Need advice with a CCJ letter

gdexr

Coupon-mad said:

You did remove the entire irrelevant section that 'the claim is dead / 4 months has passed since the claim was filed'?  Obviously that's not the case for you just yet, as the claim was dated around late August (as the dates suggest).

I did yes, the date of judgment is 21 September 2023

Coupon-mad said:

Yes.  Headings are not set in stone so merge sections as well, if it flows better.  You can also merge the transcripts of those strike out judgments or use @Fruitcakes' single version (below):
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/gl0tt6pc65xnnvtq2e6g8/h?rlkey=ovz1j9xud64vzhqxx0fh2a8im&dl=0

BUT NOT AS URLs, your pieces of evidence are all to be attached as PDFs with your application.

All exhibits can be finally merged and compressed into ONE PDF.

Don't know what you mean by 'Exhibit file'?  You are creating a PDF file of exhibits as seen in recent CCJ cases. 
It's your file.

That explained it! You just pasted the file I was looking for with all the exhibits for the Chan vs CEL case etc.

Coupon-mad said:

I think your WS should explain what happened with a timeline of events:

1. (20/11/2021) New car ( Car B ) bought
2. Late November (unknown to me) a PCN was issued - nothing on windscreen - re the old car (Car A)
3. (30/11/2021) Moved out from Address A to B.  Changed driving licence address promptly with DVLA.
   
4. (01/12/2021) Changed Car A for Car B which was also immediately registered with DVLA (address B ).
   
5. (Summer 2022) Two letters from DCBL arrived re Car A. Appeared to be a scam. Heard nothing more.
6. (01/12/2022) Moved out from Address B to C. Updated driving licence, bank, utilities, V5C for Car B.
7. (Summer 2023, unknown to me) Claimant sent a claim out of the blue to address B.
8. (21/09/2023, unknown to me) CCJ issued to Address B
   
9. (07/11/2023) Date of letter from DCB Ltd, which is when I first learned about the claim and CCJ.

Thanks for the notes here, I'll add all this in the document.

Coupon-mad

gdexr said:

Coupon-mad said:

You did remove the entire irrelevant section that 'the claim is dead / 4 months has passed since the claim was filed'?  Obviously that's not the case for you just yet, as the claim was dated around late August (as the dates suggest).

I did yes, the date of judgment is 21 September 2023

Thanks for the notes here, I'll add all this in the document.

And once you have done this application, there's one more urgent thing to do:

Please please please also find time to do this new Call for Evidence this month:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80375249/#Comment_80375249

The Committee invites evidence on:

• What the current level of delay in the County Court is

• The ways in which the County Court engages with litigants in person, and how this could be improved

• The causes of action giving rise to claims in the County Court

• What future reforms to the County Court should be considered.

Please tell them that private parking firms and their bulk litigators are the problem as far as small claims delays are concerned, as they dominate court lists. Parking claim numbers are rising every year and will make up about a third of all small claims in 2023, based on the 2022 figures that the MoJ divulged in the DLUHC's recent Parking Code of Practice Call for Evidence:

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/private-parking-code-of-practice-call-for-evidence#:~:text=The%20call%20for%20evidence%20is,help%20the%20decision%2Dmaking%20process.

About half a million parking claims are now made (2023 likely figure).

The MoJ must separate parking cases with a new pre-action protocol requiring use of ADR instead of inflated debt demands and bulk litigators who want court. It should be a last resort but it's the first.

These MPs are inviting evidence not rants or opinion so we need people like you to respond, who are currently caught up in this nightmare that you are.

Bulk litigators for parking firms are playing fast and loose with old addresses and causing CCJs galore. Probably hundreds of thousands per year, given half a million parking claims filed and the MoJ stats tell us that 90% of most claims go to a default CCJ.

You have a solid case evidence to show the Committee to state that parking claims are not 'debt' claims, they are extortionate and exaggerated rogue claims and the whole framework needs to be removed from the inappropriate 'debt claims pre-action protocol'.  Ideally, parking cases should NEVER go to county court and should not be able to affect people's credit rating, probably millions of times in recent years.  This is a hidden scandal.

You want to change things?

This Committee is your voice.

As you know, the Government is already regulating the private parking industry, so they are listening and are aware of the scourge of unfair PCNs from rogues and bulk litigators.

Interested parties have until 14 December to make a submission to the committee.

