2x CCJ's - Civil Enforcement Limited - Private Parking Violation

RedOrchid

Hi everyone, just received a reply to my latest email to CEL and they are idiots... see below: 

"Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Please note that since the violations were taken place on different dates, it will be taken as different claims.

 

Please note that we did conduct address check before sending the PCN and all correspondence were sent to your last known address which was provided by the DVLA.

 

Since you have moved address, could you please provide us with your updated address so that we can send all recent correspondence to you.

 

Yours Sincerely,"



I have already given them my new address and yet, they failed to read that... what do I do now

Coupon-mad

Send your current address again and ask for the proof that they imply they did a soft trace, or are they playing games and talking about the DVLA KADOE look-up?  That service at early PCN stage does NOT check addresses of data subjects (only vehicles).

Running with an old unchecked DVLA address at court claim stage does not comply in any shape or form with the BPA CoP.  Splitting near-duplicate parking charges up into separate claims just because the PCN dates differ, is clearly not lawful so what is Scott Wilson playing at, or are the call centre staff just not legally trained?  This is wholly unreasonable conduct from start to finish.

Tell them you will now apply to set aside the two near-duplicate CCJs and they will be liable for over £700 in costs at the first hearing.

Copy from the thread by @Zbubuman

RedOrchid

Hi @Coupon-mad

I have drafted this: 

Dear Sirs, 

It is clear that my previous communication has not been read properly as my current address has already been shared with you, for the avoidance of doubt, I am re-sharing it again, [ADDRESS]. 

You mentioned that you have conducted an address check before sending the PCN and all correspondence to my last known address, would you be willing to provide proof that you have done a soft trace on my address before applying for both CCJs or have you simply ran a check via the DVLA KADOE look up service? I must say that service at early PCN stage does not check addresses of data subjects (only vehicles) and I remind you that failing to produce evidence that shows the claimant has taken reasonable steps to locate me prior to applying for a CCJ is a clear breach of BPA CoP. 

Splitting near-duplicate parking charges up into separate claims just because the PCN dates differ is wholly unreasonable conduct. 

I will be applying to set both CCJs aside CEL will be liable for over £700 in costs at the first hearing. 

Yours sincerely,

[NAME]


Could you point me towards what I should be looking at within @Zbubuman's posts? 

Coupon-mad

His CCJ thread.

Copy and adapt his WS and Draft Order

RedOrchid

Oh okay, so I'll send them the email and move onto the next steps of preparing the set aside claim, gotcha! 

RedOrchid

Ok so yea, CEL is not playing our game, they have replied to my latest email (above) with the following: 

"Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Thank you for providing your address.

 

We have sent all the documents to the address which was provided by the DVLA.

 

Please note that the last 3 or 4 digits of the PCN might be similar as that is our site code.

 

Yours Sincerely," 

So I have started to draft the WS and Draft Order, will try and get it done before the end of the week as I'm currently preparing for a presentation I'm giving in Amsterdam next week to over 3,000 people and it has to be perfect!

BikingBud

RedOrchid said:

Ok so yea, CEL is not playing our game, they have replied to my latest email (above) with the following: 

"Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Thank you for providing your address.

 

We have sent all the documents to the address which was provided by the DVLA.

 

Please note that the last 3 or 4 digits of the PCN might be similar as that is our site code.

 

Yours Sincerely," 

So I have started to draft the WS and Draft Order, will try and get it done before the end of the week as I'm currently preparing for a presentation I'm giving in Amsterdam next week to over 3,000 people and it has to be perfect!

Did you prompt that response or are they watching?????

I would fully expect them to be, but it really does make you wonder why they continue to demonstrate such low effective intelligence and moral standards when they can quite clearly see their faults and issues laid out before them.

RedOrchid

I did not prompt that response you highlighted, whether they have just decided that it would be a good time to clarify that now or they are indeed watching this thread, who knows... 

If they are though, I would've thought they would know better and as you mention, realize their shortcomings. 

Coupon-mad

They already know and appear not to give a damn about ruining good people's credit.

