CCJ set aside granted — case now at hearing stage (PCM & Gladstones Solicitors)

Lia_F

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81952657#Comment_81952657

@Coupon-mad

I’ve done it — I’ve added the four case authorities. Skelly link

Would it be okay to change the introduction as I show below?

Introduction

1.1 This is the Defendant's skeleton argument for the final hearing listed on 10 April 2026.

1.2 Material relied upon:

Filed Defence

Defendant's Witness Statement and Exhibits (LF1–LF7)

Witness Statement of Mr xxxx (husband/driver)

Exhibits filed with N244 application (insofar as relevant)

Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (E7GM9W44) and CPMS v Akande (K0DP5J30)

ParkingEye v Beavis UKSC 67 (paras 98, 100, 193, 198)

ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores EWHC 4023 (QB) (paras 419–428)

VCS v Edwards (no keeper liability where driver identified)

1.3 The Defendant respectfully notes that: (i) the Claimant's bundle includes a Letter Before Claim which the Defendant did not receive at the address shown (the default judgment having been set aside); and (ii) the Defendant does not agree that Mr xxxx's Witness Statement should be excluded from consideration as relevant evidence.

1.4 The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to dismiss the claim. In the alternative, if the Court were against the Defendant on liability, the Defendant submits that the additional £70 and the pleaded statutory interest should be disallowed or substantially reduced.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's OK.

Small changes:

It's VCS v Edward (no 's') but not sure why you are using it as PCM probably complied with Schedule 4 of POFA. You can be held liable unless you provided the name & address of the driver before the Claim date (in which case they can't pursue you). I don't think Edward helps.

You could instead grab the transcript of PCM v Bull and put in the skelly that PCM signs are prohibitive and offer no contract, per PCM v Bull (search the forum).

You are also relying on HHJ Moloney in Beavis which you haven't mentioned above at the top but it's vital at para 3.4 because it says the £85 PCN already covered the 'costs of enforcement'. Judges may never have looked at that stage of Beavis and most judges think it didn't deal with costs.

It damn well did! It is crystal clear.

The skelly is far too long though and has strayed into a submission (another WS) so remove ALL this and use it instead as your crib sheet to read from on the day:

"4. Signage, prominence, and notice of terms

4.1 The Defendant’s case is that the area was not clearly marked as private land at the material time, there were no clear entrance signs, and the signage was insufficient to bring any parking charge or restriction fairly to the driver’s attention. The Defence pleaded that there was no visible signage indicating private status and no clear entrance signs, whereas the Claimant’s witness statement asserts the opposite.

4.1A The Defendant also notes that 26 December 2019 was Boxing Day, a bank holiday in England and Wales. This is relied upon only as background context to the circumstances of the brief stop during a family visit over the Christmas period.

4.1B The Defendant also notes that Chobham Manor was, at that time, still an ongoing phased development rather than a long-established finished neighbourhood. This is relied upon as part of the factual context supporting the Defendant’s case that the location did not appear clearly demarcated as private land with sufficiently clear and prominent parking terms.

4.2 The sign relied upon by the Claimant is heavily text-based and contains multiple conditions in relatively small print, including permit-display requirements, loading-bay conditions, marked-bay rules, references to additional charges, and further payment wording. The Defendant submits that, in the circumstances of a brief stop, such wording was not sufficiently prominent to bring a £100 parking charge fairly to the driver’s attention.

4.3 Even if the signage is framed as a conditional contractual notice rather than a purely prohibitive sign, the Claimant must still prove that the sign was visible from the place where the vehicle stopped, that there were clear entrance signs, and that the driver had a fair opportunity to read and understand the terms before any alleged contract could arise. The Defendant says that burden has not been satisfied on the evidence.

4.4 The Defendant also relies on photographs showing that signage at the location is now clearer than it was at the material time, including the presence of a newer entrance sign marking the area as private property. The Defendant says this supports the case that the area was not adequately marked on 26 December 2019.

