Multiple CCJs decided in default - set asides and defences

Coupon-mad

I know about soft traces, I was just getting confused about what my solicitors have said and wanted to double check.

You don't mean you are using a solicitor?

AngryWatermelon123

Coupon-mad said:

I know about soft traces, I was just getting confused about what my solicitors have said and wanted to double check.

You don't mean you are using a solicitor?

Yes, I am, a local one. This is because my partner and I have found ourselves in a situation where we checked clearscore one afternoon and we found 7 ccjs on our credit files, for copious amounts. These are all for pcns in the car park of our block of flats,  including our own space or loading and unloading in front of the property, on a private road claiming no parking. They have been acquired over a period of 6 years, the car park in question has different unmarked zones and pcns are given on being in the wrong zone as well. Of course, the same zone changes name at different points in time. Some instances display a permit, others don't, the lease doesn't mention anything about permits or PPC. There's really quite a lot to unpack here. 

After the CCJs, the barrage of LBCs started coming, which we've responded to using the forms provided by the ppc.

The solicitor helped us with the set aside applications and witness statements. No draft defence or defence was written as of yet, because the particulars of the claims were very poor & we've asked for better particulars hence Gladstones submitting a witness statement ahead of our first set asides hearings 

We plan on writing the defence ourselves, I will make a post here summarising the whole situation over the next few days, hopefully for some feedback and to help others in a similar situation. 

I know, I panicked, however I have every intention of fighting anything that may come in court.

Edited to mention unmarked zones. I found out about the zones a week ago, they were not marked in the car park however I was confused why locations are different on various pcns and mapped the names on the lease/Google maps. Turned our the pcns were issued for being parked in a certain zone, but the name changes across the time span. The claims are raises according to those zones too, altough they concern the same area and defendants. We have also asked that the claims are consolidated on this basis. I've heard this is a common practice employed by pics, apologies if it doesn't make sense, as mentioned previously, this is a stuffy case.

Coupon-mad

I hope the solicitor didn't tell you to pay the PCNs?  Most solicitors don't have experience of private parking scam PCNs. Some legals wrongly think you have to pay the CCJ amounts when applying to set aside.

We have a template defence - but you don't need a defence at this stage.

You are unlikely to get your legal costs.

Why didn't you defend the claims?

LBCs can't have arrived after CCJs?

Does your solicitor know that 'loading and unloading in front of the property' is a strong defence supported by an Appeal case from Oxford Court: Jopson v Homeguard? We have the transcript and because it was on appeal it's persuasive.

KeithP

I think there is some confusion here.

Like we often see, I think the OP is using the term CCJ to indicate in some cases he has received a court claim and also to indicate that a Judgment has been issued for other cases.

@AngryWatermelon123, can you please clarify that?

AngryWatermelon123

Coupon-mad said:

I hope the solicitor didn't tell you to pay the PCNs?  Most solicitors don't have experience of private parking scam PCNs. Some legals wrongly think you have to pay the CCJ amounts when applying to set aside. No, he didn't. Funny enough, another solicitor that I rang when deciding on a firm said the exact same thing, that at the time confused me to no end...thank you for clarifying. I didn't pay anything to the PPC and I don't intend to, unless ordered by a court.

We have a template defence - but you don't need a defence at this stage. I'm aware of the latest template from July 23, I plan on using it when it will be needed

You are unlikely to get your legal costs. 

Why didn't you defend the claims? There are 7 CCJs for myself and my partner, the claims were sent to a previous address from where we moved out of 1 year and a half ago. We discovered them in June, they were issued in May, of course, decided in default.