RedOrchid

67. “Moreover, I do not consider that the CPR presents an obstacle in the circumstances of this case to setting aside judgment. CPR 13.2 provides that the court must set aside a default judgment where any of the conditions in rule 12.3(1) and 12.3(3) was not satisfied. The latter provision does not apply, but the former is relevant. CPR 12.3(1) states that a claimant may obtain judgment in default of an acknowledgement of service only if (a) the defendant has not filed an acknowledgement of service or a defence and (b) the relevant time for doing so has expired (my italics). I accept Mr McLaren's argument that when an order for retrospective validation of an alternative method of service has been made pursuant to CPR 6.15(2) the relevant time for filing an acknowledgement of service is the period which the court must specify under CPR 6.15(4)(c). Where, as in this case, the court did not specify any such time there can be no relevant time which has expired for the purposes of CPR 12.3(1). If this analysis is correct the requirements of CPR 12.3(1)(b) have not been satisfied and so the court is obliged to set aside the default judgment pursuant to CPR 13.2(a). 

 

68. I do not see it as a draconian consequence that a judgment, obtained after deemed service has been effected without specifying a time for that service to be acknowledged, should be set aside as of right in such a case. I agree that CPR 13.2 specifies the circumstances in which a default judgment must be set aside and in my judgment one of those circumstances is when judgment is entered in default of an acknowledgement of service when "any of the conditions in rule 12.3(1) …was not satisfied". Here one such condition was not satisfied, namely the time for acknowledgement of service had not expired, because none had ever become applicable. 

 

69. This, to my mind, is not "playing technical games" (c.f. the passage from the Abela case, cited at paragraph 11 in the judgment of Longmore LJ). It is merely applying the principle that due process should be followed. If a defendant has never become under a valid obligation to acknowledge service, either as specified under the rules or by order of the court, I do not see how it can be that a judgment can be entered against him in default of such acknowledgement. He is simply not in default at all.” 

 

CLAIMS SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT 

 

70. In the alternative: the claims x 2 should be struck out regardless of the above other abusive conduct, because the POC fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5.

 

71. The Claimants inexplicably doubled the costs and court time wasted, by filing two separate claims (for parking charges with exact same facts). I have only just, in June 2024, seen the two generic (near duplicate) POC, which are reproduced below:

 

 

CLAIM FOR MONEY RELATING TO A PARKING CHARGE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT TERMS/CONDITIONS(TCS) FOR PARKING IN PRIVATE CAR PARK (CP) MANAGED BY CLAIMANT. DRIVERS MAY ONLY PARK PURSUANT  TO TCS OF USE DISPLAYED IN CP AND AGREED UPONENTRY/PARKING. ANPR CAMERAS OR MANUAL PATROLSMONITOR VEHICLES ENTERING/EXITING THE CP AND TC BREACHES.

 

 CHARGES OF GBP182.00 CLAIMED.   VIOLATION DATE: 15/05/2021                   PAYMENT DUE DATE: 13/06/2021                 TIME IN: 10:56 TIME OUT: 12:08               PCN: REF8189729521                           VEHICLE REG MARK: REG NUMBER CAR PARK:-         LEAGRAVE                                                                                  TOTAL DUE- GBP182.00                         (PAY:WWW.CE-SERVICE.CO.UK OR 01158225020)    THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE SUM OF GBP219.06     FOR THE UNPAID PARKING CHARGE INC GBP37.06   INTEREST UNDER S.69 OF THE CCA 1984          RATE: 8.00% PA FROM DUE DATE TO- 30/11/23    SAME RATE TO JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT      AT DAILY RATE OF- GBP0.04                    TOTAL DEBT AND INTEREST DUE- GBP219.06   

CLAIM FOR MONEY RELATING TO A PARKING CHARGE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT TERMS/CONDITIONS(TCS) FOR PARKING IN PRIVATE CAR PARK (CP) MANAGED BY CLAIMANT. DRIVERS MAY ONLY PARK PURSUANT  TO TCS OF USE DISPLAYED IN CP AND AGREED UPONENTRY/PARKING. ANPR CAMERAS OR MANUAL PATROLSMONITOR VEHICLES ENTERING/EXITING THE CP AND TC BREACHES. CHARGES OF GBP182.00 CLAIMED. VIOLATION DATE: 20/10/2020                   PAYMENT DUE DATE: 18/11/2020                 TIME IN: 16:21 TIME OUT: 16:44               PCN: REF5556128521                           VEHICLE REG MARK: REG NUMBER CAR PARK:-         LEAGRAVE                                                                                  TOTAL DUE- GBP182.00                         (PAY:WWW.CE-SERVICE.CO.UK OR 01158225020)    THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE SUM OF GBP227.32     FOR THE UNPAID PARKING CHARGE INC GBP45.32   INTEREST UNDER S.69 OF THE CCA 1984          RATE: 8.00% PA FROM DUE DATE TO- 30/11/23    SAME RATE TO JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT      AT DAILY RATE OF- GBP0.04                    TOTAL DEBT AND INTEREST DUE- GBP227.32             

 

73. In view of those woeful POC I am confident in relying upon a recent persuasive Appeal judgment as authority to support striking out the claims x 2 (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims). Dismissing these two meritless claims is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.

