Help with N244 Application CCJ - PCN incorrectly issued

gjmusician

My partner and I went on holiday in October 2022 and booked our parking through skyparksecure.com. This was a meet and greet service, where the company that provided the service took care of our keys, and moved the car to a secure storage lot for the duration of our holiday. 
When we returned, my partner received a PCN from Parking Eye with evidence to say that our car had been parked in a different car park to the one we dropped it off at for over 7 hours. The times stated were after we had dropped it off, and, indeed, the departure time was while we were out of the country. 
I contacted Sky Park Secure, who put me in touch with the company who provided the service, and they explained to me that this was an error, and the this was a holding car park they legitimately use at the Heathrow Novotel before moving cars to their secure compound for storage, and that a large number of PCNs had been issued in error. The person that I spoke to asked me to text my details, including a copy of the PCN, and he would arrange to have this cancelled.
I thought no more of this for some time, but later, we became aware, that the company had not arranged to have the PCN cancelled, and that Parking Eye, upon not hearing from us or receiving a payment had applied to the court and upon receiving no defence the court had granted a CCJ against my partner for £207.
I went back to the company originally responsible for our car when we were on holiday, and they were unsure of how to help us, but did offer to pay the CCJ, which we did not want, as we wanted to have the CCJ cancelled without accepting liability, as we were, undoubtedly, not responsible for the PCN in the first place.
As were not expecting to receive anything further regarding the PCN, the paperwork lay unopened for quite some time, as we assumed it was unimportant (we deal with most bills online, and pay everything automatically, so we did not expect to receive demands through the post). My partner owns a property away from the rented property we live in during the week, and regularly visits this property. He pays council tax in both places, and his car is registered to the other property. He often collects the posts, and forgets about it, and this is what happened in this case. 
We have since received demands from DCBL, a collections company, who are quite militant in pursuing the debt. I have been advised by CAB, that our only option to have the CCJ removed would be to make an N244 application to the court giving evidence that we were not responsible for the vehicle as we were out of the country. I have the booking with the parking company, as well as our holiday booking as proof, but having had a look at the N244 application, I am a little daunted. I called DCBL this morning to advise that we wouldn't be paying, and the agent that I spoke to was quite aggressive in her manner, which I can only assume was her attempt to get us to pay. 

Can anyone advise on articulating a defence for this, and in completing the N244 form? Also, given the circumstances, do we have a good chance that the court will agree to set this aside. I was also advised that if we were to do this, then we could advise the original parking company that we were going to make a small claim against them to recover the court costs. Would this be a sensible and proportionate thing to do? 

Many thanks, in advance, for any help. 

Le_Kirk

Search the forum for "Set-aside" or "set aside" (without the speech marks), there are loads of them, make sure you change the drop-down box from "Best Match" to "Newest"  You will find that one of the regulars @Coupon-mad posts the name of the latest/best poster's set-aside for you to use as an exemplar.  You should be able to get Sky Park Secure to pay your £275 fee.

KeithP

I can't see that you have a good reason to set aside that Default Judgment.

By your own admission, court papers were delivered to you.
"He often collects the posts, and forgets about it, and this is what happened in this case".
"the paperwork lay unopened for quite some time".
You failed to file a Defence.

Your predicament is of your own making.

gjmusician

KeithP said:

I can't see that you have a good reason to set aside that Default Judgment.

By your own admission, court papers were delivered to you.
"He often collects the posts, and forgets about it, and this is what happened in this case".
"the paperwork lay unopened for quite some time".
You failed to file a Defence.

Your predicament is of your own making.

Thank you, KeithP. I am so pleased to see that you have the time and inclination to pollute my post with such an unhelpful and anti-community response and tone. I have no problem in admitting that we are human beings, and, as such, imperfect. We made assumptions that have meant that we have a slightly bigger situation to sort out than the one we would have had if we hadn't blindly trusted the company to do as they assured me they would do. I would only ever respond to someone else's post in a sensitive and constructive way, so as not to offend others' sensibilities (you never know what someone else is going through, and all that...). I am confident that if you go through life telling people that any mistakes that they make are "of their own making" you will get a reciprocal response from others. I'm assuming that, from your attitude towards me, you don't make errors in judgement, but should you ever make a mistake and need advice, I wouldn't bother asking anyone for help.I am not callous enough to hope others will treat you as you clear have not problem treating others, but if and when they do, this will, I'm afraid be "of your own making".

KeithP

gjmusician said:

KeithP said:

I can't see that you have a good reason to set aside that Default Judgment.

By your own admission, court papers were delivered to you.
"He often collects the posts, and forgets about it, and this is what happened in this case".
"the paperwork lay unopened for quite some time".
You failed to file a Defence.

Your predicament is of your own making.

Thank you, KeithP. I am so pleased to see that you have the time and inclination to pollute my post with such an unhelpful and anti-community response and tone. I have no problem in admitting that we are human beings, and, as such, imperfect. We made assumptions that have meant that we have a slightly bigger situation to sort out than the one we would have had if we hadn't blindly trusted the company to do as they assured me they would do. I would only ever respond to someone else's post in a sensitive and constructive way, so as not to offend others' sensibilities (you never know what someone else is going through, and all that...). I am confident that if you go through life telling people that any mistakes that they make are "of their own making" you will get a reciprocal response from others. I'm assuming that, from your attitude towards me, you don't make errors in judgement, but should you ever make a mistake and need advice, I wouldn't bother asking anyone for help.I am not callous enough to hope others will treat you as you clear have not problem treating others, but if and when they do, this will, I'm afraid be "of your own making".