LBCs can't have arrived after CCJs? We have fines dating back to 2016, this is an IPC company that we could not reason with from the beginning. They have raised the 7 CCJs separately, although they pertain to the same matter and site for some PCNs. After the CCJs caused by the claims we were unaware of, hence we didn't defend, there came a series of LBCs relating to other fines. These are purely for being parked in one section or another of the car park or displaying/not displaying a permit. A good chunk are for our own spot, another good chunk are for loading/unloading on the street in front. Rest are for visitors/unnumbered spaces (most spaces were numbered, pertaining to a certain flat) for having the wrong permit for that unmarked zone or not having a permit. I was also parked on a neighbours spot, after being allowed to do so by them (here, I thought I would be considerate and save space in my car park, as my neighbour didn't have a car). 

Does your solicitor know that 'loading and unloading in front of the property' is a strong defence supported by an Appeal case from Oxford Court: Jopson v Homeguard? We have the transcript and because it was on appeal it's persuasive. Likely not, but I do, because I've seen you citing it here a few times  

I've responded in bold, hope this makes sense. As I said, I will post all the details in a digestible manner in the next few days. I feel like I have an idea of what I'm doing now, at the beginning it was all very frightening and confusing because of the terminology. 

All in all, I'm not planning to pay a single penny unless I lose in court and I will defend every single claim that is brought forward.

AngryWatermelon123

KeithP said:

I think there is some confusion here.

Like we often see, I think the OP is using the term CCJ to indicate in some cases he has received a court claim and also to indicate that a Judgment has been issued for other cases.

@AngryWatermelon123, can you please clarify that?

Apologies, neither.

I refer to the CCJs as the claims that have been decided in default, because of the fact that they were served to my previous address (I didn't know about them, therefore didn't defend them). I am the proud owner of 7 of these, joint with my other half.

LBCs are the letters before claim from Gladstones, which are harmless, for now, until they are followed by a claim form from the court. I am also the proud owner of 13 of these, again, joint with my partner. I have submitted responses to these.

I have fines that go back to 2016, I've described the situations above.

At no point in this process have I had the chance to present myself in front of the court and defend myself, all the claims issued in my name (& my partner's) are CCJs because they were served to the wrong address. If I get the set asides for these granted, I hopefully can start defending them.

Apologies, this is intricate. I have no clue why Gladstones haven't consolidated them all into one, I am trying to get them consolidated by asking the court to do so.

Not_A_Hope

this issue is for residential parking, multiple claims and letters before claim for a rather inflated cost. It's becoming very intricate, as it concerns both me and my partner and spans over 6 years, while we lived at the address. 

Have you still got a copy of your lease or tenancy agreement. Whatever is stated will take primacy in court over any silly sign purporting to be a contract by a PPC. Read some residential threads. The one by @Mouse007 might be useful. 

Le_Kirk

The good news is (and you certainly need some) that the speculative invoices (not fines) from 2016 are now statute barred unless they started the claim before six years had elapsed.

AngryWatermelon123

Hello again everyone!

Thought I would post again with a summary of the full situation, as well as to kindly ask for some feedback on a defence. I'll try and make the story as easy to read as possible.

John and Jane Doe bought a flat back in 2016, which had a big car park behind the building that was  servicing it as well as an access road in front of the property. The car park was managed by National Parking Management (represented by Gladstones). Just for reference, I'm Jane

The car park had numbered spaces as well as some additional spaces marked with a V. No gate, no zones, just bays with numbers or Vs.

As soon as John and Jane excitedly moved in, they started receiving invoices for John's car (Jane didn't have a car at the time). Because they received no permits when moving in, John actually managed to get some of the invoices cancelled. Other invoices were not cancelled and soon they realised there was no conversation with the PPC beyond demands for payment. Eventually, Jane got a car too. The invoices were for the following situations:

For John:

• Parked in his own spot, with the flat number painted on the spot (Lease mentions exclusive right to park, right of way, no mention of PPC or parking restrictions etc etc)
• Parked to load/unload on the road in front of the block, which happened to be exactly in front of their flat (signs state no parking)
• Parked in one of the V bays, when someone else took his private spot

For Jane:

• Parked in front of the block to load/unload, same as John
• Parked in the V bays, sometimes with a permit, sometimes no permit. For the invoices that show a permit, PPC claims she was parked in the wrong 'zones'. The same spot or area shows as 3 different zones on various PCNs and the 'zones' weren't marked. 
• Parked in the next doors neighbour's spot, as he didn't have a car and verbally allowed her to do so. Neighbour also didn't receive a permit when moving in. Most likely, the neighbour had the same rights to his parking spot as John and Jane.

