Parking tickets and CCJ for parking in residents parking

Coupon-mad

You were wondering the same thing earlier:

"Also wondering if I should put CEL vs Chan into supplementary WS"

The answer is yes.

In fact (even better) exhibit the 'judgments' link that's in the a-f list of recommended exhibits in the NEWBIES thread.

That is one PDF which starts with CEL v Chan then a whole string of judgments from various courts ALL SAYING THE SAME THING.  It's a compelling exhibit.

LizA70

Thank you @Coupon-mad, I’m guessing it goes back to the potential for the whole claim to be struck out at the hearing and why solicitors are asking to amend the claim form in their offer.

it pretty awful that they can actually do this to someone in the first place and then continue with this stuff, is there any guidance on how many days before the hearing for me to submit this ? I was comfortable with the supplementary WS and what I needed do add, I want to make sure I read and understand before I add it.

Thank you so very much 

Coupon-mad

As it is a hearing of your application, you will not have a deadline but the norm for other parking cases (not CCJ cases) is submit everything you rely on, not less than a fortnight before. Don't leave it till that day though, in case of issues.

LizA70

Doing more reading tonight on CEL v Chan and want to check I understand fully - the generic wording that is on the Claim form plus the fact that the ending date is wrong, as I have within the same email from the Management Committee stating "Parking Company have confirmed any ticket after xxth xxxx will be cancelled"  (several days before the Claim form end date) means the whole claim should be struck out ?

I've also found signage on google earth which clearly shows the name of the Development with  "Pemit Holders Only"  and the parking companies name on the bottom right side,  I was displaying temporary permits (hurrah for evidence for one of these), had made an application etc and Parking Company were dismissed from site for not responding too, or issuing Permits/renewals etc so should I include that sign too ?

I'm trying to belt and brace every angle before I submit the final SWS, because this is such a large claim for the solicitors I have a feeling they may show up and want to be fully prepared 😬

Coupon-mad

Yes to all of the above. Great evidence.

LizA70

Solicitors have sent Consent Order as Draft consent order to courts for consideration at hearing, so need to ref that too in SWS, is CEL v Chan applicable as POC does state “failure to clearly display a value permit” 

I keep reading different threads and trying to work out relevance if different judgements.

LizA70

Apologies “VALID’ 

LizA70

Be very grateful for any thoughts on SWS, thank you very much

IN THE HIGH COURT and COUNTY COURT

Claim No. xxxxx

BETWEEN:

xxxxxxxx

Claimant

– and –

xxxxxxxx

Defendant

 

_________________________________

SUPPLMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF xxxxxxxx

_________________________________

This Witness statement is being sent to the CNBC and to the High Court. I, xxxxxx of xxxxxxxx, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;

 

1. I make this supplementary Witness Statement in support of the application made on 2nd February 2024, and 5th March 2024, for an order that the High Court Writ be stayed and that judgment in this case be set aside, pursuant to CPR 13.2., due to improper service of the claim form.

2. Further, should Court be of the view that the generic Particulars of Claim (which fail to break down or properly specify the various purported multiple 'parking charges' and their extortionate multiple 'damages' enhancement) are inadequate and thus in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and16PD7, I respectfully ask that the entire claim be struck out.

 

The Defendant submits further information and evidence found since their initial Witness Statement and responds to the “Draft Consent Order”

 

3. Within section 14.3 of the Defendants Witness Statement, I have made reference to the voucher system I was using whist endeavouring to get the claimants response to (a) how to apply for a Permit and (b) following my application and awaiting the Permit (which never arrived). I was keen to ensure I followed what was required of me.  From memory I believed I took photos of the vouchers, as I was aware of other resident’s receiving ‘parking fines’.  As nearly 4 years have passed since this period of time, and my phone having a complete failure November 2021, I believed I had lost that proof, however I have managed to find one photo which clearly shows that between xxxxx to xxxxxx, I had a Temporary Permit, as I did on all other periods for this claim. On phoning the Defendant solicitors on xxxxxxx, they confirmed I had received one of the fourteen ‘parking charges’, referred to on the Particulars of Claim, on xxxxx.  I strongly refute the Particulars of Claim “Failing to clearly display a valid permit”.  The attached exhibit is time stamped xxxxx 18.33.   (Exhibit x)

3.1. In addition to 14.2 of the Defendant’s Witness Statement, I have recently received an email correspondence between one other Resident and the Management Committee, dated xxth xxxxxx 20xx, it again states that the Claimant was “dismissed hence forth from site” (earlier than I had previously thought) “having refused to respond to countless telephone calls, provide permits in a timely period and to continue to ticket genuine residents despite being advised not to attend site….. The claimant advised ay ticket issue after xxst xxxx 20xx will be cancelled”. I refer to the Claim Form (provided to me by CNBC on xxth xxxxx 20xx) submitted by the Claimants which specifically states:

