CCJ - Issued to an old PO box

subzero1988

WITNESS STATEMENT 

I am XXXXX of XXXXXXXX and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts stated below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

I make this Witness Statement in support of the application for an order that the judgment in this case to:

1.     Be set aside the default judgment dated XX/July/2024  as it was defectively served using an old associated PO box address, for which the defendant hasn’t never resided at.

2.     Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.

3.     Order for the original claim to be dismissed

 

1.     SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

1.2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant on XX/July/2024. I am aware that the Claimant is XXXX, and that the assumed claim is in respect of unpaid Parking Charge Notice from XX/XX/XXXX. I understand that this Claim was served to a PO box address that has not been accessed by myself since (2023), the exact date cannot be found as the account is not accessible anymore. The account was registered to my work email address, working for (XXXX), to which I terminated my contract with the company in October 2023, and therefore no longer have access to this email account.  The PO box was solely being used to receive bank statements and other important post whilst I was working in different locations in the UK during the weekdays during the year 2023.

1.2.1 I have been living at my permanent address (XXXX) since January 2019, to which the vehicle has been registered to with the DVLA since it was purchased on (XX/XX/XXX). Confirmation of this has been in the form of current driving licence, V5C form, insurance forms, bank statements, mortgage statement and pay slips. See Exhibit XX.

1.3. Since the claim form was not served at the correct address, I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until 02/06/2024.

1.3.1 I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my name on the 02/06/2024 following a notification on a mobile phone application linked to the Defendants TransUnion credit report.

1.3.2 The information provided on the credit report was the court that had issued the claim, Civil National Business Centre, the Case ID, the address the claim was registered against (XXXX), and the filing date (XXXX). This was the first time that I had become aware of where the Claimant had been sending their correspondence too.

1.3.3 After the notification was discovered, I called the Civil National Business Centre as this was the information provided on the TransUnion credit report, to which I provided my details, and they were able to provide me with more information about the claim.

1.3.4 The details that the court provided me was the first time that I had been provided any information on this alleged claim. They provided who the Claimant was (XXXX), the vehicle registration (XXXX), the location the vehicle was parked when the PCN was issued (XXXX), the date of issue (XXX), and the name of the claimant’s solicitors, DCB Legal.

1.3.4 To this date, the defendant has no more information, other than what the Civil National Business Centre court has provided. I would like to bring to the court’s attention that the defendant isn’t a lawyer or solicitor and any research or work completed is done to the best of the defendant’s ability.

1.3.8 On 03/06/2024 the defendant started to fill out the N244 form and started to write up his Witness statement.

1.4. Above entails, as per CPR 6.9 (4), that proceedings were not validly served because claimant was incorrect in assuming that this was Defendant’s last known address and did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the Defendant’s current address. This leads to no service, they were not entitled to judgment and the court must set aside the claim.

1.5 The Defendant submits that by the virtue of the Claimant sending the letters to an old PO box address, he was not afforded any method by which to appeal, nor any information about complaints procedures to the landowner. This omission prevented the Defendant from being able to get this charge cancelled by the landowner or renting agency. If the Defendant could have appealed to POPLA or had been informed that the renting agent/landowner could deal with such complaints and cancel charges, he would have done so.

1.6. On the basis provided above the Defendant would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim.

1.7. Considering all of the above the Defendant was unable to defend this claim properly. Defendant believes that the Default Judgement against him was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside.

subzero1988

Am I right in saying here that there's no way I can submit a defence as I have not been provided any information from the claimant to form a defence at this stage?

LDast

subzero1988 said:

WITNESS STATEMENT 

I am XXXXX of XXXXXXXX and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts stated below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge. The Defendant denies I deny that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

I make this Witness Statement in support of the application for an order that the judgment in this case to be:

1.     Be set Set aside the default judgment dated XX/July/2024  27th June 2024 as it was defectively served using an old associated PO box address, for at which the defendant hasn’t never resided at.

2.     Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £255 £303 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.

3.     Order for the original claim to be dismissed

 

1.     SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence parking event.

1.2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant on XX/July/2024 27th June 2024. I am aware that the Claimant is XXXX UK Parking Control (UKPC), and that the assumed claim is in respect of unpaid Parking Charge Notice from XX/XX/XXXX. I understand that this Claim was served to a PO box address that has not been accessed by myself since (2023), the exact date cannot be found as the account is not accessible anymore. The account was registered to my work email address, working for (XXXX), to which I terminated my contract with the company in October 2023, and therefore no longer have access to this email account.  The PO box was solely being used to receive bank statements and other important post whilst I was working in different locations in around the UK during the weekdays during the year 2023.

I have highlighted just a few of numerous grammatical errors. I really can't be bothered going through the all. It is your job to make sure you proof read everything and use correct grammar that at least makes the statement readable and understandable.

I hope that others with more patience and will help you with it.

Also, the paragraph numbering is infuriating. Every paragraph should simply be numbered sequentially with an integer.

Have you been in touch with the CNBC to get them to email you the contents of the PoC?

subzero1988

I appreciate your patience, I don't expect anyone to sort out grammar. 

