trace via Experian, in order to establish whether an alternative address could be ascertained, in order to satisfy the requirements for service of a Claim Form as prescribed by CPR 6.9.

9. The Trace results did reveal a possible alternative address for the Defendant. My Firm therefore sent out a letter to the Defendant at that address inviting the Defendant to contact them and confirm that this address was now their current address. As the Defendant failed to make contact with my Firm, that address could not be confirmed for GDPR purposes. 

10. My Firm therefore submitted a claim to the County Court Business Centre on 13th October 2022. The address provided for service of the Claim Form was 106 Ringwood Drive, Rubery, Birmingham, B45 0BJ, this being the usual or last known residence of the Defendant for the purposes of CPR 6.9.

11. The Claimant therefore submits that the Claim Form can be deemed to be properly served.

12. In the event that notwithstanding the above the court still wishes to consider whether or not to exercise its discretion with a view to setting the Judgment aside, the Claimant puts the Defendant to full proof that they have acted promptly and without delay in making this application and that they have a reasonable prospect of successfully defending the Claim if the matter is returned to Claim stage.

13. In considering the above criteria the Claimant invites the Honourable Court to consider the following. 

14. Within this statement, I refer to various documents. The Claimant avers that these documents support its claim. These documents are now produced by me to the court as exhibits and are specifically referred to within the statement by reference to their exhibit numbers. Any reference to an exhibit number within this witness statement is a reference to the corresponding exhibit unless otherwise expressed to the contrary. 

15. The Claimant is and was at all material times involved in the management and enforcement of parking on private land. The Claimant achieves this by way of a variety of schemes including, but not limited to, warden controlled sites and ANPR technology.

16. The Claimant does so in accordance with the authority granted to them under the terms of a Landholder agreement. In accordance with the terms of the Landholder agreement, the Claimant is authorised by the managing agents to manage and enforce parking on the Land in question. The Claimant does so in return for a right to raise charges from the users of vehicles who infringe the ‘regulations’ (a relevant obligation) which relates to the entitlement to use the Site. As a result, the Claimant does issue PCNs in relation to vehicles parked in breach of the terms and conditions, on sites that they manage and do have the right, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to pursue an unpaid parking charge against the Registered Keeper of a vehicle, where specific criteria are met

17. The Claimant is and was at all material times a member of an accredited Trade Association and was awarded Approved Operator Status, through its full compliance with their Code of Practice.

 18. The Claimant provides, manages and enforces private parking at the Land located at Park Central Retail Park, Birmingham, B15 2DU (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Site’).

 19. Now shown at ‘Exhibit GS1’ is a copy of the agreement between the landowner and the Claimant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Agreement’), which sets out, inter alia, the Claimant’s standing and rights to manage and enforce the regulations in situ at the Site

hallie28

20. The “regulations” referred to above (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Terms and Conditions’) are displayed on large highly prominent signs erected by the Claimant at various points throughout out the Site (Exhibit GS2). The signs as to their size, content, font, location and number conforms to the Claimant’s Accredited Trade Associations Code of Practice.

21. The Terms and Conditions of the Site, inter alia, express the following conditions for any motorist using the Site; 3 “PARK FULLY WITHIN A MARKED BAY”.

22. Users of the Site are informed that the Site is Private Property and that Terms and Conditions apply. If a user of the site is unsure about the Terms and Conditions for using the Site, they should contact the Claimant (a contact phone number is prominently displayed on the signage) or they should refrain from parking.

23. The signs are clearly displayed throughout the Site as evidenced by the attached site plan, which also clearly shows the location and layout of the Site in question (Exhibit GS3). The driver would have had the opportunity to read and understand them when entering and then parking at the Site. An objective observer would consider this action to have been done in acceptance of the Terms and Conditions. The signage forms the basis of the contract between the driver and the Claimant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Contract’).

 24. The signage also states that any breach of the terms and conditions of using the Site will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge in the sum of £100.00, plus additional costs if the same remains unpaid.

25. The signage situated across the Site forms a unilateral offer to anyone wishing to park their vehicle at the location. As the offer is a unilateral one, there is no need for the motorist to communicate their acceptance, their performance of parking (as opposed to leaving) whether in accordance with the Terms and Conditions or not, is the act of acceptance.

