Parking Eye CCJ issued without knowledge

BadIndian

Hi Newbie here...
I am unable to post on any already open thread so I created a new one...
I have a CCJ issued without my knowledge, I didn't receive the claim and plans to challenge it. I haven't got the full details of the judgement but I have the case number from a letter sent after the judgement and also a debt collector letter from DCBL with the reference. I googled and come to the understanding that these penalty charge cases are usually dealt with in CNBC Northampton so I will submit for a hearing via N244 form and use the sheet provided, please see a draft of what I have below: 

Can one of you experts take a look and let me know if that sounds ok? I will make references to previous cases in due course I just need to submit this to kick start the process. Thanks in advance your help is greatly appreciated.
==========================================================================

I am the defendant and was the driver of the vehicle on 5th May 2023. On May 10 2023 a PCN was issued for an alleged parking violation on 5th May at 19:27, at xxxx car park where I visited the restaurant to purchase food for myself and my son. I entered the car park and observed one or two cars drove in and parked up so I followed suit, I did notice that the sign said parking for patrons only (which I was) or words to that effect as it was a bit dark so visibility of a sign which wasn't within great eye range and wasn't optimal also given the darkness it was difficult to read any fine print. I proceed to order my food and returned to the vehicle and decided to eat before heading out as we were hungry. I wasn't aware that one had to enter their full registration into a machine in the reception area(No arrows pointing to the reception) until the PCN was issued where it indicated I either failed to enter the full registration into the terminal in reception or not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket or by remaining in the car park longer than permitted. I stayed on the premises for 36 minutes which does not constitute to an overstay of any sort. I appealed online after the notice to keeper was received by the registered keeper. I didn't hear from them for a while and I left the country to bury my deceased mother in Jxxxxx in June, upon returning towards the end of June I received an email dated June 7th to say the appeal was rejected, so I attempted to appeal online but the code had expired which I attempted to contact them via the said email which I only very recently realised they have set up a one way communication email so no reply was possible and the only communicable option was the payment option. 1. Default Judgement
 1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in October/November not sure of the dates however I was unaware that there was a CCJ issued until very recently, as I did not get a LBC warning or the Claim until recently I got a letter after judgement dated Nov 7 2023 (delivered to my Neighbour's address) notifying of the CCJ. I tried contacting Parking Eye and also did research online and for the court that issued the judgement, I got the claim reference from the post judgement letter and subsequent bailiff letter.
 1.2. A notice of debt recovery letter dated December 28 2023 from DCBL (received Jan 5th 2024) demanding payment for unpaid CCJ which I don't feel I am liable for the debt. I now feel harassed and it is causing me undue stress and worry about my job and future career.
 1.3.Considering 1.2 above I was unable defend this claim properly which defaulted in no defence on my part. I thus believe that the Default Judgement against me should be set aside.
1.4. Order for the original clean to be a re-hearing
1.5. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds are laid out in summary below :
 a) No contractual agreement formed with (defendant) and the claimant.(The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies)
 b) Due to unclear, inadequate and non-compliant signage (No directive arrow pointing to where the reception was located)
c) No losses incurred and whatever sum that was asked for initially as a result of an half an hour stay is extortionate and not paramount to any significant loss.
f)No breakdown of cost provided to justify the charge

 1.4.Abuse of Process by the the Claimant
 a)I deny contractual agreement and that the claimant failed to show the right to for parking on site. b)The sum claimed is unrecoverable as it's set above the reasonable level of recovery or operating costs.
 c)The sum claimed is unconscionable and unfair as a result of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 d)Inflated claim (double recovery)
 e)On evidence of all previous cases involving the claimant it appears that the claimant is using the court process as a debt collection agency because of its ease of access to the court's system.

Full Defence to be submitted at a later date.

Le_Kirk

You need to break up that wall of text for us and a judge.
Have you read and understood the info in the NEWBIE sticky.

Coupon-mad

Read the CCJ set aside info in the NEWBIES thread and read similar recent threads when you search:

CCJ set aside Boxwood Chan

Read those 5 threads first.

You need to call the CNBC and ask them to immediately email you a copy of the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM and tell you, as well:

- the date of the claim form,
- which address it went to, and
- was it filed by ParkingEye or DCBLegal for Parking Eye?

