UK CPM, Gladstones/Empira CCJ success

Mana2019

KeithP said:

But it appears to be a bit of a contraction anyway.

I see what you mean. Thanks, updated.

Coupon-mad said:

No you need 3 points in the Draft Order, like I said. And CEL v Chan is obviously an exhibit along with your proof of moving.

I forgot to copy the last point here lol.

AND you need to point out how the Code of Practice has been breached. As seen in every set aside example now.

 Added breached CoP on point 11. I did mention CEL v Chan @ point 15.

REVISED DO:

CLAIM No: XXXXX
 
BETWEEN: UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
 
-- and –
 
XXXXXXXX (Defendant)
 
Upon reading the defendant's application dated 14/10/2023 It is ordered that
 
1. The judgment for claimant dated 11/04/2023 is set aside on the grounds that the defendant has not been validly served as the Claim Form was sent to the Defendants former address
 
2. The claimant to pay the Defendant's cost of this application £275 in addition £95 for time in preparation (5 hours as litigant in person at a rate of £19 per hour).
 
3. Order for original claim to be dismissed.

REVISED WS:

CLAIM No: XXXXXXX
 
BETWEEN: UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
 
-- and –
 
XXXXXXX (Defendant)
 
 
 
 
 
I am XXXXXXX and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting Statement to my application dated 17/10/2023 requesting to:
 
1. Set aside the default judgment dated 11/04/2023 as it was simply not served at my current address. 
 
2. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee, in addition £95 for time in preparation (5 hours as a litigant in person at a rate of £19 per hour) and costs having to take time off work to attend court. 

3. Order for original claim to be dismissed.
 
 
 
I understand that the claimant obtained a default judgment against me as the Defendant on 11/04/2023. I am aware that the claimant is: UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED and that the assumed claims in respect of an unpaid PCN.
 
 
 
 1. The claim form was not served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default judgment up until I checked MSM Credit Club (Experian) on 13/10/2023 who notified me that I received a Default Judgment on 11/04/2023.  
 
2. On the afternoon of 11/10/2023, I received a random text on my mobile phone from Empira Ltd, reporting that they have been instructed to enforce a judgment against me for a total of £300.51.
 
3. I originally thought this was a scam text, but I wanted to make sure it was. I went to check my credit score from MSM Credit Club (powered by Experian) for the first time in 7 months, only to find out my credit score has been badly damaged.
 
4. I looked in to why it was badly damaged and found out a CCJ has been applied on my report by CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE on 11/04/2023. The residential address registered to the CCJ was my old address XXXXXX. This made to be believed that the Claimant was sending letters to my old address.
 
5. I did not know the Claim Number of this case at first, I e-mailed the Claimant’s DPO on 11/10/2023 and on upon writing the witness statement they still failed to respond to my e-mail requesting to provide all the claim numbers they have under my name. (Exhibit 1-a)
 
6. It was not until I logged in again to discover in MSM Credit Club, CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE has included the claim number within the marked CCJ.
 
7. I also refer to CPR 13.2 (the court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered).
 
8. I submit the CCJ should be set aside under CPR 13.2(a) as the claim form was not served at my new address.
 
9. I moved to my new address xxxxxx early December 2021, and submitted a change of vehicle address application (V5C) to DVLA on 13/12/2021. (Exhibit 2-a) A month later, I had informed the Claimant’s DPO to update their records to my new address and clearly asking them to also erase any old details and information sent to any 3rd parties referring to my old address. (Exhibit 3-a)
 
10. The Claimant's DPO replied and reported the change the address to Gladstones Solicitors. However, they refused to delete my previous address from their records (Exhibit 3-b). In hindsight, this is probably because they know that this case was happening in the background and don’t want me to be aware of it.
 
11. The Claimant is obliged to carry out a soft search for a current address if they have had no response to any previous correspondence to the address on the V5C. The Defendant was ‘’there to be found’’ for the sake of a soft search via Experian trace or similar very inexpensive (reportedly 29p) and immediate credit reference agency address check. I would then have been notified of this Judgment and could have taken action to prevent the CCJ. The Claimant has therefore breach Code of Practice which requires addresses to be re-checked by a trace before submitting a claim form.
 
12. Should the judgment be set aside. I am confident I can robustly defend the original PCN’s where I will request better Particulars of Claim and photographic evidence of signage, so I can make an informed decision because at the moment I have nothing to go on, yet want to defend.
 
13. In addition to the above, it should be highlighted that the integrity and law abiding intention of the Defendant should be taken into consideration on the basis that I discovered a CCJ was lodged against my name on 11/10/2023 tarnishing my impeccable credit history. 
 
14. I am prepared to swear on oath that the claim was not served and that is still the position to date.
 
15. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in another private parking case: Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) (Exhibit 5-a).  This case confirms that where the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction to Part 16, the claim should be struck out, the CCJ set aside and costs awarded to the Applicant/Defendant.  On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the 'conduct which amounted to the breach' in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 and award my costs in full, as happened in Chan appeal case (which also started with a N244 CCJ set aside application which was initially wrongly refused by the first learned Judge)
 
16. I would like to reiterate that I have made an application to seek costs as well as the claim being dismissed and the CCJ set aside.
 