Sorry you didn't like my reply.
I was just being realistic.

OK, reading it again I can see that I missed out on what you should be doing next.

Can I suggest that you now pay the amount that the court has awarded to the Claimant before the costs to the Claimant of recovering the debt rise further?

gjmusician

KeithP said:

gjmusician said:

KeithP said:

I can't see that you have a good reason to set aside that Default Judgment.

By your own admission, court papers were delivered to you.
"He often collects the posts, and forgets about it, and this is what happened in this case".
"the paperwork lay unopened for quite some time".
You failed to file a Defence.

Your predicament is of your own making.

Thank you, KeithP. I am so pleased to see that you have the time and inclination to pollute my post with such an unhelpful and anti-community response and tone. I have no problem in admitting that we are human beings, and, as such, imperfect. We made assumptions that have meant that we have a slightly bigger situation to sort out than the one we would have had if we hadn't blindly trusted the company to do as they assured me they would do. I would only ever respond to someone else's post in a sensitive and constructive way, so as not to offend others' sensibilities (you never know what someone else is going through, and all that...). I am confident that if you go through life telling people that any mistakes that they make are "of their own making" you will get a reciprocal response from others. I'm assuming that, from your attitude towards me, you don't make errors in judgement, but should you ever make a mistake and need advice, I wouldn't bother asking anyone for help.I am not callous enough to hope others will treat you as you clear have not problem treating others, but if and when they do, this will, I'm afraid be "of your own making".

Sorry you didn't like my reply.
I was just being realistic.

I dislike your lack of empathy and attitude. Such forums are a community that exist so that people can get advice and support with things that might be worrying them. To tell someone that their mistake is "of their own making" lacks any sense of kindness, decency, and community spirit and will only serve to discourage people from posting things that may well help others, in turn. Kindness costs nothing, and a more thoughtful response from you would have left me feeling better than I do right now. I don't care if that's your assessment of my situation, a slightly more thoughtful tone would have made all the difference.

Trainerman

I think you have mis-interpreted KeithP's  post, maybe because you did not like the last line. However, it really is difficult to see what grounds you could use for a set aside. The papers were not wrongly served.....you got them. You just didn't open them.

From there runs the whole chain of no defence and therefore a default judgment, it seems. You now have to find a reason that will persuade a Judge to give you a second chance. and as I understand it it will cost you £275 just to apply.

If you still have time to pay this and clear it off your record, then that is a solution worth considering

gjmusician

Trainerman said:

I think you have mis-interpreted KeithP's  post, maybe because you did not like the last line. However, it really is difficult to see what grounds you could use for a set aside. The papers were not wrongly served.....you got them. You just didn't open them.

From there runs the whole chain of no defence and therefore a default judgment, it seems. You now have to find a reason that will persuade a Judge to give you a second chance. and as I understand it it will cost you £275 just to apply.

If you still have time to pay this and clear it off your record, then that is a solution worth considering

Many thanks for the response - I don't think I did misunderstand, but, anyway...

I do understand that the fault lies with us for failing to open the papers, however, it's clear that the original debt was erroneous, and it is on these grounds that I want to have the CCJ set aside. Like I said in my original post, I was advised to apply to have this set aside on the grounds that the original PCN was not my responsibility. I was also advised that I may have grounds to make a small claim for costs to the company who is responsible for the PCN. My questions, although slightly protracted, was more about wording for the application, since it is very clear to me that the origins of this case lie beyond our liability, and it is for this reason that the CCJ was awarded.

Trainerman

I think I understand the drive to 'not accept liability', but that may be a stance that ends up costing you more. If the company responsible have offered to pay, why not let them?

For me that would be a financial and a moral victory

gjmusician

Trainerman said:

I think I understand the drive to 'not accept liability', but that may be a stance that ends up costing you more. If the company responsible have offered to pay, why not let them?

For me that would be a financial and a moral victory

No, I do take your point there, and I promise, I'm trying not to be too stubborn about this
I can humbly accept that the blame stops with us for not opening the papers, but I am still annoyed that the ineptitude and unkept promises of a company that I paid to avoid this kind of issue have led to this (still trying not to be stubborn!).
I will think on it, but your point is something to consider, so thank you. 

Coupon-mad

DCBLtd will not come knocking because it is under £600 so they can't send HCEOs round.

They will only send letters.  BUT:

I agree with the others that you MIGHT WELL struggle to get this set aside (because of not opening post including a claim form that was properly served) but you could try ... and will be no worse off for trying even if the set aside is refused ... except the court fee just to apply is £275.  Unless you get consent.

You did notice that the NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST thread covers CCJ set asides and what to do?

You realise you could email PEye and ask them to consent to set aside?  That costs a lower fee of £108 and on the N244 you tick 'without a hearing'.

Ask ParkingEye by email (see NEWBIES thread second post for their litigation team email) how much they would settle for, to consent to set aside this CCJ, given the fact that the registered keeper was not the 'keeper' nor driver (had flown abroad on holiday).  xxxxxx Airport Parking firm has admitted it was their fault and has offered to pay but the keeper wanted to ask ParkingEye whether they will consent to this set aside, to minimise costs, and accept - say - £60 as this was a mix up between xxxxx Airport Parking and Novotel.