6 PCN's and a historic CCJ

63realfan

Coupon-mad said:

What a waste of court time!  And his 2x money.

Don't forget to ask for his £275 fees to be ordered against the Claimant at the end of these hearings, otherwise that fee x 2 is shouldered by him.   He must ask and if not awarded they must be RESERVED.  He needs to know the terminology.

Has he done the Justice Committee Inquiry?  Extended deadline, closes on Wednesday:

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7972/work-of-the-county-court/

Tell me about it. I’ve just wrote an email for him telling the courts he specifically paid for both to be seen together since both CCJ’s relate to the same claim. I will make sure both draft order’s and witness statements are valid for both claims of whenever each one gets heard so he gets both fee’s back. 

I’ve done the justice committee inquiry but I don’t think he has as he doesn’t completely understand like I do 

Coupon-mad

Better that you did it then.

63realfan

@Coupon-mad

so the update is that the courts have seen sense to my email and finally put the court dates together on the same date for both claims. 

Moving forward, the solicitors have sent a load of the usual paperwork for their witness statement which actually looks like it supports my friend for the set aside but that they don’t want to pay any costs out and that neither the claimant or solicitor will attend court. It’s long winded as usual but I’ll attach below. Shall we look at a defence statement against this & how we can defend the parking tickets as the firm have pointed out he has next to no chance of defending the original parking tickets. Can I also add, they have said that they done a trace check and sent a letter to his new address (LBC) asking him to respond but he ignored it apparently so they went on to serve the claim at his previous address but blame him for not replying to them? Surely if a new address comes up then he’s not going to be at his old address? Just common sense. He said he has never received anything since being at his new address. I’ll attach all below. His court date is 21st January now not in a few days luckily. 

Let me know what you think to their reply - (I wont
paste it all) 

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 contraventions.

When no response was received to that correspondence my Firm carried out a trace via UK

Search, 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 6.9 CPR.

9. The Trace results did reveal a possible alternative address for the Defendant, name **HIS NEW ADDRESS** My Firm therefore

sent out a letter to the Defendant on the 7th September 2022 at that address inviting the Defendant

to contact them and confirm that this address was now their current address. Exhibit reference

GS1. The Honourable courts attention is drawn to the fact that this is the same address given by

the Defendant as being his current address, on the N244 application to set the judgement aside. As

a result, the Claimant avers that the Defendant must have been aware of the impending court

proceedings at that time and had the opportunity to dispute the debt prior to proceedings being

issued. As the Defendant failed to make contact with my Firm, that address could not be

confirmed for GDPR purposes.

10. For the sake of clarification, a trace only reveals a possible alternative address for an individual of

the same, or similar name of a person. It is not confirmation of a new address and in the absence

of confirmation from the individual concerned that this is their new address, cannot be relied upon

for the purposes of service under CPR, other than to satisfy the requirements of 6.9.

11. My Firm therefore submitted a claim to the County Court Business Centre on the 9th March 2023.

The address provided for service of the Claim Form was **OLD ADDRESS** this being the usual or last known residence of the Defendant for the purposes of CPR

6.9.

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

13. 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.

14. In respect of the first limb of the above criteria, in view of the aforementioned paragraphs, the date

the Claim was issued and as 7 months passed before the Defendant made the application; the

Claimant respectfully submits the Defendant has not acted promptly in making the application and

for this reason, the application ought to be struck out.

15. Notwithstanding the previous, in considering the second limb of the above criteria the Claimant

invites the Honourable to court to consider the following.

THE DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION

34. 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.

35. The Defendant appears to confirm within their application that they have moved to their new

address in late January 2022.

36. Had the Defendant responded to the BC dated 7th September 2022 (Exhibit reference GS1) and

engaged with the Claimant's Solicitors this matter would have been resolved at an early stage and

his application to set aside would have been avoided.

