Parking tickets and CCJ for parking in residents parking

LizA70

I have court paperwork received today, listed for a hearing of 30 mins with District Judge at local court in approx 4 weeks time.  Writ of Control stayed, pending outcome of application to set judgment aside.  It is a piece of paper entitled "General Form of Judgment or Order"  I'm horribly new to all of this so some guidance would be appreciated: 

1. My N244 application is attached to the letter advising me of hearing,  but it doesn't have any of the WS or  evidence I attached to the application, does this mean the judge has seen it ?
2. There is no guidance reference the actual hearing, other than its 30 mins and Judges Name, so do I resend my WS and defence in advance to the Local Courts ?  There is further evidence, I received a copy of any email that the Management Company stating that Met Parking were released a month earlier than I was aware of, due to the fact that they did not process parking permits for residents and that they also failed to respond to calls and emails from the Management Company, to try and resolve issue with the permit applications.
3. Is this a preliminary hearing to decide whether there is enough evidence to Set Judgement Aside
4. Should I notify solicitors and HCEO's - HCEO's have stated that unless they have a sealed order from High Court, they will not cease action.
5. Court, never done anything like this before, I'm assuming I can deal with this on my own ?

I apologise in advance for my silly questions, I've tried to look at other threads and cant see where this fits in, as I don't have any online MCOL references.  I want to make sure I'm as prepared as I can be for this hearing.

And a huge thank you to @Coupon-mad for my WS and Defence which has got me this far, and the forum, you lots are flipping amazing, 

Coupon-mad

They are not silly questions!

1. Probably.  See below.
2. See below
3. Yes
4. Yes, do that now.
5. Yes you can!


Email the court and the solicitor for the Claimant and attach the new evidence to a signed/dated Supplementary Witness Statement.

Af the same time, take the opportunity to attach the first WS and evidence again and ask your local court to ensure that all attachments are before the Judge for the hearing at TIME/DATE.

LizA70

Coupon-mad said:

They are not silly questions!

1. Probably.  See below.
2. See below
3. Yes
4. Yes, do that now.
5. Yes you can!


Email the court and the solicitor for the Claimant and attach the new evidence to a signed/dated Supplementary Witness Statement.

Af the same time, take the opportunity to attach the first WS and evidence again and ask your local court to ensure that all attachments are before the Judge for the hearing at TIME/DATE.

Thank you so very much, I will get to work on 2-4, 5 Gulp ! and will report back after the hearing

LizA70

Hello all, 

 I have a letter from the solicitors, giving me 4 days to make a decision and would appreciate some input from the Forum.

Letter is an offer to save costs

Before an Officer of the Court

UPON the Claimant and the Defendant having agreed to the terms of this Order;

AND UPON the Claimant accepting that, although the claim was correctly served at the Defendant’s last known

address pursuant to CPR 6.9, the Defendant did not receive the claim form and therefore did not have

opportunity to defend the claim;

AND UPON the parties agreeing that, in view of the above, there is some other good reason for Judgment to be

set aside pursuant to CPR 13.3;

IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT:-

1. The Judgment entered on xxxx is set aside;

2. The registration is cancelled;

3. Permission be granted for the Claimant to amend the Claim Form;

4. The Claimant to file and serve the amended Claim Form within 14 days of the sealed Order;

5. The Defendant to file and serve a response to the Claim Form within 14 days of receipt of the same;

6. Standard Small Claims direction to be given; and

7. Costs of enforcement be reserved.

Okay so questions are: (sorry for stupid ones)

1) Essentially they are offering to take back to Claim form, which I then defend ? Is this their points 4, 5 and 6 ?
2) I'd be accepting that they served the original claim form properly, which they obviously did not do, so my feeling is I ask them to remove that clause, if I was to consider this offer
3) I'd be forgoing my hearing in May to overturn the judgment, but I've got it back to claim form, so my risk is alot less?
4) I'd obviously be overjoyed to have the CCJ removed, but I do not want to open myself up to any further costs, their point 7 concerns me, if they are offering to take it back to Claim Form, is point 7 asking for future potential enforcement costs, or the costs that the HCEO alleges they incurred ?
5) what is Point 3 ? does that relate to the address ?
6) I am assuming that I forgo any costs I've incurred to date, N244 application, time off work etc


I had sent the the court document to stay the writ pending  to both the solicitor and the HECO and received confirmation from the solicitor it had been received but was sitting down tonight to add to new information to WS and defence, any input would be appreciated.  Thank you MSE forum and especially @Coupon-mad for bearing with me on this one !!  