“THE PCN(S) WERE ISSUED BETWEEN XX/XX/20XX & XX/XX/20XX” 

On the aforementioned telephone conversation with the Claimants Solicitors, they confirmed that one of the fourteen ‘parking fines’ referred to on the Particulars of Claim was issued on XXth XXXX 20XX. (Exhibit x email from Management Committee)

4. I believe the Claimant has suggested to other residents experiencing the similar issues as myself that they should not park in the Residents Car Park whilst awaiting a Permit and I am keen to show the courts the reason would have been physically and financially challenging.  XXXXXXX is opposite XXXXXX Underground Station Zone X of the Tube, and as such all the roads surrounding the area do not allow for parking or have resident parking or restrictions (all options subject to fines), any available parking is at a cost premium.     (Exhibit X Google Maps showing location of XXXXXXX)

5. On XX XXX 2024 The Claimant Solicitors advised the Defendant of the Draft Order sent to the courts for consideration at this Hearing, which in theory achieves the set aside I have asked for.  This Draft order was sent to me as a Consent Order, on XXth XXXX 20XX, by the Claimants Solicitors, asking if agreed, to be signed to be sent back by the XXth XXXX 20XX. My response to the Claimants Solicitors on XXth XXXX 20XX was that, although I am keen to resolve this matter, save costs and time to all parties. However, I could not agree to it as, I did not agree (a) the Claim was correctly served under CPR 13.2, (b) that permission to amend the Claim form had no indication of what those changes would be (c) I was not willing to accept HCEO enforcement costs on a Set aside application, which was made promptly on becoming aware, which would historically rewind the financial costs (why would I agree to additional charges being added to a Claim that I already dispute  where the Claimant is at no financial loss, I was a resident and should have been able to park free, from harassment and financial loss), and (d) that it did not allow for my costs incurred to date.  The Claimants solicitor’s responded on the XXXX Xst XXXX 20XX that their client would not agree to my terms and would proceed to hearing. I do not believe this was a genuine effort to resolve this dispute, but merely an attempt to strengthen their weak position.

5.1  The Defendant is particulary concerned about the Claimants request to amend the claim form and giving no indication as to what this would be as I have asked for the courts in my Witness Statement and in this Supplementary Witness Statement to consider striking out the claim under CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and16PD7. 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, and the extant Particulars of Claim seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  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.

5.2  A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the Particulars of Claim 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. (Exhibit I)

5.3 Similarly, at the District Judge Humphreys, at County Court Sitting Ipswich 27th September 2023. (Exhibit J)

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Signature:

Date: xxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coupon-mad

You haven't used the single 'judgments' PDF that I told you where to find on 30th April. It's much stronger as an exhibit.

And after helping @Zbubuman yesterday with a swathe of new case law (he is going through the same as you but without HCEOs) I'm going to write a skeleton argument for you to attach and a Draft Order.

When's the hearing?

Can you show us the full POC and on what date did you receive those from the CNBC?

LizA70

Thank you so very much

Apologies, is it the link in the newbies thread to judgements ? I thought I just needed to reference CEL v Chan and one or two others

1. THE DEFENDANT (D) IS INDEBTED TO THE CLAIMANT (C) FOR 14 PARKING CHARGES ISSUED TO VEHICLE xxxxxxx AT (196) xxxxxx, HAVERING, xxxxxx. 2. THE PCN(S) WERE ISSUED BETWEEN 27/05/2020 & 05/10/2020. 3. THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE FOR BREACH OF THE TERMS ON THE SIGNS (THE CONTRACT). REASON:FAILURE TO CLEARLY DISPLAY A VALID PERMIT 4. IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE KEEPER PURSUANT TO POFA 2012, SCHEDULE 4. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £2380 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE PCN(S) AND DAMAGES. 2. INTEREST AT A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM PURSUANT TO S.69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 FROM THE DATE HEREOF AT A DAILY RATE OF £.21 UNTIL JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT. 3. COSTS AND COURT FEES

CNBC emailed POC 26th February when I was chasing for the first submission that went astray in their inbox

Hearing is Friday, I've had a look at @Zbubuman, I am trying to get my head around all the case law so I am confident, I've read several threads about hearings, have to say if feels very overwhelming, but I'm determined they will not get the better of me !!

Thank you so very much @Coupon-mad