CCJ Parking Fine

SneakyPanda

Good Morning All,

i have read the Newbies post and have gone through a number of threads for advice and have so far paid the £275 to the court after receiving info over the phone about the random CCJ on my file.

i have had one of these before perhaps 2016 / 2017 and successfully had it set aside but it seems to have moved on slightly since then considering the only way to pay the set aside fee was by cheque. 

i want to be sure ive got the motions right and a little advice for my defense. 

fine in question is euro parking services its small patch of land in between a pub a cafe and a bank in the town centre, there are no marked bays gates that can be closed off or anything indicating a private car park bar 2 signs stating go into the pub to validate parking. our car was captured parking on this patch of land via ANPR and sent off to where its registered our old address. so i was unaware of any parking infringement until today.

the date of the parking incident was 12th feb 22 the judgement was made june 23.

my defence is that as i was no aware of the judgment until today i have had no time or opportunity to investigate if the claim is legitimately in my name, if i was the driver, if the machine was working correctly or any other possibilities. 

if the judgment is successfully set aside, and its found that my car was parked against their terms  is it possible to pay the fine before a new judgement is made. or is it possible as a defence that im happy to accept fault but had no opportunity to make payment?

Thanks in advance for any advice. 

SneakyPanda

Update on this ive checked the my timeline on google and the time my vehicle travelled from my address its destination between 10.36am and 10.50am , on the route the vehicle stopped in the 'carpark' for less than a minute AND the pub was closed as it dosent open till 12pm i think i have my defense

Coupon-mad

or is it possible as a defence that im happy to accept fault but had no opportunity to make payment?

No. DO NOT DO THAT!

That would not only be silly due to the fact there was no agreed contract (you could not have read the signs in one minute flat, and be bound by them) but also - with some Judges - you'd possibly completely jeopardise your chances of CCJ set aside.

The Judge might be swayed to set aside the CCJ by you having 'good prospects of defence'.  Do not bin that safety net by saying you are 'happy to accept fault'!

Just copy what @hallie28 did so far.

SneakyPanda

Thanks Coupon, im going to remove that section now ive actually worked out i was there less than a minute thank to google timelines!

SneakyPanda

ok so i have done as Coupon mad has said and taken advice from Hallies Case,

below i have attached what i had wrote originally myself and then added an updated version of Hallies Defence. 

if there is a bettwe way to lay this our or word it with the details of my case then please do let me know.

also do i attach this in the box on the N244 or as a seperate document on the email?

Thanks again

I am applying to set aside and strike out Case Number XXX due to the fact that the notice of the claim and all correspondance was sent to a previous address '110 XXX'.

 

My Current address is 5 XXX and i have had no access to mail at 110 XXX since 15th July 2021.

 

As i was not aware of any Fine, Charge or Penalty i was not able to investigate that the claim was Genuine prior to judgement.

 

I have since investigated the date in question and have evidence to show my vehicle was captured on the car park for less than 2 minutes at some time between 10.36am and 10.50am before leaving.

 

The carpark in question is for patrons of the Shoulder of Mutton Pub. To park you must enter your vehicle details on a machine inside the pub. As the pub does not open until 12pm this was impossible.

 

For the above reasons im requesting the courts set aside and strike out the judgment as there will have been no loss of earnings to the owner of the land.

 

1.    Under CPR 13.2, the Court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered. Given that CPR 6.9 (3) was not met, CPR 13.2 applies and the CCJ should be set aside. As the Defendant did not give an address to the Claimant at which the claim could be served at (because the defendant was not asked), CPR 6.9 applies. CPR 6.9 stipulates that an "Individual" should be served at their "Usual or last known residence."

2. Given that more than 4 months have passed from issue of proceedings, and service of the claim was defective (i.e. it was never served), the Defendant submits that this particular claim is dead and the period for service cannot be extended by this application process. If the Claimant believes there is a cause of action, then the correct procedure would be to file a claim afresh and to the correct address after providing the Defendant with the information required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, issued this time to the correct name and address for service for this Defendant (address). 

2.2 There are several authorities for this, including the judgment in Boxwood [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC)1, which is a reminder of the strictness of the requirements of CPR 7.6 and how difficult it is to use other parts of the Civil Procedure Rules to rectify a failure to serve the claim form within the requisite period: “A claimant is not entitled to rely on the wide, general powers under CPR 3.10 or CPR 3.9 to circumvent the specific conditions set out in CPR 7.6(3) for extending the period for service of a claim form.”

