DCBL Letter after CCJ Ordered!

Coupon-mad

ZigZagPixel said:

Coupon-mad said:

That's a years-old Statement of Truth.  And that's.a very short WS.

Judgment has no middle 'e' in this context.

Upon reading the defendant’s application dated.
(1. Is this meant to say CLAIMAINT’S Application?

It's your N244 application!

The Draft Order (word doc with blank dates) is what you want the court to order for you, the Defendant.

UPON is meant to be in capitals in this context.

I have amended accordingly and will post once other points are clarified.

Coupon-mad said:

That's a years-old Statement of Truth.  And that's.a very short WS.

Where do i find the latest Statement of Truth (I found this one from Newbies and ended up on 'Henrik77' template).

Regarding the WS, I don't know what else to put? What info would make it stronger?
I feel my brain is frying doing this.
Any extra help would be highly appreciated.

Why aren't you looking at the five recent CCJ set aside WS in the NEWBIES thread, all of which include useful words for you (about costs, etc) and the correct SoT.

ZigZagPixel

Coupon-mad said:

Why aren't you looking at the five recent CCJ set aside WS in the NEWBIES thread, all of which include useful words for you (about costs, etc) and the correct SoT.

Im reading & taking notes from the x2 recent CCJ set aside WS (CitizenK & _blueberry_) and both have these paragraphs (Underlined in P.8 is only in Blueberry's WS):

• 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 xx-04)

• 8.The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not havebeen 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. 

---------

Considering my case, is this relevant or significant for me to mention? My PoC seems clear and states:

Particulars of claim: CLAIM FOR MONIES OUTSTANDING FROM THE     DEFENDANT IN RELATION TO A PARKING CHARGE (REFERENCE ****) ISSUED ON    __/07/2023.

THE SIGNAGE CLEARLY DISPLAYED THROUGHOUT *** "The named CarPark" ********* STATES THAT THIS IS PRIVATE  LAND, MANAGED BY PARKINGEYE LTD, AND THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS, INCLUDING A MAX STAY PERIOD, BY WHICH THOSE WHO PARK   AGREE TO BE BOUND (THE CONTRACT).         PARKINGEYE'S ANPR SYSTEM CAPTURED VEHICLE **** ENTERING AND LEAVING THE SITE ON __/07/2023, AND OVERSTAYING THE MAX STAY PERIOD. PURSUANT TO SCH 4 OF THE PROTECTION  OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012, NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN  TO THE REGISTERED KEEPER, MAKING THEM LIABLE FOR THE PARKING CHARGE PAYABLE UPON BREACH.


Signage in the carpark is clear to say 1.5hr max stay (i stayed about an hour over).
Don't know if this holds any weight but the signs are quite high up (not eye level) and have small print to which you have to step on bushes to read.

Coupon-mad

Why are you reading those?  Neither of them are from CCJ set aside cases.  Look again.

ZigZagPixel

Coupon-mad said:

Why are you reading those?  Neither of them are from CCJ set aside cases.  Look again.

I was reading them because Le_Kirk mentioned the examplar WS on Newbie Sticky and you also mentioned x5 new CCJ set asides, which i assumed were the same as Le_Kirk was referring to, as ironically there are x5 exemplar WS of recent dates. 

To prevent myself from further going down an unneccassary rabbit hole, the x5 set asides you're suggesting are these?:

⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️

ZigZagPixel

I have had a look at 'Jack5656' WS and amended accordingly.

Parts that are underlined I am not sure if it is relevant, in my case, to be mentioned. 

Any advice and adjustments would be highly appreciated:

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

1.     I am xx My name xx of xx Address xx, and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge. 

2.     This is my supporting statement to my application dated x January 2024 requesting to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated X October 2023 as it was not properly served/County Court Claim Form was not correctly served to my address. < Which is correct to say?

b. Order for the original claim to be dismissed. < Considering I DID overstay, is this still correct to add. Can I still get the claim to be dissmissed?

c. Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £275 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.
(Applying for help with court fees, not sure of what the discounted amount is, so what do i put here?