Coupon-mad

1. Yes. I presume they want permission to 'amend the claim form' to try to avoid the claim being struck out as per CEL v Chan.  Why should they get a free hit at improving a flawed set of Particulars?  Don't agree.  

2.  Yes they are pretending the claim was properly served and walking all over the truth and the CPRs & Code of Practice. Don't agree.  

3.  You have almost no risk because the claim was not properly served, which means the Judge has no choice: this is a mandatory set aside under CPR 13.2. Don't agree to this consent order.  

4.  Point 7 is completely unacceptable.  You are right; it is asking the court to reserve (for next stage) ALL the enforcement costs incurred already by the HCEOs. Bringing them all forward, instead of consigning those costs to history, which should happen at your hearing (which will rewind the clock but on fairer terms).  Don't agree. 

5.  See my answer (1) above. They are asking for carte blanche to amend the claim form.  That is NOT the address.  That's whatever they want it to be and I suspect this is designed to improve the POC and side-step CEL v Chan. Don't agree.  

6. Yep.  Unacceptable. Don't agree.  

Basically, there is nothing in it for you.

Reply and say:

No.  I'll attend my hearing. I do not consent to any of your self-serving proposals.  Do NOT send a version of this to the court featuring the word 'consent' nor referred to in any covering letter/email as a Consent Order or Draft Consent Order because it's a figment of your imagination designed to improve your position. Not happening.  I will attend my hearing and I will seek my costs and will let the Judge decide the terms of the Order, following the mandatory set aside.

LizA70

Thank you @Coupon-mad, been reading through others and noticed @noubee recieved an email of “consent order” and has referenced it in her WS, given DCB are trying with to get me to agree to their flouting of CPR 13.2, and for me to accept costs of the HCEO, should I include this as supplementary WS pointing out continued harassment of me ? Also wondering if I should put CEL vs Chan into supplementary WS and evidence reading others threads ? 

I’m drafting my response to the email as below possibly being too pleasant 

Dear Sirs, 

Further to your email, whilst I am keen to reduce my own costs and time spent on this case, I cannot accept and will not sign this consent order as it:

1) Stops me achieving a mandatory set aside under CPR 13.2
2) Prevents me claiming any costs
3) Open me up to a further claim of costs of HCEO enforcement, I strongly refute your client has any loss on the original claim, let alone HCEO costs on a mandatory set aside that would rewind the financial clock

I will attend the hearing on xxxxxxxx, seek my costs and will let a judge decide decide the terms of the order.

 I have supplementary information to attach  to my original witness statement and evidence, including removal of your client one month earlier than stated on my N244 and will ensure this is with both you and the courts prior to the hearing.       

(do I put the above  paragraph in, or wait for the filing of the supplemental WS and evidence to give this to them ?) 

Coupon-mad

I think the above is fine.

given DCB are trying with to get me to agree to their flouting of CPR 13.2, and for me to accept costs of the HCEO, should I include this as supplementary WS pointing out continued harassment of me ?

No. Don't mention a Consent Order at all!.

They (DCB) would retort that they are merely "complying with the Overriding Objective in trying to settle the dispute at minimal cost/time to the court & all parties" and to some more credulous Judges not used to PPC scams, they'd come up smelling of roses.

Also wondering if I should put CEL vs Chan into supplementary WS and evidence reading others threads ? 

Yes if the claim doesn't plead (specify) the breach/conduct that gave rise to the charge.

LizA70

Thank you @Coupon-mad

I'm preparing my supplementary WS and evidence, in addition to the letter from the management committee with earlier end time of Met Parking, I have found a picture of one of the temporary permits I was displaying during this period, I must have taken the photo as I got a ticket, I've checked with solicitors and yes I did get one during the dates specified on the temporary permit, so I include this to strengthen my defence that I was using the temporary permit system ? with date and time stamp ?

huge apologies for all hand holding, never had anything like this before and struggling to find relevant bits on the forum

Coupon-mad

Yes that sounds like great evidence.

LizA70

Me again ! doing supplementary WS do I need to make more of this too ?

1. THE DEFENDANT (D) IS INDEBTED TO THE CLAIMANT (C) FOR xx  PARKING CHARGES ISSUED TO VEHICLE xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx. 2. THE PCN(S) WERE ISSUED BETWEEN date/month/year & date/month/year

Just reading the claim form and its incredibly generic