Unexpected CCJ - Recovery of Debt letter from DCBL

Coupon-mad

They might - or might not - but that WS served a different purpose, so I'd append the usual exhibits listed in the NEWBIES thread for WS stage, plus the letter from the CNBC and email evidence re the CiLex complaint in 2023, etc.

fair2everyone

I have made a start - is this on the right lines, please?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: XX

Between

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED

(Claimant)

- and -

XX

(Defendant)

_________________

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am XX, of XX and I am the Defendant in this claim. The facts made in my defence are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared upon my own knowledge.

2. In my statement I shall refer to Exhibits 1-XX to provide evidence to support my defence, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is outlined in a separate document.

Background Facts:

3. I first learned of the alleged event (26/04/23) when I received a letter from a Debt Collector (18/11/23) stating that there had been a Default CCJ issued in my name on 12th October 2023. I was shocked to discover this was due to a PCN being issued after my vehicle was parked at the Berkely Centre Car Park on 26th April 2023. (Exhibit ST01)

4. I did use the car park at the Berkeley Centre to shop at Tesco on the date of the alleged event but could not ascertain from the Particulars of Claim (‘the POC’) the absolute reason for this claim. (Exhibit ST02)

5. As I had not received any letters regarding this incident (they were all sent to an old address) and the POC were unclear, I had no option but to apply and pay £275 for a set-aside hearing remove this wrongly served, unfair CCJ.

Clear course of the Claimant's unreasonable conduct in this litigation

6. During the process of the set-aside mentioned above, I requested further details via a SAR to both the Claimant and their Solicitor. The information I received (07/12/23) included a copy of a letter to the Claimant’s Solicitor from the Civil National Business Centre stating that the original claim had been un-served and instructing the Solicitor to ‘ensure the address of the Defendant was correct and if not, to re-serve the claim’. This letter was received by the Claimant’s Solicitor on 28 November 2023, at which point, all parties would be aware of the my correct address, as the letter from the Debt Collector was dated 16 November 2023. I believe this is evidence that the Claimant’s Solicitor chose to ignore the Court’s instruction, which I believe shows unreasonable conduct. Had the claim been re-served I would not have needed to apply and pay a £275 fee for the set-aside hearing, spending many hours of time on preparing for this. (Exhibit ST03)

7. Three weeks before the set-aside hearing (28th February 2023), the Claimant’s Solicitor sent an email to the court attaching what they called a ‘Consent Form’ and asking the court whether the allocated hearing would still go ahead “or not”. I was shocked to receive a copy of this email and believe this was done with the intention to mislead the court into vacating the hearing I had been forced to pay for. (Exhibit ST04)

8. I became aware that the Claimant’s Solicitor has done this very thing previously, which had resulted in hearings being vacated. This was reported to their regulator CILEx Regulation Limited in 2023, and their response was that they would remind the Solicitor of ‘the importance to take all reasonable steps to avoid any risk of the court being misled, including unintentionally’. This provides further evidence, I believe, of unreasonable conduct. (Exhibit ST05)

The following Exhibits will be included at the end

Exhibits included so far

ST01 Copy of Letter from Debt Collector

ST02 Copy of POC from CNBC

ST03 Copy of letter from CNBC to ELMS Legal re need to re-serve

ST04 Copy of email from ELMS to local Court with fake Consent Order

ST05 Copy of email from CILEx stating they will warn ELMS re future conduct

Coupon-mad

Good start.

Now your son does need to also gather evidence re lack of clear signs to explain why he had no idea of any requirement to pay.  Find photos in other Berkeley Centre threads from 2022/23.

Also: remember I told you there was an historical issue with the signs/contract? If not, go back and re-read this thread as I recall telling you.

fair2everyone

Thank you. Yes I had started to gather photos including the Beavis one. And I do recall your earlier comment. Will we also need to comment on and exhibit excerpts of things like the DLUHC document, the Beavis case report etc? Thank you. 

Coupon-mad

Yes but avoiding wholesale repetition of paragraphs already in his defence.

fair2everyone

Here is an updated version of the Witness Statement - still not complete but hopefully getting there:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: XX

Between

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED

(Claimant)

- and -

XX

(Defendant)

_________________

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am XX, of XX and I am the Defendant in this claim. The facts made in my defence are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared upon my own knowledge.

2. In my statement I shall refer to Exhibits 1-XX to provide evidence to support my defence, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is outlined in a separate document.

Background Facts:

3. I first learned of the alleged event (26/04/23) when I received a letter from a Debt Collector (18/11/23) stating that there had been a Default CCJ issued in my name on 12th October 2023. I was shocked to discover this was due to a PCN being issued after my vehicle was parked at the Berkely Centre Car Park on 26th April 2023. (Exhibit ST01)

4. I did use the car park at the Berkeley Centre to shop at Tesco on the date of the alleged event but could not ascertain from the Particulars of Claim (‘the POC’) the absolute reason for this claim. (Exhibit ST02)

5. As I had not received any letters regarding this incident (they were all sent to an old address) and the POC were unclear, I had no option but to apply and pay £275 for a set-aside hearing remove this wrongly served, unfair CCJ.