In 2022, John and Jane eventually moved out, thankfully, to an area with no PPC.

Those speculative invoices turned into the following, because they were both 'repeat offenders':

For John:

• 4 separate claims that were decided in default, the paperwork was sent to the flat in 2023, they were discovered when checking Clearscore and of course showed as CCJs. These total to around £3000. They were decided in May, discovered in June, set aside applied for in June too.
• 6 LBCs that came to the right current address (John wrote to both NPM and Gladstones, to make them aware of the address), about 2 months after the last claims. Those have been responded to but nothing came of them yet.

For Jane:

• 3 separate claims, same circumstances as John - total to £3000 as well.
• 7 LBCs, same as John

2 of John's CCJs have been set aside a few days ago (hearings for set asides were separate 2+1+1), and there are hearings for the other 2 (which look positive). John tried to get the claims consolidated, however the Judge said that is up to case management so John will pursue this avenue. Costs were denied for the 2 set aside claims, as the judge said he has not seen merit for awarding costs to either side so far.

Jane also has upcoming set aside hearings, all 3 held at the same place on the same day, will try to consolidate too.

Witness statements have been written for both, however no draft defence, as the POCs were very poor (PPC has submitted witness statements for the 2 claims set aside for John, hence more info is available).

Now, John has until the 14th of September to submit defences for the 2 claims which have been set aside. 

 Both John and Jane plan to fight as many cases as needed in court for as long as necessary.

Please feel free to ask questions if I've left anything out.

I'll pop the defence for John's 2 set aside claims below, I would be very thankful for advice!

Many thanks in advance!

AngryWatermelon123

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

National Parking Management Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

John Doe

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability'

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant has purchased flat XXXX in September 2016 and has lived at the address as a resident and leaseholder until February 2022 (proof of ownership). The defendant has moved home in February 2022, to XXX (proof of ownership)

4. For the purpose of clarity, although the Claimant refers to the premises by different names across various alleged PCNs, the block of flats and car park concerned were part of a single, aforementioned address. The entirety of the Particulars of Claim refers to the above mentioned address. The area names used by the Claimant do not exist in the car park or on the access road serving the block of flats and no parking area has any marked differentiated zones. The car park at the property is open and not gated and consists of mostly numbered spaces for the flats it services as well as a few additional, unnumbered spaces (as shown on the map at lease).

5. Whilst being a resident at XXX the Defendant has received multiple PCNs issued by the Claimant, for alleged parking offences. At first, he was surprised by the letters as he was under the impression that the Claimant was employed to control the car park usage in order to protect the residents parking spaces from motorists who did not live there. Furthermore, the Defendant claims that he paid the service charges that funded the Claimant’s activities (through the management company of the block of flats)

6. After receiving the first PCNs, the Defendant has attempted to discuss their rights as a resident and leaseholder with the Claimant, however the Claimant refused to engage in any conversation beyond demanding payment. Furthermore, the Defendant attempted to contact the management company of the area as well, however they refused to listen or help. The Defendant believes that the reasons behind this may be related to the fact that the Claimant’s contract with the landlord (attached to the witness statement provided by the Claimant) suggests that the landlord must pay a fee for any cancellation of a PCN.

7. As the contract between the Claimant and the landlord also suggests that the Claimant shall retain all the revenue received in respect of parking charges, the Defendant believes that the Claimant was looking to issue as many PCNs as possible, for the purpose of increasing profits.