Your evidence will make all the difference.  

gdexr

Coupon-mad said:

gdexr said:

Coupon-mad said:

You did remove the entire irrelevant section that 'the claim is dead / 4 months has passed since the claim was filed'?  Obviously that's not the case for you just yet, as the claim was dated around late August (as the dates suggest).

I did yes, the date of judgment is 21 September 2023

Thanks for the notes here, I'll add all this in the document.

And once you have done this application, there's one more urgent thing to do:

Please please please also find time to do this new Call for Evidence this month:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80375249/#Comment_80375249

The Committee invites evidence on:

• What the current level of delay in the County Court is

• The ways in which the County Court engages with litigants in person, and how this could be improved

• The causes of action giving rise to claims in the County Court

• What future reforms to the County Court should be considered.

Please tell them that private parking firms and their bulk litigators are the problem as far as small claims delays are concerned, as they dominate court lists. Parking claim numbers are rising every year and will make up about a third of all small claims in 2023, based on the 2022 figures that the MoJ divulged in the DLUHC's recent Parking Code of Practice Call for Evidence:

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/private-parking-code-of-practice-call-for-evidence#:~:text=The%20call%20for%20evidence%20is,help%20the%20decision%2Dmaking%20process.

About half a million parking claims are now made (2023 likely figure).

The MoJ must separate parking cases with a new pre-action protocol requiring use of ADR instead of inflated debt demands and bulk litigators who want court. It should be a last resort but it's the first.

These MPs are inviting evidence not rants or opinion so we need people like you to respond, who are currently caught up in this nightmare that you are.

Bulk litigators for parking firms are playing fast and loose with old addresses and causing CCJs galore. Probably hundreds of thousands per year, given half a million parking claims filed and the MoJ stats tell us that 90% of most claims go to a default CCJ.

You have a solid case evidence to show the Committee to state that parking claims are not 'debt' claims, they are extortionate and exaggerated rogue claims and the whole framework needs to be removed from the inappropriate 'debt claims pre-action protocol'.  Ideally, parking cases should NEVER go to county court and should not be able to affect people's credit rating, probably millions of times in recent years.  This is a hidden scandal.

You want to change things?

This Committee is your voice.

As you know, the Government is already regulating the private parking industry, so they are listening and are aware of the scourge of unfair PCNs from rogues and bulk litigators.

Interested parties have until 14 December to make a submission to the committee.

Your evidence will make all the difference.  

Sure, I'll get this done by the end of the month!

MissA123

Hi, i have followed the template and wanted to enter in section 3 

The defendant had booked a one week swimming session for the defendants 4 year old daughter over the half term holidays for the sum of £5.00. The defendant parked in the car park Mon-Thurs, however the claimant is accusing the defendant of not entering their registration plate into the system on Thursday.

The claimant is unable to provide CCTV evidence or supporting evidence that an attempt to enter the car registration was not made, or any evidence to confirm the system had not malfunctioned and the defendants registration plate had been omitted entry.

Evidence of swimming lessons had been sent to the claimant to confirm the reasonable use of the swimming baths car park but this was not recognised. No losses occurred by using the swimming baths as the car park is free to users and there is no charge for parking. It may be worthy to note that the swimming baths has now gone out of business, and the absurd parking charges related to their free car park has contributed to this as well as other factors.

is this okay?

gdexr

MissA123 said:

Hi, i have followed the template and wanted to enter in section 3 

The defendant had booked a one week swimming session for the defendants 4 year old daughter over the half term holidays for the sum of £5.00. The defendant parked in the car park Mon-Thurs, however the claimant is accusing the defendant of not entering their registration plate into the system on Thursday.

The claimant is unable to provide CCTV evidence or supporting evidence that an attempt to enter the car registration was not made, or any evidence to confirm the system had not malfunctioned and the defendants registration plate had been omitted entry.

Evidence of swimming lessons had been sent to the claimant to confirm the reasonable use of the swimming baths car park but this was not recognised. No losses occurred by using the swimming baths as the car park is free to users and there is no charge for parking. It may be worthy to note that the swimming baths has now gone out of business, and the absurd parking charges related to their free car park has contributed to this as well as other factors.

is this okay?

Hey, I think you need to start your own thread as I doubt that anybody will help you here with your case in this one. Good luck!

gdexr

I think I managed to construct a version of a Witness Statement that makes sense to me.