Clear course of the Claimant's unreasonable conduct in this litigation

6. During the process of the set-aside mentioned above, I requested further details via a SAR to both the Claimant and their Solicitor. The information I received (07/12/23) included a copy of a letter to the Claimant’s Solicitor from the Civil National Business Centre stating that the original claim had been un-served and instructing the Solicitor to ‘ensure the address of the Defendant was correct and if not, to re-serve the claim’. This letter was received by the Claimant’s Solicitor on 28 November 2023, at which point, all parties would be aware of the my correct address, as the letter from the Debt Collector was dated 16 November 2023. I believe this is evidence that the Claimant’s Solicitor chose to ignore the Court’s instruction, which I believe shows unreasonable conduct. Had the claim been re-served I would not have needed to apply and pay a £275 fee for the set-aside hearing, spending many hours of time on preparing for this. (Exhibit ST03)

7. Three weeks before the set-aside hearing (28th February 2023), the Claimant’s Solicitor sent an email to the court attaching what they called a ‘Consent Form’ and asking the court whether the allocated hearing would still go ahead “or not”. I was shocked to receive a copy of this email and believe this was done with the intention to mislead the court into vacating the hearing I had been forced to pay for. (Exhibit ST04)

8. I became aware that the Claimant’s Solicitor has done this very thing previously, which had resulted in hearings being vacated. This was reported to their regulator CILEx Regulation Limited in 2023, and their response was that they would remind the Solicitor of ‘the importance to take all reasonable steps to avoid any risk of the court being misled, including unintentionally’. This provides further evidence, I believe, of unreasonable conduct. (Exhibit ST05)

Other supporting evidence for the defence points

9. Paragraphs 9-11 in my defence refer to the routine addition of exaggerated costs, with little or no explanation of where those costs have come from. This is clear from the chain of letters obtained via my SAR request to the Claimant, where the charges jump from £100 to £170, with no clear breakdown of what the extra £70 is for, followed by the final Letter Before Claim which simply states the charge will increase to £170 + £35 + ~ £3 (Exhibit ST06)

10. Similarly, paragraphs 12-16 refer to The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice which is currently being reviewed via an Impact Assessment. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN). (Exhibit ST07)

11. It is worth highlighting the fact that the Claimant has been involved in providing information to the Impact Assessment detailed above which including determining the cost mentioned above (Exhibit ST 08)

12. Paragraphs 22-25 of my Defence refer to the importance of clear, unambiguous signs. Unfortunately, when I returned to check the signs on site (November 2023), the Claimant was no longer agents for Berkeley Centre and the signs had been changed by the new company (sometime in August 2023). I have searched online (Google Maps) to ascertain what the signs were at the time of the event and have included those images, along with the sign shown in the Parking Eye v Beavis case to demonstrate how the signs compare (Exhibit ST09)

13. In my defence, paragraph 3, it is stated that I did not think I had overstayed the allowed Free Period. I have shopped at Tesco on this site for years and the allowed time for Free Parking has always been 2hrs. The images shown within Exhibit ST09 indicate that the 2hr free period was in place in October 2022 and also in July 2023, suggesting that there was no change in the terms and condition of the, so-called, ‘contract’ at the time of the alleged event.

14. The Claimant’s are well-known for being the cause for complaint at this site, which several articles in the local newspaper will show. Indeed, I have included an article which reports that the Claimant was removed from managing the site as a direct result of so many complaints at the end of July 2023 (Exhibit ST10)

The following Exhibits will be included at the end

Exhibits included so far

ST01 Copy of Letter from Debt Collector

ST02 Copy of POC from CNBC

ST03 Copy of letter from CNBC to ELMS Legal re need to re-serve

ST04 Copy of email from ELMS to local Court with fake Consent Order

ST05 Copy of email from CILEx stating they will warn ELMS re future conduct

ST06 Copies of all letters received after the SAR to Excel

ST07 Copy of paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 from the DLUHC IA

ST08 Copy of page showing Excel were consulted

ST09 Images of signs found on Google Maps plus the Beavis signage

ST10 Copy of newspaper clippings re complaints at this site.

fair2everyone

Just to let you know, my son decided to phone the local court a) to check they had received the defence and b) to say he forgot to attach his WS and Exhibits and could he submit them later.  She said she looked at the Court Order and stated it only asks for the defence and the Judge will look at that then let him know what to do next.
We are not far off getting it ready (I think) and would certainly be able to email it before the deadline.  
What do you think @Coupon-mad - I know your experience is you would have expected us to do the WS etc with the Defence?

Coupon-mad

fair2everyone said:

Just to let you know, my son decided to phone the local court a) to check they had received the defence and b) to say he forgot to attach his WS and Exhibits and could he submit them later.

She said she looked at the Court Order and stated it only asks for the defence and the Judge will look at that then let him know what to do next.
We are not far off getting it ready (I think) and would certainly be able to email it before the deadline.  

What do you think @Coupon-mad - I know your experience is you would have expected us to do the WS etc with the Defence?

No, that's not what I said, but no worries!

Coupon-mad 
...and did he (as I suggested earlier) now do a quick first person WS to use to attach the exhibits he also wants the judge to see?

Don't reply telling us that the Order only asks for 'the defence'. We know.  Standard stuff at this point.

But his defence relies on exhibits that need appending to something to put them under the nose of the Judge.  A WS as well as a defence is recommended after a CCJ set aside.

fair2everyone

Sorry, poor wording on my part.  We're pressing on with the WS etc but if we feel it's all too rushed, will probably wait to see if we get any further instructions.  Thanks again

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine.