PCM Numerous PCNs in Own Bay - kind of

ParkingParrot

Hi all,

back in 2020 I got a letter to my flat from the management company - SDL Bigwood about newly introduced parking restrictions and the requirement to now display a permit. i didnt immediately receive the permit.

The letter advising of these new introduction was titled 'Albert House - Leak Detection Investigation' this was the wrong building name and clearly the wrong subject. 

I wrote to them stating that I had a lease and the car parking space was mine - I did not want to be a part of the new parking scheme and any tickets would be ignored and disposed of. They didn't respond

I then got about 11 tickets in 2 months. 

I should note that this was across 2 cars - parked in my own bay, and my neighbours bay whom I had verbal permission from. Also, one in a visitors bay (this may be legit).

I appealed the tickets with PCM and lost.

I wrote to the management company stating that relevant lines from my lease and that this lease takes precedence etc - to no avail. 

The lease states that the management company may introduce new regulation from time to time with regard to proper management of the development. I said that 'proper management' of the development doesn't include repeatedly ticketing residents and that fixing the vehicle gate (that had been out of use for a year) would be proper management of the property and not require any new regulations.

They responded, saying the tickets were valid and they quoted a clause from my lease - except that clause didn't exist in my lease, nor did their 'quoted' wording.

Things then escalated to hundreds of letters from Trace Recovery debt collection. I communicated with them via email and submitted the above defence again. They said they would put the claim on hold whilst they reviewed my defence and then just carried on sending letters.

I engaged my local MP to no avail.

I then moved house and gave them my new address. More letters and threats. I also reached out to PCMs solicitors, as I had a contact at the same company. I spoke to them, sent them my lease and defence and they said that even though I had a good case (unofficially) their client wanted to proceed. 

A couple years passed with more of the same and I moved again. I didn't want any more letters so I let Trace Recovery and the solicitors know I was moving and to contact me via email going forward. Both had my email address.

Last week, my wife and I discovered we had default CCJs against us and that all correspondence was served to our previous address. Which we left two and a half years ago (I had mail redirection for 6 months after we left).

Speaking to the court, I discovered it was PCM as the claimant - and Moorside as their solicitors. I have never dealt with them before or knew of their involvement. 

I have written to both using a template from this forum to get CCJ set aside as it was served to an incorrect address. I didn't mention the correspondence with Trace or the other solicitors - or that they had my email address.

I did mention in the letter that Moorside confirmed to me (verbally) that a trace on my address was carried out in Feb '21 and never been updated.

I have given them until the end of the week to agree to a joint set aside - and am working on my N244 app to the court with the defence to go alongside it this week.

My defence is going to be centred around the following:
- incorrect address of letter advising of change of parking - whilst this seems like a minor admin error, it is just one example of poor management by SDL Bigwood who's correspondence nearly always was wrong. Whether the maintenance cost annual report was a year late, or including a building that wasn't yet built, or relating to an entirely different property. I think it worth including to demonstrate this.
- i have correspondence of my decision to not be a part of the new scheme. The space was mine and I had the lease to back that up. Also, SDL Bigwood of course didn't respond.
- Lease takes precedence over any contract SDL Bigwood entered into with PCM and makes no mention of requirement to display a permit and some other helpful clauses.
-  The clause 'subject to any regulations which the management company makes from time to time is under Second Sched Part 1' specifically refers to Visitor spaces.
- PCM/Moorside should have known I had moved house because I told Trace Recovery and the other solicitors. I also updated the DVLA, electoral register and a load of other things.
- That the CCJ documentation was incorrectly served making it invalid

Is there anything else I should include?
Is there anything I shouldn't include? 

This has been rumbling on for a few years now and I have found this forum to be extremely useful although I am now in a bit of a bind and rather than applying advice given to others to my own case -  I thought it time to make my own thread. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

h2g2

The set-aside is not about having a defence: it is about demonstrating that you were not properly served. It looks like you had given notice that you changed address, and even supplied a new one. Did the send the court papers to your address at the time (i.e. the one at wherever SDL Bigwood managed)? If that's the case, they had replies to correspondence sent to later address and you had formally informed their principle that you moved, so they had no excuse for believing you still lived there.

Others here know more about the CCJ procedure, though, so I will leave the rest up to them.

IF YOU DO END UP HAVING TO DEFEND THE PCNs:

Does the title deed state you have the parking space?