Some questions I have are marked below but this is what I've got so far.

---

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am xxxx of xxxx, and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made.
2. This is my supporting statement to my application dated xx November 2023 requesting to:
1. Set aside the default judgment dated 21 of September 2023 as it was not properly served at my current address.
2. Order for the original claim to be dismissed.
3. Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on 21st of September 2023. I am aware that the Claimant is Highview Parking Ltd and that the assumed claim is in respect of unpaid Parking Charge Notices.
3. The claim form was not served at my current address (address C), and I was therefore unaware of the Default County Court Judgment against me until I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd. dated 31 October 2023 to my current address.
4. The address on the claim is (address B ). I moved to my current address (address C) on 1st of December 2022. In support of this, I can provide evidence such as tenancy agreements, contracts and bank statements.
5. 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;

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

1. On the 22th of October 2021 (unknown to me until later), a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued for my old car A. However, no notice was affixed to the windscreen, and if a letter was sent, I am not aware of it and have not acknowledged it. * is this good enough to be put in as I truly believe I should mention it
2. On the 20th of November 2021, I purchased a new car B while car A remains registered on address A
3. On the 30th of November 2021, I changed from car A to car B. New car was then registered with the DVLA, the car insurance policy, including the update of my address to the new Address B.
4. On the 1st of December 2021, I moved from address A to address B.
5. During the summer of 2022, I received two letters from DCBL regarding old car A. These letters appeared suspicious and seemed to be potential scams. * shall I also say that I discarded those?
6. On the 1st of December 2022, I moved from address B to address C
7. In the summer of 2023 (exact date unknown to me), the Claimant sent a claim to address B
8. On the 21st of September 2023 (unknown to me until later), a County Court Judgment (CCJ) was issued to Address B.
9. On the 7th of November 2023, I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd. at address C. The content of the letter detailed the unpaid County Court Judgment and prompted the awareness that legal proceedings had taken place without my prior knowledge.
10. On 13th of November 2023, I contacted the County Court Business Centre because the DCB letter provided no details, not even the Claimant's name. I obtained a copy of the Particulars of Claim (POC) and learned that it's a Highview Parking Ltd. parking claim relating to Car A in 2021.
11. On the XX November 2023, I submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.

THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE THE CLAIM

1. The Claimant had a duty to take reasonable steps to check for the correct address. This is a mandatory requirement of the CPRs as well as the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice - clause 24.1c - see [* this now points at the name of this document which must be attached to the application as PDF, is this correct?] to the BPA CoP 2020, which this Claimant has breached
2. The claim form was not served at my current address, and as a result, I was unaware of the Default Judgment until I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd at my current address. This constitutes a breach of CPR 13.2(a), as the claim form was never served to my current address. Due to this, the judgment was wrongly entered as I was unable to submit an acknowledgement of service in the absence of notification of the case (CPR 13.3).
3. CPR 6.9 stipulates that an "Individual" should be served at their "Usual or last known residence." The Claimant, having obtained a previous address from the DVLA in October 2021 and having received no response, did not perform the requisite "reasonable diligence" required to find my correct address to serve the claim form in September 2023.
4. The fact that there was no response from a series of letters sent to my previous address should have alerted the Claimant to the possibility that I was not residing there. Silence after sending a Notice to Keeper, a reminder and then a Letter before Claim is a clear indicator that the Registered Keeper may not live there.
5. I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address at which I no longer resided. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of my current residence, despite having some 12 months to establish a valid address. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an old address and an irregular judgment.
6. The Defendant was "there to be found" for the sake of a 29 pence bulk Experian trace or similar very inexpensive and immediate credit reference agency address check. I would then have been notified of this judgment and could have taken action to prevent it.
7. According to publicly available information, my circumstances are far from unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses of results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

PRELIMINARY MATTER: THE CLAIM SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT

1. The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.
2. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. 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 (See Exhibit 02).
3. At Norwich County Court on 27th September 2023, District Judge Humphreys struck out a similar claim as ‘nether the Court nor the Defendant are able to understand, properly and specifically, what case is being pursued’ (See Exhibit 02).
4. District Judge Falvery found the generic Particulars of Claim to be ‘entirely inadequate’ as they 'fail to state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action’ at County Court of Peterborough on 27th October 2023 which is the same situation the Defendant has experienced (See Exhibit 02).
5. Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit 02)
6. Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit 02)
7. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit 02)
8. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. It remains uncertain whether the claim pertains to my alleged parking outside of a designated bay, failure to remain on the premises, incorrect bay parking, overstaying the allotted time, or perhaps a technicality associated with the entry process at the kiosk. This lack of specificity places me, the defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