Thanks for helping me with the wording, I took one from a previous recommended post on a similar matter and tried my best to accommodate to what I require.

I have only been in touch via phone call, to which she gave me the details over the phone.

I'll call tomorrow to get it sent via email 

Coupon-mad

You've read and copied a REALLY OLD example, if you thought the fee is £255.  It's gone up twice since then, years ago!

change this:

"using an old associated PO box address, for which the defendant hasn’t never resided at."

to this:

using an old associated PO box address, where the defendant has never resided.

Read the newer CCJ set aside cases on the forum, e.g.:

- the one by @Zbubuman which is up to date and cites great case law against defectively served claims.

- the completed case by @hallie28 whose CCJ was wiped and the PCN is now dead.

subzero1988

Apologies, a bit careless of me.

Thanks again for everyone's input, I'll go back to the recommendations and put something else together.

Will make sure it's up to scratch this time !

subzero1988

Case number  

xxxxxxxxxxx  

WITNESS STATEMENT  

I, XXX, of XXX , will say as follows:  

 

1. I am the Defendant in this matter and I make this witness statement in support of my application to set aside the County Court Judgment (CCJ) entered against me on 27/06/2024, in default due to a defective service of Claim.  

2. I was not aware of the claim made against me until I had received a notification from a credit score phone application 02/07/2024. This is when I found out the Claimant had obtained a default CCJ against me.  

3. The Claimant served the claim to using an old associated PO box address, to which I had never resided, and to which is not a residential address. This is a breach of CPR 13.2 (a) as the claim form was never served to my current address.  

4. The Claimant had a duty to take reasonable steps to check for the correct address, in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice 22.1 and CPR 6.9.

5. I have not received any claim form or detailed particulars of the claim regarding this matter until I became aware as per paragraph 2 above.  

6. I believe that I have a strong defence to the claim, and should it not be dismissed despite the wealth of case law below that supports the claim being dismissed at the set aside hearing, I should (at the very least) have the opportunity to defend it properly.  My application relies upon the 'mandatory set aside' rule in CPR 13.2 (in the alternative, 13.3). 

7. I have set out the grounds for my application in the attached draft order.  

 

THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE THE CLAIM  

8. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on 27/06/2024. I am aware that the Claimant is UK Car Park Management Limited and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice.  

9. CPR 6.9 stipulates that an "Individual" should be served at their "Usual or last known residence."  As I have not had any correspondence in relation to this matter, other than a phone call that I made to Northampton County Court Business Centre on 03/07/2024, I am now aware that the PCN was issued on 06/01/2024. Nonetheless, it is clear that the Claimant, did not issue the claim to my address that I am registered at with the DVLA, as I have been registered with the DVLA at the current address I have resided at since 29/01/2019. They did not perform the requisite "reasonable diligence" required to find my correct address to serve the claim form in. Had reasonable diligence been taken, my personal details are found in multiple public sources, such as the electoral register, DVLA, HMRC. The claimant did not have any contact with the defendant, and thus should have considered they had obtained incorrect details. 

10. The claim form was not served at my current address; thus, I was not aware of the Default Judgment until I received notice of an alert on my credit score phone application on 3rd July 2024. This is a breach of CPR 13.2 (a) as the claim form was never served to my current address. Due to this, the judgement was wrongly entered as I was unable to submit an acknowledgement of service in the absence of notification of the case (CPR 13.3). 

11. The address on the claim is ADDRESS A. I have never resided at this address, as it is a registered PO box, which is run by UKPostbox Ltd. The PO box has not been used since mid-2023, it was solely being used to receive bank statements whilst I was working in different locations around the UK during the year of 2023. The PO box account was registered to a work email address, to which I have no access too since I terminated my contract with the company in October 2023, the PO box was then not required and thus inaccessible. I In support of this, I can provide documentation showing my current address on my V5C form, council tax and utility bills. (SEE EXHIBIT XX-01) 

12. The fact that the address the Claimant issued the claim form to was clearly not a residential address, as the address on the claim form start with “UNIT 3”, this should have been evident enough without having to any research into the address itself that was not a residential address. The address the claim was issued to was registered under a company name called “UKPOSTBOX”, this in itself should have been a clear indicator that it was not a residential address.  

13. I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address at which was clearly not a residential address. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ensure the claim was issued to a residential address, let alone my current residence, despite having months to establish a valid residential address. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to a disused PO box address and an irregular judgment.  

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

THE INTERNATIONAL PARKING COMMUNITY CODE WAS NOT FOLLOWED  

15. International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice which requires a soft trace to be undertaken was not followed. The IPC Code of Practice 2019 - Version 7, November 2019, clause 22.1 states;  

16. Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the motorist’s details are still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court proceedings”  

DVLA ADDRESS WOULD HAVE BEEN RELIABLE  

17. DVLA data is provided for a single (very limited) reason, so a parking operator can invite the registered keeper to name the driver or pay the invoice or inform the registered keeper they will be liable if not and notify of appeal rights.  

