Judgement for Claimant in default, even though I replied to the Claim form on time

Scubanutta

doubledotcom said:

HMCTS are responding with the usual fob-off that the claim was sent out but are not answering the question about why an N30 Judgment for Claimant (in default) form was printed on the reverse of a Claim and Response pack cover letter. The response you receive will need to be escalated to Stage 2.

I also suggest you SAR the CNBC and make sure you include the following in it:

Please provide all personal data you hold about me in connection with this case, including but not limited to:

• All correspondence sent to or from me

• The MCOL claim form (N1SDT) and any documents issued or purportedly served

• Any records of printing, postage or despatch of the N1SDT and response pack

• Internal notes, audit trails, and system logs showing the creation, handling or dispatch of documents

• Any correspondence or documentation relating to the default judgment (Form N30)

• Metadata or system data related to the printing of the documents I received (a claim pack cover letter and N30 printed on the same A4 sheet)

I also request an explanation of how my personal data was processed during this case, including decisions made about printing, bundling, and despatch.

I expect a full response within the statutory deadline of one month from receipt of this request.

You'll need to provide a copy of photo ID (I know it is not essential but they will ask for it anyway, if not provided) and a copy of a recent bill or statement with your address on it as proof of identity.

I have also noticed that these default CCJs are being registered before the 30 day payment period has expired.

SAR? Could you advise what this means?

Coupon-mad

True. Appalling admin.

Le_Kirk

Scubanutta said:

SAR? Could you advise what this means?

All acronyms are in the fifth post of the NEWBIE sticky but to save you the trouble of going to look it is Subject Access Request.

holybruce

After complaining they have since got back and made all the necessary fix

ChirpyChicken

holybruce said:

After complaining they have since got back and made all the necessary fix

Good to hear just keep an eye out on dates on court paper work etc.

Coupon-mad

holybruce said:

After complaining they have since got back and made all the necessary fix

Good. Case back on track. While it is quiet in your battle, now help win the war:

We need you!

PLEASE bookmark this thread below and do the government's Public Consultation if you haven't done it yet. Their proposals are wrong. We must stop them.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline! Just 2 weeks left but please don't rush it. You can do some then save it and come back to it as you have time.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that.

So to try to help, I've written some guidance on that thread.

Any questions on the Consultation please ask - on the dedicated thread - but I've covered up to question 20 already in that first post, openly telling everyone what I'm going to put and/or what sort of evidence you might wish to use for your response, if you agree with what we'll be saying from our experience.

Whilst your answers must of course be your own, there are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people may not think of without our guidance because we see cases every day and we know the legal background. 

However, people like you have lived & breathed the intimidation, greed and unfairness first hand so your voice is needed! 

holybruce

Update

My circumstance is pretty much a carbon copy to this successful one , also happened in the same same year 2023

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6613727/county-court-claim-from-gladstones-on-behalf-of-horizon-parking-ltd-defence

I have a hearing scheduled this week, Gladstone solicitors submitted their DS stating they wont be able to attend the hearing.

I submitted my WS and in there I highlighted with photo evidence some of the discrepancy in their evidence, similar to the evidence in the thread above. I also citied Chan vs CEL and CPM vs Akande and issues with the POFA.

Their Solicitors has since then submitted a SKELETON ARGUMENT, here are someone of the points, in their skeleton argument.

1. Following the breach, the Claimant obtained the registered keeper’s details from DVLA under KADOE
   and issued a PCN to the Defendant as registered keeper which was posted the same day (GS4). The PCN
   gave clear options: pay; name the driver with a serviceable address; or appeal internally and then to
   POPLA. No payment or substantive response was received and a reminder/liability notice followed (GS5).
2. The Defendant’s application to strike out based on pleading form is misconceived. This is an MCOL claim
   to which PD7C applies; the online particulars are character-limited and routinely supplemented by pre-
   action correspondence and evidence. Here, the Defendant was on notice of the allegation (maximum stay
   exceeded), the location, date, vehicle, and the sum claimed, and could plead a proper response.
3. The Defendant’s reliance on Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and CPM v Akande is misplaced. Those cases
   turn on materially different particulars and do not establish any general rule that parking claims issued via
   MCOL are liable to be struck out where the pleaded case, taken with the notices and evidence, makes the
   claim intelligible. In this case, the essential facts are clear: contract by signage, maximum stay term, ANPR
   entry/exit times, and unpaid PCN.
4. The Defendant also points to an alleged discrepancy between £80 and £70. The principal sum is £70 as
   pleaded in the Claimant’s evidence and schedule. Any minor typographical inconsistency does not
   invalidate the cause of action and is not a basis for strike out. The Court can, if necessary, treat the claim as
   advanced for the properly evidenced principal sum and fixed recoverables.
5. The Defendant’s POFA points do not assist on these facts. The Claimant’s case is proved by the ANPR
   evidence of overstay and the contract formed by signage. Further, the Defendant has not adduced a
   coherent factual case identifying an alternative driver or providing a serviceable address for any driver,
   despite being given that option. In any event, the Court is invited to determine liability on the evidence as a
   whole.
6. The Defendant asserts signage was inadequate, unlit, not at the entrance, and that the Claimant has used
   photos “from a different site”. Those assertions are denied. The Claimant relies on the site plan and signage
   photographs (GS1–GS2) showing signage throughout the Site, providing the driver a fair opportunity to
   read terms when entering and parking.
7. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 confirms that clear signage can form a binding contract and that
   a parking charge can be enforceable where it serves a legitimate interest in managing parking. This is a
   time-limit car park at a supermarket; the maximum stay term is a standard and legitimate means of
   ensuring turnover for customers.
8. The Defence is generic, does not comply with CPR 16.5 in that it fails to engage properly with the key
   factual allegations (maximum stay exceeded, ANPR timings, and the contractual term breached), and raises
   largely technical points divorced from the material facts. The Claimant has proved breach on the balance of
   probabilities and is entitled to judgment.
9. The Claimant seeks the principal sum, fixed costs, fees, and interest as pleaded. If the Defendant continues
   to pursue a strike out narrative and costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) absent proper basis, the Claimant reserves
   the right to invite the Court to find the Defendant’s conduct unreasonable and to make an appropriate costs
   order.

I am just wondering what is my next point of call?, when I attend the court is there any advice or pointers I must say to the judge etc

Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

You can read about hearing stage tips in post 2 of the NEWBIES thread.

And read recent threads with a court report. There are loads, including one reported here last week at Stockport court.

Or search for ANOTHER ONE BITES Gladstones

holybruce

Ok I will have a read thorough that, cheers

holybruce

Update:

Another one bites the dust, their solicitors did not turn up. It was me and the judge, she struck out the claims based on incoherent defence, she was very understanding and also made sure I am awarded for travel, parking and also maximum she was allowed.

Thanks all