17.  Whatever the allegation turns out to be, it must be common ground that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen.  The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis case, which is fully distinguished).  In addition to the fact that the sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated, additionally the interest is inflated in two ways:
 
(i).  Interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if £160 or £170 was 'overdue' on the day of parking;
 
(ii). Gladstones have applied the wrong interest rate of 10.25% which they appear to have made up.  The highest rate allowed in civil claims (only at the discretion of courts) is 8%. I have discovered from research that this legal representative roboclaim firm (connected to the IPC trade body) always adds 10.25% interest and are highly likely to be one of the top five 'bulk parking case litigators' shown in the Government's analysis, linked elsewhere in this statement.  Gladstones indisputably issue tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year, all of which have the wrong interest rate (a deplorable 10.25%)  and the unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN) which can add hundreds to some claims.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, and it appears to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN.  I hope the Judge addresses this in the final judgment, at the very least to warn or sanction Gladstones as the court sees fit.
 
18. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 Is there anything else I'm missing?

Mana2019

Coupon-mad said:

Which is why I advised you what you need to do. Every company has their own DPO.  

I didn't say email UKCPM.  They don't have the claim details

Going back to point 5 in my WS, I stated Claimant's DPO. But it's Gladstones' DPO I e-mailed, not the Claimant's DPO. I need to be clear here because its exhibit has Gladstones' DPO e-mail address, not UKCPM DPO address.

Should I change that to Gladstones' DPO?

Sidenote - ignore this question if you want: Earlier in the thread, I was told UKCPM don't have the claim details (because we assumed it may not be UKCPM that filed against me). But now we know it's them, wouldn't UKCPM's DPO have the claim number as well? Or it's just all Gladstones?

Coupon-mad

No, UKCPM don't have the claim number.  They have nothing and no involvement after farming your case out in a massive batch of unchecked data that Gladstones fed into the conveyor belt known as MCOL and the CNBC.

Mana2019

Coupon-mad said:

No, UKCPM don't have the claim number.  They have nothing and no involvement after farming your case out in a massive batch of unchecked data that Gladstones fed into the conveyor belt known as MCOL and the CNBC.

Oh ok. So should I change point 5 to Gladstones' DPO instead of Claimant's then?

KeithP

Mana2019 said:

Coupon-mad said:

No, UKCPM don't have the claim number.  They have nothing and no involvement after farming your case out in a massive batch of unchecked data that Gladstones fed into the conveyor belt known as MCOL and the CNBC.

Oh ok. So should I change point 5 to Gladstones' DPO instead of Claimant's then?

I don't see that your point 5 adds anything to the argument and I think it should be removed altogether.

1505grandad

Just wondering in para 11 if the Judge would automatically know re soft search  -  perhaps quote the wording and exhibit relevant CoP page?

"22 Debt and Debt Collection

22.1 Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the Motorist’s details are

still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court

proceedings."

https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/Code_of_Practice_v8.pdf

Mana2019

Thanks @1505grandad.

Sorry for the delay, I was abroad for a short while. Back to business now.
My WS is the same from the last page except now:

1. Removed point 5

2. I modified point 10 (was 11) which now states:

10. The Claimant is obliged to carry out a soft search for a current address if they have had no response to any previous correspondence to the address on the V5C. The Defendant was ‘’there to be found’’ for the sake of a soft search via Experian trace or similar very inexpensive (reportedly 29p) and immediate credit reference agency address check. I would then have been notified of this Judgement and could have taken action to prevent the CCJ. It states clearly and quoted in the Code of Practice (Exhibit 3-a): 
“22 Debt and Debt Collection
22.1 Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the Motorist’s details are
still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court
proceedings”.
The claimant has therefore breached the Code of Practice which requires addresses to be re-checked by a trace before submitting a claim form.

I'll attach the Code of Practice as an exhibit as well. After all this, is it ready for submission?

Coupon-mad

Yes - remind us what your Draft Order says?  It is a separate WORD DOC attachment for the Judge to use (whereas the WS is a signed PDF).

Mana2019

Coupon-mad said:

Yes - remind us what your Draft Order says?  It is a separate WORD DOC attachment for the Judge to use (whereas the WS is a signed PDF).

CLAIM No: HJ567467

BETWEEN: UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
 
-- and –
 
MANA2019 (Defendant)
 
Upon reading the defendant's application dated 14/10/2023 It is ordered that
 
1. The judgment for claimant dated 11/04/2023 is set aside on the grounds that the defendant has not been validly served as the Claim Form was sent to the Defendants former address
 
2. Order for original claim to be dismissed.
 
3. The claimant to pay the Defendant's cost of this application £275 in addition £95 for time in preparation (5 hours as litigant in person at a rate of £19 per hour).

Box 10 in N244, do I tick all boxes? I just ticked 'witness statement' and 'the evidence set out in the box below' stating in the latter in that text box - "Draft order and Witness statement includes evidence to support this."

I created the word doc for the draft order and the pdf for the witness statement which includes the evidence of letters, e-mails etc.

Next step, do I have to e-mail the Northampton CCBC (ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk) or my local court with the forms?

Coupon-mad

That's an old email address. Email it to the CNBC fees email address then phone up the CNBC and pay the fee.