6 PCN's and a historic CCJ

63realfan

@Coupon-mad - Just to check before I send this off. I've attached the Chan case as a separate Exhibit 1 PDF with this appeal transcript which is also in my WS - 
''EXHIBIT 1

A recent persuasive appeal judgment in another private parking case: Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44).  This case confirms that where the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction to Part 16, the claim should be struck out, the CCJ set aside and costs awarded to the Applicant/Defendant.  On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the 'conduct which amounted to the breach' in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 and award my costs in full, as happened in Chan appeal case (which also started with a N244 CCJ set aside application which was initially wrongly refused by the first learned Judge)'' 

Just to check CPR 3.4 is correct isn't it? I did have a read and saw it said about the courts powers so presumed this was ok. Just wanted to check this is the updated one and its correct to attach this as an separate exhibit for evidence purposes even though it's in my WS.

Thanks

63realfan

Just to add - this is the updated and final WS. I hate posting it like this but want to check if you're happy with Para 10 and how I've explained about their obligation around doing a soft search before submitting a claim. I am also not sure with how paragraph 11 looks as I've added the deplorable part about having the PCN's cancelled because of the inflated interest rate? also not sure If I should remove paragraph 13. I have changed a lot around to suit and look better in regards to their order -

I am XXXXXX and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting Statement to my application dated 12/10/2023 requesting to:

 

(a)  The Judgment for claimant dated 13/04/2023 is set aside on the grounds that the defendant has not been validly served as the Claim Form was sent to the Defendants former address

 

(b) Strike out the claim, as per CEL v Chan (appeal) Exhibit 1  

 

(c)  The Defendant recovers from the Claimant the N244 fee of £275 (and the Defendant's costs for attending a hearing - £95 for time in preparation; 5 hours as litigant in person at a rate of £19 per hour). In the event that the Allocating Judge does not make an immediate Order granting (a) and (b) without a hearing, due to the abusive POC and the Claimant's representatives' wholly unreasonable conduct, of reverting to a known old address for this litigation).

 

I understand that the claimant obtained a default judgment against me as the Defendant on 13/04/2023. I am aware that the claimant is: UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED and that the assumed claims in respect of 6 unpaid PCN’s

 

 1. The claim form was not served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default judgment up until I checked Experian on 26/07/2023 who notified me that I received a Default Judgment on 13/04/2023.  

2. I contacted Experian immediately the same day I found out that default judgment had been lodged against my record (26/07/2023) acting promptly by raising my concern in relation to the Default judgment. At this point I was unaware what a CCJ was and confused what it meant. After calling Experian I then called CCBC for more information. I was given brief Particulars over the phone which at that time was a lot to take in.

3. I was preparing to return home in the time from receiving the Default Judgment to going home (7 days). I left the UK on 02/08/2023 to return to my home country Iran for 8 weeks. Due to restricted Wi-Fi access, I did not have a lot of time to read upon the situation I found myself in. I sent CCBC an email explaining my situation and asking for Particulars of the Claim to be sent to me to read through, of course acting promptly about the situation. I explained in my email that I would certainly never ignore any court letters. I also explained that I also could not make calls to CCBC due to call charge costs from being in Iran.

4. I received a response from CCBC the same day asking for claim reference numbers. I provided the 2 claim reference numbers on the same day and received nothing back.

5. I sent another email to CCBC on 14/09/2023 again due to no response to my previous emails and asked for the POC again acting promptly to start my set aside application. I provided reference numbers and explained I had been awaiting POC from CCBC to pursue the N244 application but had not yet received the details from CCBC after numerous attempts and not being able to call due to being back home in Iran. I still received nothing back from CCBC after sending this email.

6. After making numerous efforts with CCBC to obtain more information and not receiving anything back, I called on 05/10/2023 and waited on the phone for 1 hour 4 minutes before the phone hung up. I called back the next day (06/10/2023) and finally got through to someone where the POC was sent to my email.

7. I also refer to CPR 13.2 (the court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered).

8. I submit the CCJ should be set aside under CPR 13.2(a) as the claim form was not served at my new address.

9. I moved to my new address late January 2022. When I moved, my V5 and driving licence was updated with the new address I moved to.

10. The claimant is obliged to do a 29p soft search for a current address if they have had no response to any previous correspondence to the address on the V5C. The defendant was ‘’there to be found’’ for the sake of a 29p soft search via Experian trace or similar very inexpensive and immediate credit reference agency address check. I would then have been notified of this Judgement and could have taken action to prevent it. The claimant has therefore breach CoP which requires addresses to be re-checked by a trace before submitting a claim form.