Default Judgment

3.     I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

4.     I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on X October 2023. I am aware that the Claimant is Parkingeye Ltd, and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice dated xxxxxx. 

5.     I did not receive a Letter Before County Court Claim (LBCCC) nor the County Court Claim Form.

6.     I was unaware of any Claim until I received a CCJ Default Judgment letter, dated XEnd of October 2023, ordering a payment of £227 to Parkingeye. I was notified of this letter after returning from abroad, on the X 21st November 2023 (Exhibit A - Flight ticket)

7.     It was recently confirmed to me by the CNBC that the Claim date was X BEG of OCT 2023 X and that the County Court Claim Form was served to my address, in early-mid October 2023, via second class standard postage which I never received. This means the claim was not correctly served nor in line with CPR 6.3; in particular CPR 6.3 (b): “first class post, document exchange or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day, in accordance with Practice Direction 6A”. 

(Is this correct to put here or is apart of my defence if im going for one? Do i also mention CPR 13.2?)

8.     Despite not receiving the claim form, which has been said to have been sent in early/mid October 2023, I was abroad between 19th October 2023 to 25th October 2023 nevertheless, which means even if I did receive the claim form I would have not had the full opportunity to respond/defend the claim (Exhibit B - Flight Ticket).

9.     I never had any notification of the claim until 21/11/2023 and had only received the Particulars of Claim upon my request on 15th January 2024. 

10.   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 Recent Events

11.   On Friday 12th January 2024 I received a notification of a Notice of Debt Recovery from DCBL (letter dated 28/12/23), Notifying of increased charges from that of the CCJ Letter; from £227 to £297.

12.   On 15th January 2024 I phoned CNBC and requested for the Particulars of Claim (PoC).

13.   During this call, the CNBC clerk confirmed the date of the claim, 2nd Oct 2023. In addition to this I was informed that the County Court Claim Form was sent in early-mid October 2023 which, as stated previously, I never received. The CNBC clerk was unable to confirm whether the Claim Form was delivered to the correct address or not and also stated that the Claim Form was sent via Second Class Standard postage, not First Class.

14.   On 17th January 2024 I emailed Parkingeye to request a consent to set-aside.

15.   On 19th January 2024 Parkingeye replied to my email, refusing to consent to set-aside.

16.   On X January 2024 I submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.

17.   I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me considering I never received a Letter Before Claim nor a Claim Form.

18.   On this basis, the claim was not correctly served nor in line with CPR 6.3; in particular CPR 6.3 (b): “first class post, document exchange or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day, in accordance with Practice Direction 6A”.

19.   Under CPR 13.2 The court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered.  Given that CPR 6.3 (b) was not met, CPR 13.2 applies and the CCJ should be set aside.

20.   Had I, the Defendant, been correctly notified of this claim I would have had the opportunity to take action to prevent it escalating further. 

21.   Given that service of the claim was defective (i.e. it was never correctly served) the Defendant submits that this particular claim is dead. The Defendant has no details of this claim, therefore, if the Claimant believes there is a cause of action then the correct procedure would be to file a claim afresh and to the right address, after furnishing the Defendant with the information required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, issued this time to the correct address via first class postage for service for this Defendant, which is xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Relevant for my case?

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

23.   Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. 

24.   The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald on 23 December 2016 "announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses." The Minister added "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. That in the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.” Furtherance to points raised in 1.3 above. < don't understand?

25.       In the alternative, CPR 13.3 applies and there are very good reasons to set aside this exaggerated claim, which includes a disproportionate and indeed, false 'debt recovery' sum.  In fact, no debt recovery occurred nor cost the Claimant any money whatsoever, in addition to £100 parking charge.  The Government has described the false fixed 'fee' of £70 as 'designed to extort money from motorists' in the new statutory Code of Practice this February, and has banned it.  The Defendant has good prospects of defending a claim, if served with one, but has seen no evidence, basis nor particulars of claim and the Claimant should be required to file afresh, if they believe they have a cause of action.     < Correct wording? I have now received PoC.

