Help with Writing a defence - Met Parking Virgin Chiswick

ashkal

I've been involved with this issue for the last six months. Initially, I was issued a default judgment for these PCNs. Last week, I had a hearing to set aside the judgment due to an incomplete address on the court documents. The judge ruled that, conditioned on producing a defense, the default judgment would be wiped off my record and ordered the Claimant to pay my court fee within 14 days.

I have a few questions:

1. I have not received a letter from the court after the hearing to understand the exact judgment. Should I expect to receive a letter, or will the court judgment letter be sent after I file a defense?

2. Should I file the defense with my local court where I had the hearing, or should I address it to the Civil National Business Centre? 

3. I am considering a counterclaim and asking for damages for the financial difficulties and stress I have experienced due to the default judgment. The Claimant's refusal to accept setting the judgment aside and their incompetence regarding the incomplete address on court documents have wasted everyone's time. However, my most urgent priority is to file a defense.

4. I also don't have the claim pack due to not receiving it, but I did find the default judgment among leaflets in my building. I am unsure if it is even viable to write a defense, but this is what the judge advised. At the time, I was too nervous to mention this.

The PCNs are from a few years ago for the Virgin Parking Gym, where I was a member at the time. The only documents I have are the PCNs emailed to me during my recent correspondence with the Claimant's representatives (CST Law). I asked them to provide photographic evidence before the hearing, but they have not produced anything. Their website, which is supposed to have the photographic evidence, gives an error. 

Is it worth making a simple defense stating that I was a member of this gym, and based on their PCNs, I cannot tell anything other than that my car was parked in their parking lot? They have not provided additional information to prove their case.

Any help will be very much appreciated. I have read the newbie section and the defense, but I am getting confused, and I thought a dedicated thread might be more appropriate for me.
[Image removed by Forum Team]

ashkal

Just to add more details here is the timeline of the event before the hearing. I believe that the fact that CST law insisted on obtaining the incomplete address from DVLA and then going radio silence after receiving my reply might be of importance.

Timeline of Events from January 31st, 2024

January 31, 2024:

• Discovered the default judgment on your credit report.
• Investigated and found the judgment letter had an incomplete address.

February 1, 2024:

• Sent a formal request to CST Law to set aside the judgment due to the addressing error.
• Provided evidence of the correct address and previous correct correspondence.

February 16, 2024:

• Submitted the N244 application form to set aside the judgment after giving CST Law 7 days to respond and not receiving a satisfactory reply.

February 28, 2024:

• CST Law responded, refusing to set aside the judgment and insisting on the regularity of the address obtained from the DVLA.

March 7, 2024:

• Repeated your request to CST Law to clarify their claim about the DVLA-supplied address.

July 2, 2024:

• CST Law sent an email consenting to set aside the judgment under a Tomlin Order, acknowledging the incomplete address issue.
• Requested a response by July 3, 2024.

July 3, 2024:

• Replied to CST Law, expressing willingness to resolve but highlighting concerns about the short notice, the address discrepancy, and the need for photographic or video evidence.
• Proposed attending the hearing to set aside the judgment and discuss the PCNs thereafter.

July 5, 2024:

• CST Law sent multiple correspondences:
  • Drafted a consent order, proposing to set aside the judgment and stay the claim for 28 days to negotiate payment.
  • Confirmed their agreement to set aside the judgment but did not agree to bear the application costs.
  • Communicated to the court, expressing consent to set aside the judgment and stating they would not attend the hearing.

July 8, 2024:

• Scheduled hearing at 12:20 PM for your application to set aside the judgment.
• The judge agreed to remove the CCJ on the condition that you present a defense within 14 days. The claimant was ordered to pay the application fee.

Considering how much has passed since the claim, and the fact that I do not have access to the photographic evidence that the claimant might have. Would it be reasonable to ask the court to dismiss the claim entirely? or should I also look at the fact that I was the gym member and allowed to use the parking without admitting to anything in regards to who might have been the driver? 