26. The driver, by entering and proceeding to park the vehicle at the Site, wilfully agreed to abide by the Terms and Conditions, including those terms applicable to any breach.

27. On the 8 th July 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Contravention Date’, vehicle registration number xxx (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Vehicle’) was observed to be parked in breach of the terms and conditions applicable at the Site in that the Vehicle was not parked within a marked bay. The photographic evidence (Exhibit GS4) clearly shows the Vehicle being parked and unattended at the Site however; the vehicle can be clearly observed to be parked on the roadside and not in a marked bay

28. A PCN was not affixed to the Vehicle’s windscreen at the time of the contravention.

29. As a result of the above the Claimant obtained the details of the Vehicle’s registered keeper from the DVLA, under the terms of the KADOE. The Defendant was named as the Registered Keeper. The address supplied by the DVLA as being the Registered Keepers address is an address by which 4 notices concerning the Vehicle can be sent and is deemed to be current, given that it is the Registers Keepers responsibility to update the DVLA of any changes. The Claimant issued a postal PCN to the Defendant on 8 th July 2021 as they were the Registered Keeper of the vehicle at the time of the contravention Exhibit GS5.

30. The PCN gave the Registered Keeper three options: i. To pay the PCN (a discounted rate applied if the same was paid within 14 days); ii. If they were not the driver to provide the Claimant with the driver’s full name and a serviceable address, in order that liability could be transferred; and iii. To appeal the PCN initially via the Claimants internal appeals process and then if dissatisfied by the outcome to appeal the PCN to the IAS.

31. The Claimant followed this up by sending a liability notice to the Registered Keeper on 7 th August 2021; Exhibit GS6.

32. To date the PCN remains unpaid.

THE DEFENDANTS APPLICATION
33. The Defendant states that the claim was issued to a previous address.

THE CLAIMANTS POSITION
34. Pursuant to paragraph 29 of this statement, the DVLA provided the Claimant with the Defendant’s last known address with respect to where the Vehicle was registered to at the time of contravention by way of the V5C document.

35. Should a motorist move address, they have a legal obligation to inform the DVLA of such by completing the V5C document and returning to the DVLA so that their records can be updated. The Claimant will say that the Defendant failed to do this, and as such the Claim was issued to the address in which the DVLA had provided to the Claimant as being their last known address.

 36. The Claimant prays in aid of its case, the contents of this statement together with the attached exhibits. The Claimant’s position is straightforward. They were authorised to operate a parking management scheme on the Land in question. There was clear and unambiguous signage in place at the Site, which formed the basis of the contract. The driver of the Vehicle parked in breach of those Terms and Conditions, thereby entering into the Contract, which is now breached owing to a failure to make payment. The driver of the Vehicle failed to respond to the PCN sent through the post within the given time scales. Therefore, as the identity of the driver was not known to the 5 Claimant, they were entitled to obtain the Registered Keepers’ details from the DVLA and pursue the Registered Keeper instead.

37. It is submitted that the evidence filed in support of the Claimants case is extremely compelling and that there is little or no prospect of the Defendant being able to successfully defend the claim.

 38. It is not the Claimants intention to actively participate in the Defendant’s application to set the Judgment aside by attending the hearing or instructing an advocate as this will involve additional costs, costs which it would be unfair to expect the Claimant to meet, given that they have acted both reasonably and proportionately to date and have complied with the pre-action protocol and CPR in relation to the service of the Claim Form. It is also the Claimants position that any costs associated with making the application, as far as the Defendant is concerned, should be met by them.

39. Without prejudice to the previous, in the event that the court is minded to grant the Defendants application then upon the Judgment being set aside the Claimant would invite the court to give standard directions regarding the progress of the Claim moving forward as it is the Claimants intention to continue with the claim.

40. Should the court elect to proceed as described above, the Claimant respectfully requests the following Order be made;
a. The judgment entered on 14th November 2022 be and is hereby set aside;
b. The Defendant must file and serve a Defence to the Claim within 28 days of service of the amended Claim Form;
c. Upon receipt of the above, the Claim be allocated to the Small Claims Track with standards directions, to be heard on the first available date within 56 days; and
d. There be no Order as to Costs.