BadIndian

thanks for your quick response @Coupon-mad I will do that later.  

Coupon-mad

BadIndian said:

thanks for your quick response @Coupon-mad I will do that later.  

Must be this week.  You must act promptly.

troublemaker22

To have any chance of getting your call answered without waiting for ages, call them at 8.30 sharp when they open - 0300 123 1057

BadIndian

let me know what you think: 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

INTRODUCTION

1 I am xxx of xxx  the defendant in this matter and was the driver of the vehicle

 2.    This is my supporting statement to my application dated XX January 2024 requesting the court to:

 a.    Set aside the default judgment dated XX September 2023 as I didn’t Receive it at my current address. (Possible lost in the post as the area experienced poor postal service)

b.    Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

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

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 3.  I was the Driver of the vehicle, VYM XXXX XXX, at the time of the alleged event.

 4.  I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on XX September 2023. I am aware that the Claimant is Parking Eye Ltd and that the assumed claim Is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from XX May  2023.

 5.  The claim form is considered not served at my current address, so I was therefore unaware of the default County Court Judgment against me until I received a letter from the claimant which went to my neighbour’s address, late December (unsure of specific date) seeking the unpaid CCJ and another from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd dated 28th December 2023 to my current address, received Jan 3rd 2024. 

 

6 This was the first set of correspondence I had received on the matter so as per paragraph 5 above no knowledge of the Claim.

 7 I contacted the claimant via email on Jan 8 2024, for specific details relevant to the jugement after several attempts to locate a contactable email address as they tend to use No Reply one way communication email addresses in the past which bounces to make it difficult for defendants to obtain information.

 8.   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 of the below.

 

 SEQUENCE OF RECENT EVENTS

9.  I first discovered there was a default County Court Judgment against me when I received a letter handed to me by my neighbour late December 2023

10. Jan 3rd  2024.  Received a debt recovery letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd on The letter is dated 28th December 2023.

11.  Jan 4 2024 I contacted Citizen’s advice to seek advice.

12.  Jan 8 2024 I contacted  Enquiries at Northampton County court to retrieve particulars of the case which my email was forwarded to the TEC.

13. Jan 10 2024 Received a reply from the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), saying they cannot help me if I don't have a PCN and I have to contact the local charging authority.

14. 10 -16  Further research, Received reply from Claimant.

15. 15 Jan 2024 Received SAR response from Claimant (SMB_PE_Privacy) (No details of the claim supplied just the details of the PCN and mention of 5 items of correspondence sent but not included them).

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 13.2

16.  The Claimant is an approved operator of the British Parking Association (BPA). The BPA has anticipated that issues will arise where operators do not take reasonable steps to ascertain correct addresses.

17.  Clause 24.1c of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice (Version 8 – January 2020) states “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.” and amicable means of communication established for a resolution.

 

18.  Assuming the Claimant failed to take reasonable endeavours to ascertain my correct current address prior to issuing proceedings and is therefore in breach of the Code of Practice.

 CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 13.3

19.  In the alternative, I submit that CPR 13.3 applies and there are very good reasons to set aside this claim. I have good prospects of defending a claim, if served with one, however I have seen no evidence, basis, nor detailed particulars of claim, and the Claimant should be required to file afresh if they believe they have a cause of action.

20.  If filed afresh I would anticipate a defence including submissions on:

 a. Adequate notice of the parking charge on clear signage, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

b.  A Strong ‘legitimate interest’ extending beyond mere compensation for loss (Parkingeye’s ONLY interest is to make a profit and cover the cost of running the Parking scheme)

c. Putting Claimant to strict proof on evidence of landowner authority or a legal contract, to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation, as required by the BPA Code of Practice

21. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100 (discounted at 60 if paid within 14 days). The claim includes an additional £197, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery and an abuse of process.

22. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –

(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

23. The Defendant denies (a) or (b) have been met. The Charge imposed, in all circumstances is a penalty, it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd vs Beavis[2015]UKSC67    (‘the Beavis case’) which is distinguished.

24. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate, extortionate and do not stand up to scrutiny.

25.  The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.

 

26. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself and there has been no legal advice or personal involvement by any solicitor in churning out this template claim.

27. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages.