18. The system, called 'KADOE' (Keeper On Date of Event), is a brief 'snapshot in time' address to enable a parking firm to send a Notice to the registered keeper. As every car that I have owned since I purchased my current property, where I reside, on 29/01/2024, has only been registered to my current address at (XXXX), if the Claimant had issued the claim to my address using the DVLA, then they would have issued it to my current address, and I would have received the correspondence regarding this claim.

19. A claim was not sent to the DVLA registered keeper address which fails to satisfy the specific 'pre-action Protocol for debt claims', and is in breach of the CPRs about the obligation to take 'reasonable steps' to check a Defendant's address so that service is effective.  

20. 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 £303 from the claimant should this request be successful.  

21. There is a wealth of case law making reference to the failures of parking companies to correctly ascertain the addresses of defendants. Of note:  

22. In Collier v Williams [2006] 1 WLR 1945 (CA) LJ Dyson said  
  
23. "What state of mind in the server is connoted by the words "last known"? … As we have said, there is an important distinction between belief and knowledge. It is a distinction particularly well understood in the criminal law, but elsewhere too. The draftsman of the rules deliberately chose the word "known". In our view, knowledge in this context refers to the serving party's actual knowledge or what might be called his constructive knowledge, i.e. knowledge which he could have acquired exercising reasonable diligence. We arrive at this conclusion on the basis of what we understand the words to mean. We do not believe that there are any policy reasons which require us to give the words a strained or unusual meaning. The risk of satellite litigation is inherent in whatever interpretation is adopted. It is true that a defendant who has not in fact received the claim form should have no difficulty in setting aside a default judgment. But it is not desirable that defendants should be put to the trouble and expense of making applications to set aside default judgments."  
  
24. The same sentiment was echoed by:  
  
25. HHJ Hacon in MB Garden Buildings Ltd v Mark Burton Construction Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 431 (IPEC) (28 February 2014)  
  
26. HHJ Behrens in Broadside Colours And Chemicals Ltd, Re (No 2) [2012] EWHC 195 (Ch) (20 February 2012)  
  
27. In Broadside Colours And Chemicals Ltd, Re (No 2) [2012] EWHC 195 (Ch) (20 February 2012) it would appear that obtaining the information from a source that an individual is required by law to keep updated is adequate knowledge. However, i would submit that it is incumbent to have recent knowledge and not outdated knowledge as HHJ Hacon put it in MB Garden Buildings Ltd v Mark Burton Construction Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 431 (IPEC) (28 February 2014)   

28. As it was put in Dubai Financial Group Llc v National Private Air Transport Services Company (National Air Services) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 71 (09 February 2016) by LJ McCombe  29. “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 acknowledgment. He is simply not in default at all."   

CLAIM SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT  

30. The claims 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.

31. The Claimants inexplicably doubled the costs and court time wasted. I have only just, in July 2024, seen the generic POC, which are reproduced below:

32. THE DEFENDANT (D) IS INDEBTED TO THE CLAIMANT (C) FOR A PARKING CHARGE(S) ISSUED TO VEHICLE (XXXX) AT (XXXX). 2. THE PCN(S) WERE ISSUED ON 06/01/2024 3. THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE FOR BREACH OF THE TERMS ON THE SIGNS (THE CONTRACT). REASON:REGISTERED USERSONLY 4. IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE KEEPER PURSUANT TO POFA 2012, SCHEDULE 4. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £170 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 £.02 UNTIL JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT. 3. COSTS AND COURT FEES

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


34. Bulk litigators 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:

35. 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'.

36. 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 the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

SET ASIDE APPLICATION WAS MADE PROMPTLY

37. I have responded to this matter as promptly as possible. I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the 3rd July 2024. On the following day (4th July 2024) I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgement.

 38. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim.

Statement of truth:  

39. 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:    

subzero1988

OK I've completely restarted and I hope this is a lot better now.

The only thing im wary of, and I was thinking about, is that if they did send a couple of letters to my current address obtained via the DVLA (I have old PCN's that I see and bin right away, it could be a possibility that they have sent to my current address, but of course, definitely not the claim as thats registered to the PO box), then I dont want to stick myself in it by saying they did not obtain my address via the DVLA.

My main focus is around the fact that even if they did have my current address via the DVLA, they still issued the claim form to a PO box that was clearly not a residential address. The PO address starts with "UNIT 13".

I'd be grateful for anyone's input

1505grandad

"4. The Claimant had a duty to take reasonable steps to check for the correct address, in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice 22.1 and CPR 6.9."  -  and other references to IPC is not correct  -  claimant (UKPC) is BPA AoS member.

So why is  UK Car Park Management Limited stated in para 8.

Coupon-mad

UKPC aren't in the IPC AOS so you need to change that bit to talk about the BPA's equivalent clause (20-something...).

At least one of the 5 examples given in the CCJ section of the NEWBIES thread is probably one about a BPA member and it might already show a WS citing that clause, so you can copy the wording about the BPA CoP. 

But wait a sec, your opening post tells us it's UKPC (a BPA member which is why I said the above) but when reading your WS, you now say it's a claim from UK Car Park Management Limited.

A completely different firm who are in the IPC.

Which one is it?