8. The alleged parking offences relating to the claim refer to the following situations:

9. Firstly, The Defendant was parked in their own private parking space, which they had an exclusive right to use as and when needed, according to their lease. To that respect, the Defendant displayed a permit as a courtesy to the operator, not as a requirement. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of a permit.

10. The Lease has not been altered at any point throughout the Defendant’s stay at the aforementioned address. The Defendant was not notified of the Claimant’s activities and did not agree with the Claimant conducting a parking scheme, therefore the Claimant could not be considered an agent of the landlord. 

11. Through the Lease, the Defendant had primacy of contract, therefore no third party contract between the Claimant and the landlord could supersede or alter the rights granted to the Defendant, without his prior agreement. 

12. The Lease makes no reference to any parking agreement being in place or to the Claimant’s activities.

13. Similarly, in both Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] and Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was found that the parking agent could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

14. Then, on some occasions, the Defendant was temporarily stopped in front of his property, to load and unload goods or persons. The signage erected by the Claimant on the private road in front of the Defendant’s property stated there was a ‘No Parking’ zone, not a ‘No Loading/Unloading’ or a ‘No stopping’ zone. 

15. The Lease has granted the Defendant with the right of way, which included free, uninterrupted access to all passageways and amenities, with or without the use of motor vehicles (evidence in lease).

16. The Lease has also granted the defendant with the unfettered right to peaceful enjoyment of the amenities (evidence in lease)

17. As a result, the Claimant’s activities were infringing on the Defendant’s rights and the former had no standing of imposing any restrictions or sanctions. 

18. Furthermore, In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E,  it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.

19. Thirdly, on one occasion, the Defendant has parked in one of the additional, unnumbered spaces, as his personal parking space was used by another unknown vehicle. There is no mention of a requirement to display a parking permit for the additional spaces in the Lease document and since the Claimant has no standing to form a valid contract with the Defendant and override the Lease, the parking event would be deemed to be acceptable.

20. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

21. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly incorrect, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

22. The signage erected by the Claimant is also of prohibitive or forbidding nature, therefore if the Claimant had a legal standing over the land in question, the matter would be classed as trespass, not breach of contract. However, this is not the case as the Claimant has no such rights over the premises.

23. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park and rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases of which this parking firm is not a party to, and neither have they attempted to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with. This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's property, or his use and enjoyment of that property.

24. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

25. The Defendant wishes to respectfully bring to the attention of the court that during their 6 year tenure at the address, there has not been a single instance of them using another resident’s space or blocking any or the roads or pathways. This fact can be attested by the photographs submitted by the Claimant as well.

26. Subsequently, the Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' to park as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a nuisance to residents.

27. After reviewing some of the evidence submitted by the Claimant in their witness statement, namely the agreement between them and the landlord, the Defendant has reason to believe that the Claimant did not have the authority to operate a parking scheme at the address. Firstly, the agreement is not signed, as the signature field is redacted. The Defendant respectfully asks the court to order that the Claimant provides a signed copy of the agreement. Secondly, the agreement does not refer to the Defendant’s address, XXX but to XXX. Thirdly, the name of the landlord mentioned on the contract is not the Defendant’s landlord. The premises were owned by XXX. Lastly, the agreement states that it will expire within 3 years of the date on which it was signed. The agreement was signed in 2016/2017 and the alleged parking offences took place in 2021, therefore, the agreement would have expired. Consequently, the Defendant submits that the Claimant did not have a right to operate on the premises.

28. To further exemplify the predatory nature of the Claimant’s actions and business model, approximately a year after the Defendant has moved address and their vehicle was no longer at the property, on the 10th of January 2023, the Claimant has issued a Letter Before Claim to the Defendant's previous address. The Letter Before Claim has, of course, not been responded to. This action is in contravention with the Claimant’s Regulatory Body (the IPC) Code of Practice, which states that parking agents must complete a track and trace search, if they have not been in contact with the motorist committing the alleged parking offence for longer than a year (IPC code evidence)