2.3 In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 2 the Court of Appeal considered whether any extension of time should be granted under CPR 7.6 in circumstances where the defendant had been notified of the issue of a claim form but the claim form had not been served within four months as required by CPR 7.5 and the application was made after expiry of that period. The court refused to grant relief on the basis that it did not have power to do so.

2.4 In judgment of Deputy Master Marsh in Croke & Anor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch) 3 the claimant was one day late in properly serving the Particulars of Claim to the Defendant and the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was refused. In section 65 of the transcript of the trial Deputy Master Marsh stated “The defendants were entitled to know within the four-month period specified in the CPR whether a claim had been made against them and to be able to understand that claim. [...] Unless an extension of time is granted, the claim will cease to have any validity and will be struck out." 

2.5 In Piepenbrock-v-Associated News Limited [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB) 4 the High Court refused the Claimant’s application for a retrospective extension of time to serve a Claim Form after the Claimant failed to demonstrate they took all reasonable steps to serve the Claim form in the period of its validity.

“Ultimately, the problem was that the Claimant had made no attempt to serve in accordance with the rules…Although I sympathise with the Claimant that the consequences for him of the error of not validly serving the Claim Form will be serious, there is nothing that really separates his case from many others who have made similar mistakes when attempting to serve a Claim Form…I am afraid, in this case, the responsibility for the failure validly to serve the Claim Form rests solely with the Claimant’s side…

In light of my conclusions above, having refused the applications made under CPR 7.6, 6.15 and 6.16, there is not a residual self-standing power available under CPR 3.9 to relieve the claimant of the “sanction” that, as a result of his failure to validly to serve the Claim Form during its period of validity, it has now lapsed. The term “sanction” is inapt because it would, in theory, be possible for the Claimant to issue and validly serve a fresh Claim Form. The obstacle standing in the way of a claim is not any sanction imposed by the Court but the fact that the limitation period for defamation and malicious falsehood has expired…

Finally, the Claimant seeks an order under CPR 3.10 remedying his error in not validly serving the Claim Form. The Defendants submit that CPR 3.10 cannot rescue the Claimant. This general provision does not enable the Court to do what CPR 7.6(3) forbids: Vinos -v- Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784; [2001] CP Rep 12 [20].”

Mr Justice Nicklin concluded, “The Claim Form was not served during its period of validity. In consequence, the Court has no jurisdiction over the Claimant’s claim. It follows that I should also formally dismiss the Claimant’s application for summary judgment.”

3. The Defendant believes that the Claimant did not adhere to CPR 6.9 (3) as they failed to show due diligence in using an address at which the Defendant no longer resided. The Claimant did not have any response from communications sent to 110 Regis Heath Road, but then filed a claim there anyway.

3.1 Had the Claimant carried out an up-to-date CRA ‘bulk trace’ for 28p, they would have found the correct address of 5 Druids Avenue, B65 9RH through a variety of sources, such as the electoral register.

3.2 The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the Defendant’s current residence despite having some 12 months to establish an address. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an old address and an irregular judgment.

4. DVLA address data may not be accurate. DVLA data is provided for a single (very limited) reason, so a parking operator can invite the keeper to name the driver or to pay, or to inform the keeper they will be liable if not, and about their right to appeal.

4.1. The system is called 'KADOE' (Keeper On Date of Event) because it is a brief 'snapshot in time' address to enable a parking firm to send a Notice. Operators are only allowed to ask the DVLA once, hence the code of practice requires reasonable steps are taken to check address details are current before litigation. Even if a motorist later updated a VC5 logbook with a new address (or if the DVLA failed to note a change in a timely manner, which is reportedly common) a parking operator will not know, nor be able to find that out.

5.  The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald on 23 December 2016 "announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses." The Minister added "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. That in the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.”

 

Coupon-mad

It's not a defence - it's a Witness Statement - and it requires the usual headings, 'statement of truth' and your signature and date.

What you've copied there isn't her WS.

You seem to have avoided reading her thread from the start and just jumped on her post today showing her 'skeleton argument' ready for her hearing this month.

That's not your stage (yet).

I'm not sure what is unclear about the CCJ set aside section of the Newbies thread which links you to several recent successful CCJ set aside threads with examples of WS already, also showing that the WS has to be accompanied by evidence of moving house.

The N244 application process is already all shown and fully explained in the NEWBIES thread, I think?