 Abuse of Process

28. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firm claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating: ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.''

29. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:
''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

30. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

31. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

32. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

33. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: url removed

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

 

34. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here: URL Removed and also here where the government putting in place new measures to protect consumers from debt unethical claims

Gov website link removed

35. 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).

36. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

37. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times less' than the  fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent.  MoJ statistics reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it. 

38. It is denied that the added damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

39. This Claimant has not incurred costs. A PCN model already includes what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and it generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and £85 was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation (NB: debt collectors charge nothing in failed collection cases).

40. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, all non-monetary clauses went unchallenged. It will replace the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes, which are not regulation and carry limited weight.  It is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure'.

41. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.

42. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

43. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule

44. Considering all the above, and mitigating circumstances previously outlined particularly in paragraph 2(a), 4 and 5 I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the default judgment against me was issued vexatious with no reasonable grounds and thus should be set aside. Discovering this default judgment has had a significant impact on my life. I may have had to declare this judgment to my employer, and this will have a significant impact on my future career and financial standings.

 

COSTS

45. I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £275 from the Claimant should this request be successful

 

46. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

 

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 a person 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 __________

BadIndian

This is what I got back from the SAR request :

 Parking Charge Ref: ******

 Dear Mr ******

We write further to your recent correspondence. We note from this that you have submitted a Request for Access pursuant to Article 15 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR).

  We wish to confirm that the response provided below, and via the enclosed documents, concerns the Parking Charge referenced above. This data is provided on the basis that we note that you have already been identified as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in relation to the date of  xx May 2023 and therefore we can be satisfied, to the standard required, that the data collected and processed in respect of that vehicle on that date is personal data pertaining to you.

 We can confirm that your name and address were provided within your appeal dated xxth May 2023. This data was provided as you identified yourself as the driver of vehicle xXxx ddd in respect of a breach of the parking terms and conditions that took place within Rosehill Business Centre, Derby on xx May 2023.

  Parkingeye can confirm that we issued a total of 5 items of correspondence to yourself to date prior to any further recovery or legal action. The address used was the address as held by the DVLA for the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.

  As Parkingeye did not receive any response to the correspondence sent, we entered into legal proceedings on 22nd September 2023 in order to recover the outstanding sum owed for the Parking Charge and further costs were incurred.

 

 As Parkingeye did not receive any response to or payment in respect of the resulting Default Judgment issued against yourself, we contacted our recovery agent in order to recover the outstanding sum owed against the Parking Charge. For clarity, personal data sent to our recovery agent is done so via an encrypted transmission route, therefore we do not hold physical copies of the same. The categories of personal data we send to them is your name, address and vehicle details.

 Please note that the UK General Data Protection Regulation provides the following further rights:

 •             The right to request from Parkingeye access, rectification or erasure of your personal data;

•             The right to request from Parkingeye restriction of processing of your personal data;

•             The right to object to the processing of your personal data.

Please note that some of these rights are not absolute and will only apply in certain circumstances. We will review each request we receive in respect of these rights. We do not have to agree with a request but if we refuse, we will still contact the data subject within one month to explain why. You also have the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). For further information, please refer to the ICO website, You may also seek a judicial remedy.

 For further information about your rights as a data subject, plus information about the categories of data we process, data transfers, the legal basis for our processing, and the purposes of processing, please visit: 

Yours sincerely,

Parkingeye Privacy Team

BadIndian

Hello all 
I called the courts and spoken to a really nice lady and she gave me the date the claim was issued (October)and that it was issued first class to my current address but I didn't receive it so its definitely gone AWOL in the post, She said she couldn't supply me with a a copy of the claim and that I would have to contact PE.  I guess I cant use POFA in relation to my contact address and have to probably go for signage, unfairness, no contract and abuse of position and any other elements you can suggest. 

Should  include in my evidence bundle when I prepare it to show where people made several social media posts about missing parcels and important letters? 

KeithP

BadIndian said:

She said she couldn't supply me with a a copy of the claim and that I would have to contact PE. 

But the suggestion was... 

You need to call the CNBC and ask them to immediately email you a copy of the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 

Nothing there about a copy of the Claim Form.

Coupon-mad

You asked for the wrong thing.  You will have to ring again.  You can't get the claim form.