EVIDENCE
EXHIBIT GS1 - UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
EXHIBIT GS2 - DOCUMENT OF THE SIGN (rather than phot)
EXHIBIT GS3 - google maps arial view of the site (an old one that doesn't have current buildings etc)
EXHIBIT GS4 - 2 ANPR photos of my car parked outside a Greggs shop, next to pavement that has no road markings, but not in a 'bay'. The photos were taken at 8.01 and and 8.00 (do you have a 10 minute grace period?)
EXHIBIT GS5 - Letter from UK Car Park Management to my old address, no date on the letter, it says PCN issued on 8th July 2021. and incident was at 08.21 (I find it very hard to believe I was still in the car park at 8.21, as I know I just ran into the shop and back out again, and the photos show me there at 8 and 8.01). I have requested SAR from UK Car Park Management and Gladstones to see if they have evidence of me being there. Reason for issue 'no parking to access roads/roadways
EXHIBIT GS6 - 'formal demand' letter 7th August 2021 to my old address. It says the issue date is 9th July 2021 and the issue time in 06.07 (different to the original letter).  

Coupon-mad

Advice on how to defend this will be appreciated. They state that they (solicitors) did an Experian check which revealed an alternative address, that they wrote to this address, and I didn't respond. They have not added this letter in their evidence. I am not aware that they wrote to me at my actual address, but if they did, I surely still have a defence, as they chose to favour the old address given by DVLA, when this information isn't just a 'snapshot' of location and not intended for this purpose. 

Yes You got it. This hearing is about the CCJ although you might be asked by the Judge what your defence will be.

And did they actually do a soft trace, one wonders - if so, why is it not in evidence?

And if old DVLA car addresses were intended as 'service addresses for court' (which the DVLA does not intend at all) it begs this question:

WHY THEN do both Codes of Practice and the new incoming statutory DLUHC CoP require 'soft traces' as a mandatory step before litigation, and none of those Code of Practice clauses say that parking firm Claimants can ignore the most recent address confirmed (for GDPR purposes!) by a reliable CRA and just revert to the old DVLA address in cases where a new one is found!

Of course not.  Wholly unreasonable and deliberate CCJ-seeking conduct IMHO and a clear breach of the Code of Practice.

Also - what does the paragraph at the end mean, when they ask for it to be set aside and for me to file my defence?

It's their Draft Order they want to supersede yours - note that they primarily want to wriggle out of your £275 costs...

hallie28

Thanks for the support - the amount of hours this (and the other 2 I have ongoing) take up of my life, it's no wonder people just pay them to get rid of the stress. It's abhorrent that this level of harassment and bullying is legitimate in this country! Because of this CCJ, I can't renew my mortgage, I can't change my credit card (I annually change them to 0% ones, can't open a new bank account, can't get the new car I wanted and my car insurance is 4x higher than usual! the £275 costs is the least they owe me!

Coupon-mad

hallie28 said:

Thanks for the support - the amount of hours this (and the other 2 I have ongoing) take up of my life, it's no wonder people just pay them to get rid of the stress. It's abhorrent that this level of harassment and bullying is legitimate in this country! Because of this CCJ, I can't renew my mortgage, I can't change my credit card (I annually change them to 0% ones, can't open a new bank account, can't get the new car I wanted and my car insurance is 4x higher than usual! the £275 costs is the least they owe me!

I hope you will find a way to put in your evidence to the DLUHC's call for evidence and state that, had you known about the PCNs and had they been at a lower rate (e.g. £50 or £70 with DRA fees banned, as mooted in options 3 and 5) you are minded now - after this horrendous experience of inflated charges and bulk litigation - that you would have paid them to avoid court hassle taking over your life.

I think people like you could make a compelling case backed by evidence that the threat of COURT is enough of a deterrent...and that the multiple added fees and the aggression is what you found the most abhorrent abuse.

hallie28

I think people like you, @Harvez63 and @SoJacob could make a compelling case backed by evidence that the threat of COURT is enough of a deterrent...and that the multiple added fees and the aggression is what you found the most abhorrent abuse.

I completely agree. Unless you are cognitively able to read the case law, financially able to take multiple days off work to prepare your evidence and attend court, AND care enough about morality to fight this AND mentally well enough to hold your nerve and the threats, paying the fee appears the only option. It's disgusting. I am at a massive loss financially for this case (which I have no choice to fight as I need the CCJ removing), and the other cases which I ignored as I refuse to be threatened in my own home and intimidated for big sums of money for minor errors in knowledge about parking rules.