 

11. Should the judgment be set aside. I am confident I can robustly defend the original PCN’s where I will request better Particulars of Claim and photographic evidence of signage, so I can make an informed decision because at the moment I have nothing to go on, yet want to defend.

12. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in another private parking case: Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44).  This case confirms that where the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction to Part 16, the claim should be struck out, the CCJ set aside and costs awarded to the Applicant/Defendant.  On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the 'conduct which amounted to the breach' in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 and award my costs in full, as happened in Chan appeal case (which also started with a N244 CCJ set aside application which was initially wrongly refused by the first learned Judge)

13. I would like to reiterate that I have made an application to seek costs as well as the claim being dismissed and the CCJ set aside.

14.  Whatever the allegation turns out to be, it must be common ground that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen.  The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis case, which is fully distinguished).  In addition to the fact that the sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated, additionally the interest is inflated in two ways:

(i).  Interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if £160 or £170 was 'overdue' on the day of parking;

(ii). Gladstones have applied the wrong interest rate of 10.25% which they appear to have made up.  The highest rate allowed in civil claims (only at the discretion of courts) is 8%. I have discovered from research that this legal representative roboclaim firm (connected to the IPC trade body) always adds 10.25% interest and are highly likely to be one of the top five 'bulk parking case litigators' shown in the Government's analysis, linked elsewhere in this statement.  Gladstones indisputably issue tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year, all of which have the wrong interest rate (a deplorable 10.25%) and the unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN) which can add hundreds to some claims.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, and it appears to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN.  I hope the Judge addresses this in the final judgment, at the very least to warn or sanction Gladstones as the court sees fit.

15. 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 I discovered a CCJ was lodged against my name on 26/07/2023 tarnishing my impeccable credit history. 

16. I am prepared to swear on oath that the claim was not served and that is still the position to date. I work for Surrey Police where I can also reference the oath I swear on as an employee to uphold honest and integrity at all times both whilst on duty and off duty.

17. 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 of trust without an honest in its truth. 

 

 

 

Le_Kirk

63realfan said:

10. The claimant is obliged to carry out a do a 29p soft search for a current address if they have had no response to any previous correspondence to the address on the V5C. The defendant was ‘’there to be found’’ for the sake of a 29p soft search via Experian trace or similar very inexpensive (reportedly 29p) and immediate credit reference agency address check. I would then have been notified of this Judgement claim and could have taken action to prevent it the CCJ. The claimant has therefore breached the CoP which requires addresses to be re-checked by a trace before submitting a claim form.

I would alter it slightly as above.

63realfan

Le_Kirk said:

63realfan said:

10. The claimant is obliged to carry out a do a 29p soft search for a current address if they have had no response to any previous correspondence to the address on the V5C. The defendant was ‘’there to be found’’ for the sake of a 29p soft search via Experian trace or similar very inexpensive (reportedly 29p) and immediate credit reference agency address check. I would then have been notified of this Judgement claim and could have taken action to prevent it the CCJ. The claimant has therefore breached the CoP which requires addresses to be re-checked by a trace before submitting a claim form.

I would alter it slightly as above.

Legend thank you 

Coupon-mad

Remove 11 completely (it doesn't match what you are asking for) and replace it with this taken from the end of para 10:

11. The claimant has therefore breach CoP which requires addresses to be re-checked by a trace before submitting a claim form. THEN ADD A LINK TO THE RIGHT CoP.

63realfan

Coupon-mad said:

Remove 11 completely (it doesn't match what you are asking for) and replace it with this taken from the end of para 10:

11. The claimant has therefore breach CoP which requires addresses to be re-checked by a trace before submitting a claim form. THEN ADD A LINK TO THE RIGHT CoP.

Thank you for that. Without being super lazy as that’s never my intention, what cop am I adding in? I don’t want to add the wrong link!!

Coupon-mad

I don't know.  I wanted you to check.  I didn't even look which PPC it was!

63realfan

Coupon-mad said:

I don't know.  I wanted you to check.  I didn't even look which PPC it was!

Was for Gladstones and UKPC

Coupon-mad

So you know which CoP...

Are you SURE it's UKPC not UKCPM?  Gladstones don't do claims for UKPC.

63realfan

Coupon-mad said:

So you know which CoP...

Are you SURE it's UKPC not UKCPM?  Gladstones don't do claims for UKPC.

Ah sugar, yeah it’s UKCPM. Sorry, always get mixed up with the two!! 😰