LDast

How long ago was the set aside hearing? If the judge agreed to set the CCJ aside and awarded you costs, then it is set aside but the judge has allowed the claimant to refile the claim. You should receive a copy of the judgment from court. If it has been more than 10 days since the set-aside and you've not herd anything, you should contact the court and ask them about it and make sure you get a copy of the judgment. It is unacceptable that you should be waiting for so long when there is probably a time limit for filing the required defence and WS.

Looking at those NtKs, were they appealed at the time? The first NtK fails to sate the period of parking that gave rise to the issue of the PCN. It just states "parked for longer than the time permitted" without stating the permitted time. This invalidates the PCN and would also make it non-compliant with PoFA. 

Paragraph 9(2)(a): As no period of parking is provided, the requirement to specify the conditions under which the notice is issued is not met if the NtK inaccurately states the terms (permitted time). The NtK must specify "the period of parking to which the notice relates." It doesn't.

Paragraph 9(2)(b): The NtK must state the circumstances in which the parking charge arises. By incorrectly or failing to quote the permitted time, it fails to properly inform the keeper of the specific breach of contract terms.

As MET are claiming that the PCN was issued subject to them complying with all the requirements of PoFA, they have filed to do so and so the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

Again, with the second and third PCNs, they NtKs have been issued subject to METs full compliance with all the requirements of PoFA. Neither NtK was issued within the specified period as per 9(4)(b). Again, the PCNs have been issued incorrectly.

It's a pity that these were not appealed correctly at the time. However, you now have a chance to defend these and you should do so. For now, you need to find out exactly what the judge ordered and the deadlines for complying with those orders. Get that important information from the court and let us know the details.

Gr1pr

The gym may not be the landowner, so best to check who is, because MET may have been working on behalf of a managing agent or the landowner, which may not be Virgin Active , I certainly don't think that its Virgin, they are likely to be a tenant 

Only the parking company can access the DVLA database, once only for each and every PCN, within the first 6 months, they don't get another go, nobody else in this saga is allowed to access the DVLA database , ONLY MET, only ONCE, for each incident 

So don't assume that people or businesses or lawyers can keep asking for another go, they can't 

Please note that there is no S in the word DEFENCE, please change your device to an English keyboard and spell checker 

Personally, I would do what LDast said above, plus I would adapt the template defence by coupon mad in announcements 

Le_Kirk

Gr1pr said:

Personally, I would do what LDast said above, plus I would adapt the template defence by coupon mad in announcements 

..... and if you don't know against what you are defending because you didn't receive the original N1 claim form: -
a) ask the CNBC or the court when you contact them to e-mail you a copy
b) use the @hharry100 defence citing sparse/unknown particulars

KMBayes

Gr1pr said:

The gym may not be the landowner, so best to check who is, because MET may have been working on behalf of a managing agent or the landowner, which may not be Virgin Active , I certainly don't think that its Virgin, they are likely to be a tenant 

Only the parking company can access the DVLA database, once only for each and every PCN, within the first 6 months, they don't get another go, nobody else in this saga is allowed to access the DVLA database , ONLY MET, only ONCE, for each incident 

So don't assume that people or businesses or lawyers can keep asking for another go, they can't 

Please note that there is no S in the word DEFENCE, please change your device to an English keyboard and spell checker 

Personally, I would do what LDast said above, plus I would adapt the template defence by coupon mad in announcements 

I can't be certain with this site, but Virgin signed a contract with MET parking in 2013 that covers 23 sites (all but one site name was redacted on the copy of the contract that I have). Virgin will be the tenant and not the landowner. You'll no doubt get a copy of this contract once you get hold of the Met Parking witness statement.