37. The Defendant is therefore the author of his own misfortune in this regard and should therefore be

responsible for his own costs in having to make the application.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. Should the court elect to proceed as described above, the Claimant respectfully requests the

following Order be made;

a. The judgment entered on the 11' April 2023 be and is hereby set aside;

b. The Witness Statement of ******* stand as the Particulars of Claim and service of the

Claim be dispensed with;

c. The Defendant must file and serve a Defence to the Claim within 28 days of service of this

Order in default of which, the Claimant be at liberty to re-enter Judgment;

d. 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

e. There be no Order as to Costs.

63realfan

They added the letter they sent on the 7th September too which stated about address’ etc but he’s stated that he never saw this 

Coupon-mad

He’s basically got 6 PCN’s. 3 over the course of 10 days days and 3 over the course of 10 days about a week later. 

17/10/2021, 23/10/2021, 24/10/2021,

02/11/2021, 10/11/2021, 03/11/2021

Gladstones have taken him to court twice. He has 2 separate POC’s (2 reference numbers) 

One judgement is £743.93

The other is for £741.98

UKCPM
Gladstones

Just repeating the above as it helps us understand the context.

I don't think he did ignore your advice and carried on parking there behind his work.  

I suspect he knew nothing about it until the letters started to arrive in November.

Doubt there were windscreen PCNs, am I right?

PPCs doing it this way (no windscreen PCNs) are not complying with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because these were not prominent, transparent or timely consumer notices and operating this way also fails to meet the test of fairness (not taking advantage of consumers).

'Consumer notices' covers all types of communications; all signs, lines & letters/emails. 

The Fairness Test:

"A consumer notice (or a term, same test applies) is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/62?view=plain




Official Guidance to the CRA 2015 is here (excerpt of the flowchart above, full link below) and this consumer protection law smashes to smithereens most PPCs' conduct:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f8b58ed915d74e33f716e/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

I assume you mean hearing 21st Feb, not Jan?

Show us the two POC please because I saw that you said he got the two POC emailed but we never saw them (unless I missed the POC).

And show us this Sept 2022 LBC because Gladstones account smells fishy to me...

I assume they didn't attach proof of that trace?

Coupon-mad

Get your friend to email a SAR to the CCBC asking for an urgent copy of any letter sent by the CCBC to Gladstones telling them that the claim form(s) for either or both of claim number xxxxxxxx and/or xxxxxxxx were returned as undelivered, 'gone away' or similar.  Plus images of the envelopes and contents, if either claim form was returned from OLD ADDRESS.  Or an immediate reply confirming 'no such data is held' if it is the case that the claim(s) were not returned from that address.

And get him to send a SAR to Gladstones for the same as the above - if such a letter or email from the CCBC exists about unserved claim(s) - and a copy of the supposed soft trace that they say was returned in 2022 as well as a screenshot of the 'case history' dates and actions held about him/his case on their 'case management system' for both claims (personal data of employees redacted).

Le_Kirk

His court date is 21st January now not in a few days luckily. 

Something wrong here as this was posted on 25th January and 21st is a Sunday; did you mean February?

63realfan

Le_Kirk said:

His court date is 21st January now not in a few days luckily. 

Something wrong here as this was posted on 25th January and 21st is a Sunday; did you mean February?

My bad, meant February. Apologies

63realfan

Coupon-mad said:

He’s basically got 6 PCN’s. 3 over the course of 10 days days and 3 over the course of 10 days about a week later. 

17/10/2021, 23/10/2021, 24/10/2021,

02/11/2021, 10/11/2021, 03/11/2021

Gladstones have taken him to court twice. He has 2 separate POC’s (2 reference numbers) 

One judgement is £743.93

The other is for £741.98

UKCPM
Gladstones

Just repeating the above as it helps us understand the context.

I don't think he did ignore your advice and carried on parking there behind his work.  

I suspect he knew nothing about it until the letters started to arrive in November.

Doubt there were windscreen PCNs, am I right?

PPCs doing it this way (no windscreen PCNs) are not complying with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because these were not prominent, transparent or timely consumer notices and operating this way also fails to meet the test of fairness (not taking advantage of consumers).