 

74. Bulk litigators (legal firms like the notorious Civil Enforcement Limited with their well-documented connections to the IPC Trade Body) 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 authority:

 

75. In Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) heard on 15th August 2023 and which was also about a N244 'parking CCJ' set aside application (wrong refused at the first hearing), HHJ Murch, sitting at Luton County Court, 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'.

 

76. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment and dozens of similar decisions both at hearings and at allocation stage (SEE EXHIBIT XX-06 - Chan and other Judgments - WHAT IS THIS EXHIBIT?) the Court should strike out the two claims, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

 

78. This claim should also be struck out for failing to strictly adhere to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984, in that Civil Enforcement Limited have applied the wrong interest rate. For the first claim, Civil Enforcement Limited are claiming interest for 900 days from 13/06/2021 to 30/11/2023. They are claiming that the amount they are calculating interest on is £182 (For which the particulars of claim offer no explanation on how that figure is reached considering the PCN was for £100). Interest can only be calculated at a flat rate (Interest cannot be compounded) of 8%. A simple calculation of interest on £182 at 8%/annum is £14.56/annum. 900 days is 2 years 9 months and 17 days (2.4632 years).  So, the interest accrued on £182 at a flat rate of 8% per year for 2.4632 years is £35.86. Whilst it may not be a big difference, it must be highlighted that the figure in the PoC is simply not true even though it has been signed with a statement of truth which is a clear abuse of process and lack of integrity by the claimant.

 

The second claim is also flawed. The calculation is 3 years and 12 days = 3.0329 years at 8%/year, so the interest accrued on £182 at a flat rate of 8% per year for 3.0329 years is £44.22. Again, that is at variance with the amount stated on the second claim in the PoC. Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs (including this one) there is clearly an abuse by parking claimants who were said by the CJC to be the main perpetrators. The added fake (unincurred and disproportionate) £82 fee and inflated interest both appear to be for the profit of Civil Enforcement Limited and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged PCN.  I hope the court formally warns or sanctions Civil Enforcement Limited as the court sees fit.  I see this as 'vexatious litigation' and there has been a totally unreasonable course of litigation conduct from start to finish.  I contend that I must succeed in getting all my costs awarded, including the court fees (£606 for two applications) and for travel to and attendance at the application hearing(s).

 

SET ASIDE APPLICATION WAS MADE PROMPTLY

 

79. I have responded to this matter as promptly as possible. I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the 10th of June 2024. On the same day (10th June 2024) I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgement. On the 11th of June 2024 I wrote to Civil Enforcement Limited offering to jointly apply to set aside the judgment. Despite allowing them a reasonable amount of time to right the wrong done to me, their responses did not offer an answer to my offer so on 25th June 2024, I have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgement and fairly present my case (See Exhibit XX-07 - WOULD THIS BE THE EMAIL I SENT TO CEL?) 

 

80. Considering all of the above, I was unable to defend myself against this claim. I believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside, the claim struck out, and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £303 from the claimant should this request be successful. 

 

Statement of truth: 

 

81. 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:  MY NAME

 

CLAIM No: CCJ NUMBER

BETWEEN:

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)

-- and --

MY NAME (Defendant)

______________________________________________

DRAFT ORDER

______________________________________________

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

 

 

UPON considering the application of the Defendant to set aside the Judgment by default entered on [date];

 

AND UPON reading the evidence in support of the application;

 

AND UPON the court taking note that the Claimant was not entitled to default judgment, having failed to serve on Defendant's usual residential address;

 

AND UPON more than 4 months having passed (CPR 7.5 refers) from issue of proceedings 

 

IT IS ORDERED:

 

1.      The Judgment by default entered against the Defendant on [date] is hereby set aside.

 

2.      The claim be struck out as more than 4 months has passed from issue of proceedings.

 

3.      Costs of the application be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant in the sum of £606.