If so, I would make the primary element of your defence the case that you are the legal "owner or occupier" of your space, by the meanings of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and that PCM are therefore operating without proper authorisation. Put them to strict proof that you are not the legal occupier of the space.

Your secondary defence is "primacy of contract" which is your 3rd & 4th arguments. You should quote Link vs Mrs P (C7GF50J7)

You may be able to create a counter-claim against SDL Bigwood & PCM for harassment (all the letters from Trace) and trespass against goods, by the way.

(I've been dealing with a similar situation here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6499026/pcc-in-leasehold-space-court-claim-started-against-mc-ppc )

ParkingParrot

the lease refers to an allocated parking space defined as "the parking space individually allocated for the exclusive use of the Property which is shown edged blue on Plan 1 and marked 8p". Property and space are shown on the document appended to the lease registered with Land Registry. So I think that this is pretty solid.

the collaborative set aside I have sent to PCM is based solely on the incorrect service.

My understanding is that the N244 needs to outline a defence as well as the basis of the incorrectly served claim?

Can this be bullet points or should I append supporting evidence - such as my lease? 

h2g2

I'm no expert on the CCJs. For now I'll point you here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585

Under the heading "HAVE YOU FOUND OUT ABOUT A CCJ (JUDGMENT FOR CLAIMANT) AND NEED IT SET ASIDE?"

Half_way

Smells all a bit UKPC vs Davey

My preference would be to go straight for the management company as principal, being jointly and severally liable for the actions of its agents ( the parking company)

Coupon-mad

markevans86 said:

My understanding is that the N244 needs to outline a defence as well as the basis of the incorrectly served claim?

No, that's a bad idea.

As bad as when you decided not to give PCM or their agents your new postal address.  Sorry but that decision to effectively 'run away' and hide behind an email address when you should have provided it, is what caused this CCJ.

Your hearing will be about setting aside the CCJ and hopefully striking out the claim completely (due to Chan & Akande), not giving the judge a way to let it carry on, which providing a defence does.

Read recent CCJ set aside threads that use Chan & Akande.

h2g2

markevans86 said:

A couple years passed with more of the same and I moved again. I didn't want any more letters so I let Trace Recovery and the solicitors know I was moving and to contact me via email going forward. Both had my email address.

Coupon-mad said:

As bad as when you decided not to give PCM or their agents your new postal address.  Sorry but that decision to effectively 'run away' and hide behind an email address when you should have provided it, is what caused this CCJ.

With respect to C-m on this one, the very recent (4th March 2025) court of appeal case of VCS vs Carr ruled that phone calls from Mr Carr saying he had moved should have but VCS on notice that the address was no longer serviceable. I should think that authority (I haven't found the exact quotes in the transcript yet, but I may give it a go later) would be sufficient to establish that an e-mail saying "Stop writing to me at [address] since I have moved. Please contact me via e-mail only" should be enough to establish that PCM / Moorside here knew they weren't using a serviceable address.

They furthermore had an e-mail address they knew they could ask for an address for service from. I assume no e-mail asking for such an address was ever sent? (Maybe worth checking your spam folders too.)

Coupon-mad

That's true.

ParkingParrot

I've sent the letter to PCM and Moorside and the deadline I gave them for a collaborative set aside expires COB tomorrow.

I am working on my N244 and have a couple of q's.

Box 3 - i have seen a post from a few years ago I think from @henrik777 that says 
An order that the judgement in default is set aside pursuant to CPR 13.2, alternatively 13.3, and the defendant be allowed to file a defence in the case. The defendant only discovered the judgment when they checked their Experian credit report on 30th April 2025.

From the comments above and other threads, should I add in here Chan, Akande & VCS vs Carr? or can i save this for the WS?

The WS can be a word doc that is attached and referenced in the space provided. How much detail am I going to here about the specifics of my case or do I just stick to the set-aside arguments - I think @Coupon-mad made reference to it above, but for clarity, will the set aside argument possibly result in the striking out of the claim completely or will claim specific arguments such as the lease need to be mentioned?

Coupon-mad

Have a look at a recent one, e g.  The thread by @Truss_me

ParkingParrot

i've looked at the @Truss_me thread.

really useful stuff. I am thinking to use their Skeleton Argument only as this captures all of the case law to have this set aside. I may add to the section about a 'real prospect of defending the claim' a few bullets about my lease, a couple of relevant clauses and its precedence, my 'opt out' and the lack of reply. the fact i provided an email address and corresponded via email but no more than that and only a few short sentences.

is this likely to be enough?