THE BRITISH PARKING ASSOCIATION APPROVED OPERATOR CODE WAS NOT FOLLOWED

1. British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Code of Practice which requires a soft trace to be undertaken was not followed. The BPA Code of Practice - Version 8, January 2020, clause 24.1c states;
2. “Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.”
3. Considering the above, I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgment against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside, and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £275 from the claimant should this request be successful.

Statement of truth:

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.

Signed:

Date:

---

And a draft order below:

---

CLAIM NO: XXX

BETWEEN:

Highview Parking Limited (Claimant)

-- and --

XXX (Defendant)

---

DRAFT ORDER

---

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

UPON considering the application of the Defendant to set aside the Judgment by default entered on [date];

AND UPON reading the evidence in support of the application;

AND UPON the court taking note that the Claimant was not entitled to default judgment, having failed to serve on Defendant's usual residential address;

AND UPON the lack of compliant Particulars of Claim as per the recent persuasive case of CEL v Chan;

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Judgment by default entered against the Defendant on [date] is hereby set aside.
2. The claim should also be struck out as for want of compliant Particulars of Claim, in view of the recent persuasive appeal case of CEL v Chan; another generic parking claim where the Particulars of Claim were equally defective.
3. Costs of the application be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant in the sum of £275.

---

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

I think your WS should explain what happened with a timeline of events:

1. (20/11/2021) New car ( Car B ) bought
2. Late November (unknown to me) a PCN was issued - nothing on windscreen - re the old car (Car A)
3. (30/11/2021) Moved out from Address A to B.  Changed driving licence address promptly with DVLA.
   
4. (01/12/2021) Changed Car A for Car B which was also immediately registered with DVLA (address B ).
   
5. (Summer 2022) Two letters from DCBL arrived re Car A. Appeared to be a scam. Heard nothing more.
6. (01/12/2022) Moved out from Address B to C. Updated driving licence, bank, utilities, V5C for Car B.
7. (Summer 2023, unknown to me) Claimant sent a claim out of the blue to address B.
8. (21/09/2023, unknown to me) CCJ issued to Address B
   
9. (07/11/2023) Date of letter from DCB Ltd, which is when I first learned about the claim and CCJ.

Thanks for the notes here, I'll add all this in the document.

I meant put these as bullet points in a timeline summary at the start, to make it easy for the Judge.

Remove this, I don't like it or think it's needed and you only have one PCN anyway:

I am aware that the Claimant is Highview Parking Ltd and that the assumed claim is in respect of unpaid Parking Charge Notices.

Replace it with:

I knew nothing about the claim and would have defended it.

gdexr

Coupon-mad said:

I meant put these as bullet points in a timeline summary at the start, to make it easy for the Judge.

Sorry I'm not sure I understand here - by "timeline summary at the start" do you mean a section called "timeline summary" with a bullet-points list (instead of indexed list) with all these I have in "SEQUENCE OF EVENTS" section at the start of the WS or before the start of the WS (but same document).

Please excuse my ignorance, I find it quite difficult to write such things especially when there isn't a strict convention to be followed.

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this, I don't like it or think it's needed and you only have one PCN anyway:

I am aware that the Claimant is Highview Parking Ltd and that the assumed claim is in respect of unpaid Parking Charge Notices.

Replace it with:

I knew nothing about the claim and would have defended it.

Replaced!

gdexr

Do I have to include the POC in my WS + Exhibits document? I know I'm not defending the claim in my first hearing, but I'm unsure if it needs to be seen by the judge as well?

gdexr

Updated the WS once again - it's not indexed yet, I'll add these later :
 

---

WITNESS STATEMENT

TIMELINE SUMMARY

• On the 22th of October 2021 (unknown to me until later), a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued for my old car A. However, no notice was affixed to the windscreen.

• On the 20th of November 2021, I purchased a new car B while car A remains registered on address A

• On the 30th of November 2021, I changed from car A to car B. New car was then registered with the DVLA, the car insurance policy, including the update of my address to the new Address B.