Gr1pr

In that case , if this site was on that list then VA must have authority flowing from the landowner in order to do so, plus it would have to be renewed frequently or granted until the end of the CA contract.  Ditto with the VA + Met parking contract too

If its not included and if VA didn't contract with MET on this site, then its important to find the authorities of those who did 

ashkal

Gr1pr said:

The gym may not be the landowner, so best to check who is, because MET may have been working on behalf of a managing agent or the landowner, which may not be Virgin Active , I certainly don't think that its Virgin, they are likely to be a tenant 

Only the parking company can access the DVLA database, once only for each and every PCN, within the first 6 months, they don't get another go, nobody else in this saga is allowed to access the DVLA database , ONLY MET, only ONCE, for each incident 

So don't assume that people or businesses or lawyers can keep asking for another go, they can't 

Please note that there is no S in the word DEFENCE, please change your device to an English keyboard and spell checker 

Personally, I would do what LDast said above, plus I would adapt the template defence by coupon mad in announcements 

In that case, they probably found my new address another way. Or they might have used DVLA somehow but they forgot to add the first line of address and blamed DVLA for it and they explicitly said this in a letter then tried to walk back on it. Thank you for your help! I shall write my defence today.

ashkal

LDast said:

How long ago was the set aside hearing? If the judge agreed to set the CCJ aside and awarded you costs, then it is set aside but the judge has allowed the claimant to refile the claim. You should receive a copy of the judgment from court. If it has been more than 10 days since the set-aside and you've not herd anything, you should contact the court and ask them about it and make sure you get a copy of the judgment. It is unacceptable that you should be waiting for so long when there is probably a time limit for filing the required defence and WS.

Looking at those NtKs, were they appealed at the time? The first NtK fails to sate the period of parking that gave rise to the issue of the PCN. It just states "parked for longer than the time permitted" without stating the permitted time. This invalidates the PCN and would also make it non-compliant with PoFA. 

Paragraph 9(2)(a): As no period of parking is provided, the requirement to specify the conditions under which the notice is issued is not met if the NtK inaccurately states the terms (permitted time). The NtK must specify "the period of parking to which the notice relates." It doesn't.

Paragraph 9(2)(b): The NtK must state the circumstances in which the parking charge arises. By incorrectly or failing to quote the permitted time, it fails to properly inform the keeper of the specific breach of contract terms.

As MET are claiming that the PCN was issued subject to them complying with all the requirements of PoFA, they have filed to do so and so the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

Again, with the second and third PCNs, they NtKs have been issued subject to METs full compliance with all the requirements of PoFA. Neither NtK was issued within the specified period as per 9(4)(b). Again, the PCNs have been issued incorrectly.

It's a pity that these were not appealed correctly at the time. However, you now have a chance to defend these and you should do so. For now, you need to find out exactly what the judge ordered and the deadlines for complying with those orders. Get that important information from the court and let us know the details.

The judge ordered me to write a defense within 14 days, which means the deadline is on Monday. He also ordered the claimant to pay the application fee. I assume the other side doesn't have to file a new claim, but it would be helpful to have the judgment in written format.

Regarding the application fee, I am unsure if I need to contact the claimant directly or if the court will handle it. I plan to visit the court today to hopefully obtain a written judgment and follow up on this matter.

Gr1pr

The CPR rules prior to a court claim require them to do a cheap trace for peanuts to ensure that they have the up to date address, not necessarily the DVLA database address, so that is usually why an address is found, costs about 29p to trace people 

I suggest that you definitely concentrate on drafting your defence ASAP 

ashkal

KMBayes said:

Gr1pr said:

The gym may not be the landowner, so best to check who is, because MET may have been working on behalf of a managing agent or the landowner, which may not be Virgin Active , I certainly don't think that its Virgin, they are likely to be a tenant 

Only the parking company can access the DVLA database, once only for each and every PCN, within the first 6 months, they don't get another go, nobody else in this saga is allowed to access the DVLA database , ONLY MET, only ONCE, for each incident 

So don't assume that people or businesses or lawyers can keep asking for another go, they can't 

Please note that there is no S in the word DEFENCE, please change your device to an English keyboard and spell checker 

Personally, I would do what LDast said above, plus I would adapt the template defence by coupon mad in announcements 

I can't be certain with this site, but Virgin signed a contract with MET parking in 2013 that covers 23 sites (all but one site name was redacted on the copy of the contract that I have). Virgin will be the tenant and not the landowner. You'll no doubt get a copy of this contract once you get hold of the Met Parking witness statement.

Sorry this might be a dumb question, but I don't know how knowing the landowner would help my defence?