'Consumer notices' covers all types of communications; all signs, lines & letters/emails. 

The Fairness Test:

"A consumer notice (or a term, same test applies) is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/62?view=plain




Official Guidance to the CRA 2015 is here (excerpt of the flowchart above, full link below) and this consumer protection law smashes to smithereens most PPCs' conduct:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f8b58ed915d74e33f716e/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

I assume you mean hearing 21st Feb, not Jan?

Show us the two POC please because I saw that you said he got the two POC emailed but we never saw them (unless I missed the POC).

And show us this Sept 2022 LBC because Gladstones account smells fishy to me...

I assume they didn't attach proof of that trace?

Doubt there were windscreen PCNs, am I right? -

just checked the evidence - No, it's not a windscreen PCN however what's more surprising is that by the looks of the picture, it wasn't issue by an ANPR camera but a ''parking warden'' who looks like he's taken a picture of the car. It was issued due to ''NO PERMIT'' so he's taken a picture of the windscreen and one of the car slightly further back but certainly no ticket issues on the windscreen so yeah you're correct about that. The fairness test is interesting but aren't 99% of private PCN ANPR activated?


Show us the two POC please because I saw that you said he got the two POC emailed but we never saw them (unless I missed the POC). -

I'll post these below including the LBC too on a separate entry. I haven't got all the documents but of what he sent I cannot see proof of the trace. I did ponder the idea that they made up that LBC letter recently but surely they wouldn't fraud and do that?

Judgment amount: 743.93

 

Particulars of claim: THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WITH REGISTRATION XXXXX

 

(THE 'VEHICLE') PARKED IN BREACH OF   THE TERMS OF PARKING STIPULATED ON THE SIGNAGE (THE 'CONTRACT') AT FLEET ROAD & LANDON THE SOUTH WEST SIDE OF WESSEX COURT FLEET (PATROL) - XXXXXXXX  AND XXXXXX , ON       17/10/2021, 23/10/2021, 24/10/2021,  THUS    INCURRING THE PARKING CHARGES (THE 'PCN'S'). THE PCN'S WERE NOT PAID WITHIN 28 DAYS OF ISSUE. 

 

THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE UNPAID PCN'S  FROM THE DEFENDANT AS THE DRIVER/KEEPER OF THE VEHICLE. DESPITE DEMANDS BEING MADE, THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THEIR         OUTSTANDING LIABILITY. 

 

THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS  £100 PER PCN, £70.00 PER PCN CONTRACTUAL  COSTS PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT AND PCN TERMS AND CONDITIONS, TOGETHER WITH STATUTORY  INTEREST OF £67.78 PURSUANT TO S69 OF THE    COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT 10.25% PER ANNUM,  CONTINUING AT £0.14 PER DAY.        

 

2nd claim POC          

 

Judgment amount: 741.98

 

Particulars of claim: THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WITH REGISTRATION XXXXXX

 

(THE 'VEHICLE') PARKED IN BREACH OF THE TERMS OF PARKING STIPULATED ON THE SIGNAGE (THE 'CONTRACT') - 281281A XXXXXXXXX ON 10/11/2021, 02/11/2021, 03/11/2021, THUS INCURRING THE PARKING CHARGES (THE 'PCN'S'). THE PCN'S WERE NOT PAID WITHIN 28 DAYS OF ISSUE. 

 

THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE UNPAID PCN'S FROM THE DEFENDANT AS THE DRIVER/KEEPER OF THE VEHICLE. DESPITE DEMANDS BEING MADE, THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THEIR OUTSTANDING LIABILITY. 

 

THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 PER PCN, £70.00 PER PCN CONTRACTUAL COSTS PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT AND PCN TERMS AND CONDITIONS, TOGETHER WITH STATUTORY INTEREST OF £65.83 PURSUANT TO S69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT 10.25% PER ANNUM, CONTINUING AT £0.14 PER DAY.

63realfan

First one for the LBC