• On the 1st of December 2021, I moved from address A to address B.

• During the summer of 2022, I received two letters from DCBL regarding old car A. These letters appeared suspicious and seemed to be potential scams.

• On the 1st of December 2022, I moved from address B to address C

• In the summer of 2023 (exact date unknown to me), the Claimant sent a claim to address B

• On the 21st of September 2023 (unknown to me until later), a County Court Judgment (CCJ) was issued to Address B.

• On the 7th of November 2023, I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd. at address C. The content of the letter detailed the unpaid County Court Judgment and prompted the awareness that legal proceedings had taken place without my prior knowledge.

• On 13th of November 2023, I contacted the County Court Business Centre because the DCB letter provided no details, not even the Claimant's name. I obtained a copy of the Particulars of Claim (POC) and learned that it's a Highview Parking Ltd. parking claim relating to Car A in 2021.

• On the XX November 2023, I submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.

I am XXXX, and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. This is my supporting statement to my application dated XX November 2023, requesting to:

• Set aside the default judgment dated 21 of September 2023 as it was not properly served at my current address.

• Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

• Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.

1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on 21st of September 2023. I knew nothing about the claim and would have defended it.

1. The claim form was not served at my current address (address C), and I was therefore unaware of the Default County Court Judgment against me until I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd. dated 31 October 2023 to my current address.

1. The address on the claim is (address B ). I moved to my current address (address C) on 1st of December 2022. In support of this, I can provide evidence such as tenancy agreements, contracts and bank statements.

1. 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;

THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE THE CLAIM

1. The Claimant had a duty to take reasonable steps to check for the correct address. This is a mandatory requirement of the CPRs as well as the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice - clause 24.1c - see [this document] to the BPA CoP 2020, which this Claimant has breached

1. The claim form was not served at my current address, and as a result, I was unaware of the Default Judgment until I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd at my current address. This constitutes a breach of CPR 13.2(a), as the claim form was never served to my current address. Due to this, the judgment was wrongly entered as I was unable to submit an acknowledgement of service in the absence of notification of the case (CPR 13.3).

1. CPR 6.9 stipulates that an "Individual" should be served at their "Usual or last known residence." The Claimant, having obtained a previous address from the DVLA in October 2021 and having received no response, did not perform the requisite "reasonable diligence" required to find my correct address to serve the claim form in September 2023.

1. The fact that there was no response from a series of letters sent to my previous address should have alerted the Claimant to the possibility that I was not residing there. Silence after sending a Notice to Keeper, a reminder and then a Letter before Claim is a clear indicator that the Registered Keeper may not live there.

1. I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address at which I no longer resided. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of my current residence, despite having some 12 months to establish a valid address. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an old address and an irregular judgment.

1. The Defendant was "there to be found" for the sake of a 29 pence bulk Experian trace or similar very inexpensive and immediate credit reference agency address check. I would then have been notified of this judgment and could have taken action to prevent it.

1. According to publicly available information, my circumstances are far from unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses of results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

PRELIMINARY MATTER: THE CLAIM SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT

1. The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

1. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. 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 (See Exhibit 02).

1. At Norwich County Court on 27th September 2023, District Judge Humphreys struck out a similar claim as ‘nether the Court nor the Defendant are able to understand, properly and specifically, what case is being pursued’ (See Exhibit 02).

1. District Judge Falvery found the generic Particulars of Claim to be ‘entirely inadequate’ as they 'fail to state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action’ at County Court of Peterborough on 27th October 2023 which is the same situation the Defendant has experienced (See Exhibit 02).

1. Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit 02)

1. Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit 02)

1. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit 02)

1. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. It remains uncertain whether the claim pertains to my alleged parking outside of a designated bay, failure to remain on the premises, incorrect bay parking, overstaying the allotted time, or perhaps a technicality associated with the entry process at the kiosk. This lack of specificity places me, the defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

THE BRITISH PARKING ASSOCIATION APPROVED OPERATOR CODE WAS NOT FOLLOWED

1. British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Code of Practice which requires a soft trace to be undertaken was not followed. The BPA Code of Practice - Version 8, January 2020, clause 24.1c states;

1. “Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.”

1. Considering the above, I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgment against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside, and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £275 from the claimant should this request be successful.

Statement of truth:

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.

Signed:

Date:

---