CCJ set aside application PCM / Gladstones

Tudor_Rose

Update on the Hearing that was held on Monday at Wandsworth County Court. It was a success !! Have written the details to help anyone else looking for hope / idea of what to expect. 

The judge had read my Witness Statement thoroughly, as well as the Claimant's. 
He confirmed what I was asking for; strike out the default judgement and to go further and strike out the claim. 
Dealing with the judgement strike out - I briefly went over that while my witness statement assumes the claim was served on my previous address due to that being listed on the claim, the claimant has in fact not provided any evidence of serving me at any address. I mentioned that in their witness statement they claim to have attempted to trace me and emphasised that they provided no evidence on this, and that the company they supposedly used include phone numbers in their most basic trace and therefore if there was any confusion on my current address, they could have called me on a number that has been on my file for 20 years. (I had copies of the trace packages from "Search UK") I emphasised that the exhibits the claimant provided reveals no evidence of any debt protocol being followed - only a mere NtK! 
Moving to the claim strike out - I briefly discussed CEL vs CHAN and the PoC in my claim. I mentioned the lack of reason as to how I had breached the contract, and made the point as in the case law regarding less space discussing the interest calculation, and the necessary detail to the breach. 
I said it was wholly audacious for the claimant to now (using my application of strike out) ask in their WS they continue the claim, replacing the PoC with the details provided in their WS, since I have highlighted their failings. 

The judge asked if I had anything else to add, I felt at this point I had covered the CPR, and case law and as he hadn't asked any questions regarding dvla etc and he had clearly read my WS there was no need to continue!

He moved onto his judgement:
He reach the conclusion that this claim was not properly served on the defendant under CPR 6.9. He said that it doesn't appear to him that the claimant made proper inquiries to find out the defendants correct address for service before the claim form was issued, in the circumstances he was not satisfied the claim was properly served and therefore, he set it aside under CPR 13.2. 

Moving onto the second part of the application, he said that the particulars of claim given in this case are woefully inadequate, they do not identify the relevant terms and conditions and they do not identify the relevant breach. CPR 16 Practice direction make clear that where there is a contract by conduct, which is clearly the case here, the claimant needs to set out the particulars of the breach and that have not occurred. He went on to add that this is not unknown for parking firms to do this and this Court has considerable experience looking at similar particulars of claim! But the fact that it's often done doesn't make it right. In his judgement said that the defendants correct to say, that these particulars of claim are wholly inadequate! In the circumstances, I agree that the claim be struck out.

He then went on to discuss costs and awarded a total of £370. The N244 application fee and 5 x £19 preparation costs! 

Thanks for the support getting such a great outcome ! 

KeithP

Brilliant!! Well done!!

Coupon-mad

" the claimant needs to set out the particulars of the breach and that have not occurred."

He went on to add that this is not unknown for parking firms to do this and this Court has considerable experience looking at similar particulars of claim!

But the fact that it's often done doesn't make it right. In his judgement said that the defendant is correct to say that these particulars of claim are wholly inadequate!

In the circumstances, I agree that the claim be struck out.

He then went on to discuss costs and awarded a total of £370. The N244 application fee and 5 x £19 preparation costs! 

Fantastic and a final outcome, with costs too!

Nicely argued!  I liked this that you voiced:

"I said it was wholly audacious for the claimant to now (using my application of strike out) ask in their WS they continue the claim, replacing the PoC with the details provided in their WS, since I have highlighted their failings."

hh2000

Hi @Tudor_Rose, hope you're well. If you don't mind, could you kindly provide your case reference number? I'm trying to gather a few case numbers to prove that Gladstones file these cases with faulty POCs, whilst fully knowing that it could cost them cases.