Multiple CCJs decided in default - set asides and defences

B789

Coupon-mad said:

Question to do with the planned complaint to the MoJ that they are using AI to support an automatic 'conveyor belt' system to default CCJs:

I don't think they are using AI as that supposes the MoJ system is somehow fairly advanced, which it certainly isn't. They are using an automated system which is flawed as per your argument.

1505grandad

Coupon-mad said:

Which reminds me - you need to add that to your defences.  Search the forum for 10.25% Gladstones defence because we wrote a paragraph about that for a Gladstones case only last month.  You want that bit too.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zbb3sb54p9c02f2o4ex1l/WS-Parellel-Parking-Limited-Dopbox-draft.docx?rlkey=kd5q2mmg5lge3esa7iuks5zy6&dl=0

May be contained in para 30/31?

AngryWatermelon123

1505grandad said:

Coupon-mad said:

Which reminds me - you need to add that to your defences.  Search the forum for 10.25% Gladstones defence because we wrote a paragraph about that for a Gladstones case only last month.  You want that bit too.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zbb3sb54p9c02f2o4ex1l/WS-Parellel-Parking-Limited-Dopbox-draft.docx?rlkey=kd5q2mmg5lge3esa7iuks5zy6&dl=0

May be contained in para 30/31?

I've found the exact same paragraph elsewhere on the forum and added it, thank you!

AngryWatermelon123

Is there anyone else who could spare a few minutes to review my defence on pages 2 and 3 of this thread? Just looking to get as much feedback as possible

Thank you!

AngryWatermelon123

Hi everyone! As mentioned previously I was talking to my MP about my situation and he has been in touch with the PPC, the DLUHC and the IPC.

The PPC wasn't helpful and said the invoices were issued correctly and the DLUHC invited me to reply to the evidence call, which I will do.

What's intriguing is that the IPC said they are investigating with the operator and asked for a copy of my lease. I was wondering what people make of this?

KeithP

AngryWatermelon123 said:

What's intriguing is that the IPC said they are investigating with the operator and asked for a copy of my lease. I was wondering what people make of this?

Maybe you should suggest to the IPC that they ask their member for a copy of the lease.
Surely there is no way that any parking company can agree to a parking regime without knowing what what obligations and rights already exist?

Coupon-mad

I agree, the answer to the IPC is:

"The PPC must surely have seen the Head Lease to ensure their regime would not interfere with residents."


P.S.  in our experience, they won't have...but the above is how to reply!

AngryWatermelon123

I have read about this as well. Additionally, Gladstones would've seen an extract in the witness statements for the set asides.

I didn't want to be uncooperative...that's all.

Coupon-mad

I agree.  I see that.

You could send your lease if it talks about 'exclusive use' but do NOT expect the IPC to be on your side for a second.  They aren't.

AngryWatermelon123

I have exclusive use of our spot, where my partner was parked. Rest of situations are on visitors spots (available to anyone), loading, neighbours spot (with their consent).

I also have right of way and right to peaceful enjoyment, no mention of PPC or parking scheme in my lease.

Definitely don't expect them to be on my side. I know they have common ownership with gladstones. 

Thanks again!