26.   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. < Applying for help with court fees so not sure of £?

 

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 & dated 

1505grandad

"11.   On Tuesday 14th January 2024 I received a notification ....."

14.1.24 was a Sunday (date is significant to me so it jumped out at me"

also no middle "e" in Judgment in this context.

ZigZagPixel

1505grandad said:

"11.   On Tuesday 14th January 2024 I received a notification ....."

14.1.24 was a Sunday (date is significant to me so it jumped out at me"

also no middle "e" in Judgment in this context.

Much appreciated! I've edited my post accordingly.

Other than the points you mentioned, everything else seems good?

Are there any other salient/particular points or CPR rules that can be mentioned to support my statement?

Coupon-mad

You do need to add the Chan transcript which is more recent advice than Jack5656's case.

Why not just cast your eye down the first page or three of the parking forum (one click back) tomorrow morning and read all threads where the title includes the acronym CCJ?

There will be a few.

I posted on more than one this evening, including one who has just completed their WS and Draft order (including Chan as an Exhibit appended to the WS).  Copy.

ZigZagPixel

Coupon-mad said:

You do need to add the Chan transcript which is more recent advice than Jack5656's case.

Why not just cast your eye down the first page or three of the parking forum (one click back) tomorrow morning and read all threads where the title includes the acronym CCJ?

There will be a few.

I posted on more than one this evening, including one who has just completed their WS and Draft order (including Chan as an Exhibit appended to the WS).  Copy.

I believe I have found the Transcript of Chan; it is the Dropbox file that Le_Kirk has posted?

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k6y9ppghkyxb9iclg23bz/Chan_Only.pdf?rlkey=knsu8d3g0w42gb3xiz6ocjfsj&dl=0

I will add this as Exhibit/Evidence to my WS.

1) Where/how shall I refer to it in my WS?
2) How in how is this relevant to my case? I understand the Chan case mentions PoC and failing to comply with 16.4, but how does that benefit me?
For reference here is my PoC again:

Particulars of claim: CLAIM FOR MONIES OUTSTANDING FROM THE     DEFENDANT IN RELATION TO A PARKING CHARGE (REFERENCE ****) ISSUED ON    __/07/2023.

THE SIGNAGE CLEARLY DISPLAYED THROUGHOUT *** "The named CarPark" ********* STATES THAT THIS IS PRIVATE  LAND, MANAGED BY PARKINGEYE LTD, AND THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS, INCLUDINGA MAX STAY PERIOD, BY WHICH THOSE WHO PARK   AGREE TO BE BOUND (THE CONTRACT).         PARKINGEYE'S ANPR SYSTEM CAPTURED VEHICLE **** ENTERING AND LEAVING THE SITE ON __/07/2023, AND OVERSTAYING THE MAX STAY PERIOD. PURSUANT TO SCH 4 OF THE PROTECTION  OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012, NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN  TO THE REGISTERED KEEPER, MAKING THEM LIABLE FOR THE PARKING CHARGE PAYABLE UPON BREACH.
------------------

The Date VRN are correct and coincide with the initial PCN letter issued.

ZigZagPixel

Im really stressing now. I feel not much is achieved and I don't know how good my chances are of winning the case.

I understand you probably all have multiple messages to respond to, but Im so lost on where i currently stand.
I have read tons and tons of threads and CCJ cases as advised and yes they help but when im writing mine im at a standstill. 

Ive done my WS but Im not sure how good it is? I know I've been told to add Chan but other than that can i have some feedback please.

Also, I knew about my CCJ on 21/11/23. Considering its now x2 months and i still haven't submitted the N244 form.
I really wanted to get this completed and sent off today!

This is causing me a lot of stress. I would be so grateful if I could have some help please!