4.5 The Claimant’s own evidence shows that a permit was displayed in the vehicle. The Defendant says this supports a genuine mistake made in good faith in an area that appeared to be an ordinary street or council-controlled location rather than clearly demarcated private land.

5. No proper proof of parking duration

5.1 The Claimant’s witness statement says the site was warden-controlled rather than ANPR and expressly says that the operative could not confirm the time the vehicle entered and exited the site. The Claimant therefore has no actual evidence of the parking duration. This is consistent with the Defendant’s case that the stop was brief, while the driver went to buy a coffee.

6. Driver identity / alleged admission

6.1 The Claimant says the Defendant admitted in the appeal that the Defendant was the driver. However, the exhibited appeal email does not contain any clear statement saying “I was the driver.” The Defendant’s case is that the appeal was an informal challenge sent by the Defendant as registered keeper and that any wording in it should not be treated as a formal legal admission of driving."

Lia_F

@Coupon-mad regarding your comment
"You could instead grab the transcript of PCM v Bull and put in the skelly that PCM signs are prohibitive and offer no contract, per PCM v Bull (search the forum)."
This was their sign in my case. Does it apply to me because "enforcement"?

Coupon-mad

Hmmm … no, forget that idea!

Lia_F

Dear @Coupon-mad,
I wanted to share an update on my case and a lesson I learned.During the hearing, I made a mistake under pressure. Although I had stated in my written defence that my husband was the driver, I got confused when the judge asked me about it in person. I mistakenly thought he was referring to the fact that my husband’s Witness Statement (WS) had arrived late. He told me I did not say my husband was the driver in advance.The judge warned me that he could impose a penalty, which was quite intimidating, but he also cautioned the other side about the risks of losing. The judge suggested that the parties attempt to negotiate. In the end, I agreed to a settlement of £212, with a specific clause in the order stating they cannot pursue this matter again. It is worth noting that Gladstones previously paid me £303 in costs for the CCJ set-aside. I am sharing this so you can use my experience to advise others who might face similar pressure in court. Thank you so much for all your help and support throughout this process. I would really appreciate your thoughts to help me understand this better.

Coupon-mad

Not really sure I understand it!

Why did the judge get annoyed with you and warn you about a penalty… for what? Did the judge not believe you weren't driving?

Lia_F

@Coupon-mad
He said that because my husband is not recorded as the driver on the file, this could result in a penalty. I believe the judge did not read my file.

Coupon-mad

It could not result in a court 'penalty' because you weren't lying. Only he called it a 'penalty' when I think he meant 'parking charge' - i.e. he was musing that the PPC didn't know who the driver was at appeal stage, so they were - on the face if it - within their rights to pursue you, as keeper.

Which is true, if they used the POFA.

But not a reason for you to settle.

And agreeing to pay £212 (in a settlement conversation outside) had no value to you at all because the NEWBIES thread already tells you that £212 is what the judge would have ordered if you had lost at the hearing.

You should not have agreed to pay £212 to avoid a tiny likelihood of... paying £212!

Lia_F

@Coupon-mad I believe the judge may think that I only raised the fact that my husband was the driver at a late stage, despite this being clearly stated in my defence and witness statement. It appeared that my file had not been fully read, and the judge insisted that we should settle.

Can I do something if the judge did not read my file?

Can I request the trancript to check exactly what the judge said?

Can I request draft order review before sealing?

Coupon-mad

Can I do something if the judge did not read my file?

No, sadly not now. Judges fairly often haven't had time between hearings to thoroughly read everything so they place more weight in listening to both parties.

Can I request the trancript to check exactly what the judge said?

Yes but they cost over £100. Not worth it. Also, the judge didn't make a judgment. You didn't have to agree to settle. No need to pay £212. Could have gone back in and let the judge decide (which wouldn't have exceeded £212 and you may well have won) so £212 wasn't worth you even considering. That had zero value to you. I would have said "no".

Can I request draft order review before sealing?

No, you agreed to settle it. You cannot renege on that, or change your mind now. You must pay the £212 you agreed to pay.